Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520550
label
Federal Election Commission - Morton Appointment as White House Counsellor (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520550
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Federal Election Commission - Morton Appointment as White House Counsellor (1)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Employees
Hatch Act, 1939
Presidential campaign, 1976
Executive privilege (Government information)
Presidential election committees
Presidential advisors
Campaign trips
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520550
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-12-01
month
12
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0363e4097735099f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 15, folder "Federal Election Commission -
Morton Appointment as White House Counsellor (1)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Digitized from Box 15 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
42 West 44th Street
New York, N.Y. 10036
Political Activities of Government Employees
By THE COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION
The Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in
a wide variety of political activities, was enacted in 1939 in reaction to wide-
spread abuses in the 1936 and 1938 elections.¹ It was an attempt to end an
aspect of the spoils system which had managed to survive, despite the creation
in the late 19th Century of a civil service in which appointment was generally
made on the basis of examination and tenure was protected against dismissal
without good cause.
Essentially, the Act seeks to preserve the impartial execution of the laws
and to prevent government officials and employees from using their offices
for political purposes. A second objective of the Act is to ensure that govern-
ment employees spend their working hours exclusively in the furtherance of
the "business of government." Lastly, the Act seeks to protect civil servants
from being coerced by their superiors to support political activities in order
to preserve their employment.
Although the Act has been amended and supplemented on several occa-
sions, it has failed to keep in step with the times. In October 1966, the Con-
gress established a Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel
(the "Study Commission") to investigate the entire range of political activi-
ties by governmental personnel and to suggest changes in the Act. As a result
of its inquiry, the Study Commission recommended that the Act be substan-
tially revised and proposed amending legislation.² None of the comprehen-
sive bills introduced in response to the Study Commission's work has been
enacted, and the Hatch Act remains in effect largely unchanged. However,
there are pending before the 94th Congress various bills to amend the Act,
and a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil
Service is currently conducting hearings on the subject in several cities. It
appears that the Congress will finally focus on Hatch Act revision this year.
Our report will deal primarily with the bill introduced by the House subcom-
mittee's chairman, Representative William Clay of Missouri (the "Clay Bill"),³
but we shall also refer to the more comprehensive bill sponosored in previous
Congresses by Representative John E. Moss to implement the recommenda-
tions of the Study Commission (the "Moss Bill").4
FORD
Federal Legislation Report No. 75-4 (June 25, 1975)
1
LIBRARY
I. THE BASIC PROHIBITIONS
Act, it did suggest that the general prohibition against political interference
The Act, as now codified, separately describes those political activities pro-
be expressed in the form of specific conduct to be prohibited. This recom-
scribed for employees of the Executive Branch of the federal government
mendation of the Study Commission was, for the most part, adopted in the
and those which are proscribed on the part of state and local government
Moss Bill, which would prohibit all covered employees from using official
employees working in federally-assisted programs. The Act centers around its
authority or influence for the purposes of (1) interfering with the result of
three principal prohibitions against:
any election for a public office; (2) threatening any person for the purpose of
interfering with his right to vote; (3) coercing any other covered employee to
(1) using official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with,
contribute anything of value (including services) for political purposes; (4)
or affecting the result of, an election ("political interference");5
threatening any political action; or (5) conferring any benefits or effecting
(2) taking an active part in political campaigns ("political campaigning");6
any reprisal because of political contributions or political activity, or lack
and
thereof, by a covered employee.
(3) making, soliciting or receiving political contributions ("political soli-
Any attempt to clarify the prohibitions of the Act would, of course, be
citation").⁷
helpful, although the Study Commission did not find that there was any sig-
nificant confusion on the part of government employees as to which acts of
Violations of the Act by employees of the federal government are punish-
political interference (as opposed to political campaigning, discussed below)
able by termination or suspension of employment. In the event of a violation
were prohibited. While we prefer the more specific approach of the Moss
by a covered state or local government employee, similar sanctions are to be
Bill, it should be emphasized that all attempts to use governmental authority
imposed by the employing local government agency, while the Act provides
for political gains should be proscribed. If the approach of the Moss Bill is
for the termination of federal funds to that agency in the event it does not
to be used, it should be modified to make clear that the various forms of poli-
take the required action. With respect to state and local employees, the Act
tical interference itemized in it are merely examples of unlawful activity and
is administered by the U.S. Civil Service Commission. However, with respect
do not constitute an exclusive list of proscribed coercive political activities.
to federal employees, the Act is administered by both the Civil Service Com-
mission and the various agencies of the federal government, depending upon
B. Political Campaigning
the level of the employee's appointment.
