While the work of parties at the present time must be conceded to be essential and on the whole useful, the argument for their entire support by the state is still far from being made out. There is, as we have seen, a certain virtue in the very necessity under which parties labour of applying to the people for contributions. Normally it should have the effect of keeping the parties closer in interest to the people. It is highly improbable that the question of campaign funds would ever have been raised in American politics if party contributions were habitually made by a large number of persons each giving a relatively small amount. If in addition the donors were inspired by patriotic motives only and never sought to procure corrupt favours through their contributions such a system would be well nigh ideal. With all the abuses that have sprung up in this connection it is probably true that by far the larger number of the contributors to our campaign funds have been of the better type just described, although, of course, the same judgment would hardly be expressed with regard to the greater portion of the total amounts contributed. Under a system of small contributions from a large number of people it would matter little even if some of the contributors were not wholly disinterested. The relatively small proportion of the total sum represented by any individual subscription would make it absurd for the donor to claim corrupt favours of importance. It is not so much the campaign contribution itself that has fallen into disrepute among us as the secrecy involving the whole subject and the belief that large corporate contributions have been repaid by corrupt favours. Short of public subsidies, therefore, most of the advocates of reform in this field content themselves with the demand for publicity and certain restrictions as to the collection and expenditure of campaign funds.