Many legislators have questioned whether there is still a need for the Hatch
Prior to 1974 the Act contained a single and sweeping provision prohibit-
Act in view of existing election law provisions which impose criminal pen-
ing all covered public employees from engaging in all forms of political
alties for many of the same activities prohibited by the Act. In fact, the Clay
campaigning. This prohibition applied to state and local employees admin-
Bill would completely eliminate the political campaigning prohibition of the
istering federal programs, as well as to employees of the federal government.
Act. We believe, in contrast, that the Act, despite its faults, could if thought-
However, through a provision enacted by the 93rd Congress as a rider to its
fully amended and properly enforced serve a valuable function in the fight
1974 amendments to the federal election campaign laws, the coverage of the
against political corruption. Each of the Act's three main prohibitions could
political campaigning aspect of the Hatch Act was limited with respect to
serve a distinct, important purpose, especially if they are clarified and limited
state and local officials covered by the Act, so that it now prohibits them only
as discussed below. The existence of criminal statutes prohibiting many of
from "being a candidate for elective office."8
the activities covered by the Act does not obviate the need for civil prohibi-
The campaigning bar in its original coverage, which continues in effect
tions imposing lesser sanctions which are more likely to be widely enforced.
for federal employees, was intended to prevent the use of government offices
as campaign offices and to ensure that the taxpayers do not unwittingly fi-
A. Political Interference
nance election campaigns. It was further based on a belief that the civil ser-
vice should be politically neutral and thus able and willing to implement the
The political interference prohibitions of the Act are designed to preserve
policies of an elected administration reflecting any political viewpoint. To
the integrity of the elective process. They are based on the premise that gov-
allow political campaigning by government employees, it has been thought,
ernmental employees are in a unique position to interfere with free elections
might encourage the politicization of the civil service, thereby affording the
and election campaigns. The present prohibitions against political inter-
party in power great leverage in successive elections and improperly affecting
ference are stated in broad language, and they would be preserved without
the politically neutral administration of the laws between elections.
change by the Clay Bill.
The political campaigning prohibition does not specifically identify what
Although the Study Commission voiced no objection to this aspect of the
acts are forbidden. Instead, it incorporates by reference the decisions (num-
2
3
FOND
bering over 3,000) of the Civil Service Commission prior to July 19, 1940.
organizing or being a member of a political club, (iv) distributing campaign
This lack of specificity raised questions with respect to the constitutionality
literature or wearing campaign badges or buttons, (v) publishing material
of the prohibition.9 A court challenge by the Letter Carriers Union resulted
designed to solicit votes in favor of or against a political party or candidate,
in a ruling by a three-judge District Court sitting in the District of Columbia
(vi) circulating nominating petitions, or (vii) being a candidate for any fed-
to the effect that the prohibition against political campaigning in the Act
eral, state or local office.
was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. However, the Supreme Court,
In essence, the Clay Bill would tend to place governmental workers on a
in a 6-to-3 decision, reversed the District Court, stating that the findings of
par with persons employed in private industry. While this Committee be-
the Civil Service Commission incorporated by the Act are sufficiently specific
lieves that the proper balance between the need for political freedom of gov-
and understandable.10 Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the Civil
ernment employees and the potential dangers of a full-scale mobilization of
Service Commission's rulings are based on actual situations and, therefore,
governmental workers for partisan political purposes should be shifted in the
not overly broad. The majority opinion also pointed out that the right of
direction of greater employee political freedom, the Clay Bill seems to over-
free speech was not denied since federal employees could participate in a
react in this direction. We therefore suggest that the Clay Bill be modified
wide range of political activities within the limits of the Act. Thus, the Court
to permit specific types of political activity which could reasonably be under-
in effect referred the questions of fairness or appropriateness of the statute
taken in an employee's off-duty hours, and continue to proscribe those speci-
back to Congress, ruling that any inadequacy of the Act does not reach con-
fic activities which would necessarily make heavy demands on the employee's
stitutional dimensions.11
time and energies.
Justices Douglas, Brennan and Marshall, who dissented on the ground that
Although the varieties of political activities are too numerous and changing
the political campaigning provision is so vague as to cast a "chilling effect"
to completely enumerate in this report, we belive that the following should
upon the entire scope of permissible politically-oriented actions by federal
be expressly permitted:
employees, would strike down the Act "so that a new start may be made on
this old problem" (413 U.S. at 600).
(i) expressing political views in private or in public (including
Notwithstanding the Court's decision on the constitutional issue, the vague-
attending a political meeting or rally);
ness of the present statute is surely poor policy, and we recommend that Con-
(ii) registering and voting;
gress clarify the campaigning prohibition. In so doing, Congress must also
(iii) joining a political party or club; and
face the question whether some liberalization of the prohibition would be
(iv) making political contributions except as proscribed by the po-
appropriate.
litical solicitation prohibition discussed below.
As now interpreted, the Act's prohibition against political campaigning
On the other hand, we believe the Act should continue to bar the following:
precludes the following activities: (1) making a speech at a rally held by a
political party, (2) holding a political party office, (3) running for state or
(i) serving as an officer of a political club or party;
national public office, (4) assisting in a voter registration drive or at the polls
(ii) managing a political campaign or serving as the treasurer or
on election day, and (5) distributing campaign materials for a political party
financial manager of a campaign; and
or candidate. Although the courts have held that these prohibitions do not
(iii) being a candidate for any political office paying a salary in ex-
violate either the First or Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, by present
cess of a stipulated nominal amount.
standards they are highly restrictive of the political rights of governmental
Between the extremes represented by the above two groupings of activities,
employees. This is especially so when one considers that the bulk of civil
we recognize that there are many types of activities which should be allowed
servants today do not hold positions that are sensitive in a policy-making
in an employee's off-duty hours away from his office, but should be prohibited
sense and are not in positions where unchecked abuse of power is a realistic
if conducted during working hours or with government facilities. Such ac-
possibility. Accordingly, the Clay Bill seeks, as have virtually all earlier bills
tivities might include the following:
to amend the Act in one way or another, to limit the political campaigning
(i) telephoning voters and assisting voters to the polls;
prohibition.
(ii) participating in voter registration drives;
The Clay Bill would completely eliminate this prohibition and expressly
(iii) circulating petitions for nominations or otherwise;
exclude from the political interference provision many of the acts hereto-
(iv) preparing campaign literature;
fore proscribed as political campaigning, such as (i) being a delegate or al-
(v) participating in a political parade;
ternate to a political convention or otherwise serving at such a convention,
(vi) organizing or preparing for political functions; and
(ii) participating at or organizing a political meeting, rally or parade, (iii)
(vii) working at the polls.
4
5
The Committee also believes that there is a potential danger to the poli-
C. Political Solicitation
tical freedom of the nation in permitting partisan political activities in one
of the categories expressly approved above to be undertaken by a government
The Act currently prohibits covered employees from soliciting from, or
employee while in uniform or in circumstances which identify him as an em-
giving to, another government employee "a thing of value for political pur-
ployee of the government. In either case, the public might give to the govern-
poses." The aim of this provision is to prevent government employees from
ment employee greater access, attention or credibility than it would afford
being inundated with hard-to-refuse requests for political contributions. The
to persons not associated with the government. For example, a citizen might
Clay Bill would basically retain this prohibition, but would create an excep-
well grant a uniformed postal worker access to his home, whereas he might
tion for voluntary contributions-those which an employee makes "freely
refuse entry to a campaign worker who was merely identified by his name
and voluntarily
on his own volition."
and party organization affiliation. Because of this factor and the lack of any
The existing law encompasses the person who makes the contribution, as
good reason for permitting a government worker to conduct partisan politi-
well as the person doing the soliciting. By directing this prohibition at the
cal activities under the guise of official activity we recommend that the ac-
contributor, as well as the solicitor, an employee who is being solicited is
tivities permitted to be conducted while off-duty be restricted by barring their
given a strong reason for refusing to contribute. The existing law also suc-
conduct while in uniform or in other circumstances which identify the indi-
cessfully avoids the problems of ascertaining the motive of the solicitation
vidual as a government employee.
or contribution, or whether the contribution was in fact "voluntary." While
The intent of our recommendations for amending the political campaign-
it is questionable that imposing sanctions on the person solicited as well as
ing prohibition is to permit greater individual participation in the political
the solicitor is the only effective means of preventing coerced contributions,
process but to continue to prohibit the wholesale mobilization of portions
we believe that on balance the existing blanket prohibition represents an ac-
of the governmental bureaucracy for political purposes. One area in which
ceptable and enforcible solution to the problems indicated.
concerted action by government employees is expanding is in the activities
The distinction proposed in the Clay Bill between voluntary and involun-
of government employee unions. Political activities of unions are beyond the
tary contributions appears to be unworkable. Government workers, by the
scope of this report. However, Congress should consider, in connection with
nature of their employment, are constantly in close proximity with, and often
Hatch Act reform, the special issues posed by concerted political activity car-
are subordinate to, elected officials and political aspirants. Accordingly, they
ried out by government employee unions.
are natural targets of political fund-raising drives. Because of the thin line
As a complementary feature to this legislation, we also suggest that any
between voluntary and involuntary contributions and the difficulty of estab-
person wishing to engage in campaigning activities proscribed by the Act be
lishing "volition" as against subtle forms of coercion, the result of the Clay
given the right to take a leave of absence without prejudice to his or her em-
Bill might be to permit all but the most blatant forms of coercion in connec-
ployment status. Although such a legal framework would tend to preclude
tion with political solicitations.
employees with limited financial resources from running for office or from
It is conceivable that government employees would want to contribute to
undertaking other significant political activities, on balance we believe such
the local political campaign of one of their fellow workers and that such con-
a leave policy would be a better safety valve for individuals than loosening
tributions might well be the primary source of funds for such campaigns, par-
the rules to allow the financial burdens and potentials for abuse of permit-
ticularly in localities with high concentrations of federal employees. To deal
ting employees to engage in major political undertakings while on the gov-
with such situations, we suggest that exceptions as to specific types of solici-
ernment's payroll.
tations might be fashioned, such as those made by or on behalf of a govern-
The Clay Bill would not alter the 1974 action by which Congress loosened
ment employee candidate of no higher rank or salary than the person being
the political campaigning prohibition with respect to covered state and local
solicited.
government employees, so that the Act now merely proscribes being a candi-
The prohibitions against political solicitation contained in both existing
date in an election (other than an election within the pre-existing exemption
legislation and the Clay Bill make no distinction with respect to activities
for "non-partisan" elections, discussed below). For the same reasons noted
engaged in after hours or outside of government offices, nor do they distin-
above with respect to federal employees, we find this approach inadequate,
guish solicitations between persons in different departments or agencies of
and recommend that the Clay Bill address political campaigning activities on
the government. We agree that neither the time and place of a solicitation
the part of previously covered state and local government employees as well
nor the agency or department of the persons involved should alter the char-
as those of federal employees. However, as noted below, we do not conclude
acter of a proscribed solicitation. Where the alternatives are generally so
that the applicable rules, or their coverage or enforcement, should necessarily
readily at hand for an individual who wants to contribute, as well as for soli-
be the same.
citing organizations, namely mailing an unsolicited contribution to the party
6
7
or candidate of the employee's choice, or the use of solicitors in the residential
COVERAGE OF THE HATCH ACT
neighborhood who are not government employees, there is no need to break
down an easily understood and easily enforced system.
Federal Employees
Interference
Campaigning
Solicitation
President and Vice President
NA
NA
NA
II. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES COVERED
Employees paid from
Presidential appropriations
A
NA
A
The coverage of the Act, as presently in effect, is often arbitrary and is cer-
Presidential appointees
tainly not clear. Perhaps the complexity of government, and the varying types
(including Ambassadors, Ministers
lsee 18 56079
of employees in government, make it unwise to seek to apply a single set of
and Foreign Service Officers)
A
NA
NA
rules to so many disparate situations. To illustrate these problems, we have
Heads and assistant heads
prepared the chart on the facing page describing the coverage of federal,
of departments
A
NA
A
state and local employees by the Act, as we understand it, with respect to each
of the three major prohibitions.
Member of Independent
Commissions
?
?
?
The Clay Bill would make no changes in the employee groups covered by
the Act. We would suggest, however, as proposed in the Moss Bill, that the
Competitive and Excepted
prohibition against intra-government solicitation be expanded to include
Services
A
A
A
Presidential appointees, including Foreign Service Officers and commissioned
Postal Service
A
A
A
officers of the uniformed services. At the same time, we think consideration
Job Corps
A
A
A
should be given to making the campaigning prohibition applicable to heads
VISTA Volunteers, Teachers
and assistant heads of certain sensitive departments and agencies, as well as
Corps, Neighborhood Youth
other Presidential appointees in those departments and agencies. By recent
Corps, Youth Conservation
tradition, some of these agency heads and their subordinates have not taken
Corps
?
?
?
part in campaigns. We have in mind the agencies most directly engaged in
foreign policy-the Departments of State and Defense and the Central Intel-
Peace Corps
NA
NA
NA
ligence Agency-as well as those concerned with the administration of justice,
D.C. Mayor and Council
A
NA
A
primarily the Department of Justice. However, extension of the campaigning
Foreign Service Reserve
prohibition to the heads of these agencies should not prevent them from
and Staff Officers
A
A
A
speaking out during a campaign on issues within the scope of the responsi-
Commissioned officers of the
bilities of their offices. We therefore suggest that the Clay Bill be expanded
Uniformed Services
?
?
?
to delineate specifically certain political restrictions to be applicable to enu-
Other Uniformed Services
merated members of the Cabinet and holders of certain other sensitive posts.
As the chart indicates, the Act is unclear as to whether it covers some kinds
personnel
?
?
?
Consultants
NA
NA*
NA*
of federal personnel, although on occasion specific statutes relating to those
personnel may incorporate by reference some or all of the provisions of the
State and Local
Act. These include the personnel of various types of government corpora-
Government Employees
tions, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the new National
Legal Services Corporation, as well as enrollees in volunteer programs such
Governor, Lt. Governor, Mayor,
as the Peace Corps and VISTA. Historically, it should be remembered that
elected state or local officers
A
NA
A
abuses in the WPA during the 1936 and 1938 elections played some role in
Heads and assistant heads of
the formulation of the Hatch Act. However, the extension of the Act to such
state departments (non-elected)
A
A
A
peripheral categories raises issues different-and more difficult-than those
Local policy-making
applicable to conventional government employees. To the extent the Act's
officials
?
?
?
prohibitions have been criticized as an unnecessary infringement on tradi-
tional rights of citizenship, they should not be extended in coverage without
A = Applicable
a showing of real need. Moreover, the employment conditions of government
NA = Not applicable
# = Applicable on days employed
8
? = Applicability uncertain
9
corporations, in at least some cases, tend to be more like those of the em-
tion is greatly diminished. Furthermore, the exemption for "non-partisan"
ployees' counterparts in private enterprise than those of other forms of gov-
activities in no way furthers the purpose of the Act to diminish all forms of
ernment employment. On the other hand, we believe that federally-appointed
political activity that would interfere with the operations of government.
employees of "volunteer" agencies like VISTA, even though they serve only
For these reasons, the Clay Bill's elimination of the "non-partisan" activities
limited tours and have no civil service status, should nevertheless fall under
exemption also represents an improvement to the Act.
the Act's strictures.
The Act's coverage of state and local officials raises thorny issues of policy
IV. ADMINISTRATION AND SANCTIONS
as to administration and sanctions which will be discussed subsequently in
this report. Insofar as the scope of such coverage itself is concerned, we would
With respect to federal employees, the Act is administered by both the
prefer a local counterpart to the exception for heads and assistant heads of
Civil Service Commission (as to the bulk of federal employees who are in the
federal departments set forth in the Act, but subject to our comments above
competitive service) and the various agencies of the Executive Branch (as to
as to barring political activities by holders of law enforcement positions. In
other covered employees). With respect to state and local employees, the Act
general, it does not seem appropriate to sweep all state and local officials ad-
is administered at the federal level solely by the Civil Service Commission,
ministering federal grants under the purview of the Act. With the advent of
which is empowered to investigate charges, make findings and determine the
revenue sharing, it has become arguable that all state and local officials are
appropriate sanction. The actual enforcement, however, is left to the em-
covered, and this approach would strain traditional notions of federalism as
ployee's local governmental employer. This decentralized administration of
well as sound administrative practice. As we shall discuss below, the Moss
the Act has apparently led to some discrepancies in the degree of enforcement.
Bill contains provisions for development of state and local programs reflect-
The Study Commission found that the procedures for administering the
ing local circumstances which could supplant the federally-imposed rules.
Act are inadequate in three respects: (1) the lack of adequate subpoena power
The foregoing brief comments suggest that Congress should carefully re-
in the Civil Service Commission, the primary enforcement body; (2) the ab-
view all aspects of imposing federal strictures on the political activities of
sence of well defined procedures, resulting in long delays in processing cases;
state and local officials as part of its reconsideration of the Hatch Act.
and (3) the lack of judicial review with respect to proceedings against federal
employees.
III. EXEMPTIONS
Under the procedure proposed in the Clay Bill, the Civil Service Commis-
sion would be granted enforcement responsibilities relating to violations of
The Act presently contains two exemptions: One permitting covered em-
the political solicitation prohibition with respect to all federal employees.
ployees to engage in "non-partisan" political campaigning, and the other
The Commission would be under a duty to investigate all complaints brought
permitting federal employees in areas containing a high concentration of
to its attention; and upon finding that a violation had occurred, it would be
federal employees to engage in partisan political campaigning activities. The
empowered in the case of an employee in the competitive service to impose
proposed amendments to the Act as contemplated in the Clay Bill or as pro-
the appropriate sanction, and in the case of an employee appointed by the
posed herein would, to a large degree, obviate the need for these exemptions.
President to notify the President, the head of the department or agency in
Because of the Act's current wide-ranging prohibitions, the geographical
which the employee serves and the Congress that a violation had occurred
exemption is clearly justifiable in terms of permitting a normal degree of
and the penalty which the Commission deems appropriate. If the infraction
political participation in the communities in question. The amendments
also constituted a violation of the criminal law, the Commission must also
proposed by the Clay Bill, however, would permit many forms of political
refer the matter to the Attorney General.
campaigning activities which are presently proscribed. Accordingly, the need
This procedural format of the Clay Bill would only apply to violations by
for a geographical exemption is greatly reduced, and we agree that it should
employees of the federal government of the political solicitation prohibition,
be eliminated as the Clay Bill provides.
and would not apply to violations by covered state and local government
The Act's current distinction between partisan and non-partisan activities
employees nor to violations of the Act's political interference prohibition.
was found by the Study Commission to be largely unworkable. The difficulty
Nor does the Clay Bill establish specific procedures for the conduct of the
of making such a factual determination, when combined with the Act's de-
Civil Service Commission's investigation of a complaint. For these reasons,
centralized administration, leads to significant inconsistencies in application.
we prefer the procedural provisions proposed in the Moss Bill.
By distinguishing between those forms of political activities which require
Under the Moss Bill, the Civil Service Commission would be authorized
substantial personal commitment (in terms of time and effort) and those
to investigate complaints via documentary evidence and sworn testimony,
which do not, as we have suggested above, the need for a non-partisan exemp-
and to issue subpoenas and enforce them in the District Courts. If, on the
10
11
basis of its investigation, it appeared that there had been a violation of the
ished by his employer, the Act provides for the termination of federal funds
Act, the Civil Service Commission would be required to notify the accused
to the non-complying state or local government.
employee of the specific violation, and the employee would have an oppor-
The Study Commission found that the sanctions of the Act were too harsh
tunity to answer the allegation at a hearing, the record of which would be the
and too rigid, and suggested that the Civil Service Commission be given
basis for the Commission's decision. The Moss Bill also provides a similar
greater flexibility in prescribing penalties under the Act. The Clay Bill fol-
procedure for state and local government employees.
lows the Study Commission's suggestion and gives the Civil Service Commis-
Although the introduction of subpoena powers would introduce some pos-
sion wide latitude in selecting an appropriate penalty. The bill authorizes
sibility of political harassment, that potential danger would be minimized
termination of employment only if unanimously approved by the Commis-
through the use of the Civil Service Commission as the administrative body
sion. We approve of this approach. In this connection, it should be noted
and, in our opinion, is outweighed by the need found by the Study Commis-
that the federal criminal law (Chapter 29 of Title 18) forbids many of the
sion for more thorough and systematic investigations of complaints.
activities proscribed in the Act. This duplication is beneficial because it per-
Although the Moss Bill would place full administration of the Act in the
mits a wider spectrum of sanctions. Thus, a relatively minor violation can be
Civil Service Commission, it would also encourage the establishment of par-
pursued under the Hatch Act, reserving more serious and flagrant political
allel state regulatory plans, meeting certain guidelines to be developed and
abuses for criminal prosecution.
applied by the Civil Service Commission. State and local government em-
The Act's reliance upon removal from office poses a constitutional problem
ployees covered by the state plans would then be exempt from the prohibi-
with respect to high level appointees of both the federal and state govern-
tions of the Act. 12 Such a local option might tend to eliminate certain of the
ments. In Myers V. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the Supreme Court held
problems heretofore encountered wherein a state has refused to enforce an
that Congress did not have the power to limit the President from removing a
order of the Civil Service Commission. In such cases, the only alternative
postmaster, finding statutory restrictions upon the President's inherent power
provided in the Act is the reduction of federal aid to the employing state or
of removal of executive officials unconstitutional. In its opinion, the Court
local government.
relied upon historical arguments as well as concepts of separation of powers,
While we support the establishment of more formal procedures for pro-
concluding that Congress had no role, save by impeachment, in removing ex-
cessing complaints under the Act, we are reluctant to see them become ex-
ecutive officers after they have been appointed. The Myers decision was sub-
cessively elaborate, particularly when the number of complaints under the
sequently limited in Humphrey's Executor V. United States, 295 U.S. 602
Act appears to be small. 13 For the same reason, we view with skepticism sug-
(1935), wherein the Court held that Congress could limit the President's
gestions for the establishment of a new commission to handle problems aris-
power to remove a Federal Trade Commissioner. In the Humphrey's case, the
ing under the Act. On the other hand, centralization of the administration
Court relied on the fact that such a commissioner exercises legislative and
of the Act in the Civil Service Commission makes it particularly important
judicial, rather than executive, functions; accordingly, the Court held that
that the Commission remain reasonably non-partisan. As presently consti-
Congress, and not the President, had the constitutional power to prescribe
tuted, it has three members, no more than two of whom may be from the
terms for removal.
same political party. Members of the Commission are appointed by the Pres-
In part to avoid the constitutional removal issue, the Clay Bill provides
ident and confirmed by the Senate. Because of its small number of members,
that in case of a Presidential appointee, the Civil Service Commission, upon
the Civil Service Commission could easily lose its non-partisan character, al-
finding that a political solicitation violation has occurred, shall notify the
though to date there is no indication that its mission has been abused.
President, the head of the employing agency and the Congress.14 (If the in-
At present the Act contains no provisions for judicial review with respect
fraction also constitutes a violation of a criminal statute, the matter would
to federal employees, and neither the Clay Bill nor the Moss Bill would
be referred as well to the Attorney General for prosecution. The Senate ver-
create such a right. Federal employees who are removed, however, may seek
sion, S.372, further requires the Attorney General in such circumstances to
relief either in the Court of Claims or in the District Courts in the same
notify the Congress if no action is taken by him within 60 days.) This type of
manner as for other cases involving removal. There is an existing right of
procedure would avoid the constitutional issue noted above and give Con-
appeal in the Act to a United States District Court for aggrieved state and
gress a mechanism for overseeing the administration of the Act. It would not,
local government employees.
of course, assure the removal or suspension of the employee should the head
Violations of the Act are currently punishable by termination of employ-
of the employing agency or the President fail to act.
ment, or by suspension of not less than 30 days if the Civil Service Commis-
Similar problems are raised with respect to state officials, based upon prin-
sion finds (by unanimous vote) that termination is not warranted. In the
ciples of federalism. For example, a District Court has held that the Congress
event a state or local employee found to have violated the Act is not SO pun-
has no power with respect to the removal of appointed officers of state gov-
12
13
ernments. Palmer V. Civil Service Commission, 191 F. Supp. 495 (S.D. Ill.
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION
1961). In Palmer, the court analyzed the Illinois state legislation and consti-
MARTIN F. RICHMAN, Chairman
tution and concluded that no legal cause existed for the removal of a state
ERIC BREGMAN
FRANCIS E. KOCH
officer who had violated the Hatch Act. The court stated that "the Congress
MICHAEL MARKS COHEN
JEROME LIPPER
of the United States under the separation of powers in the Federal Constitu-
JACK DAVID
STANDISH F. MEDINA, JR.
tion cannot require the President of the United States to surrender any of
EVAN DAVIS
ROBERT G. MORVILLO
his executive power [citation omitted], nor can it do so to the Governor of
ALBERT W. DRIVER, JR.
GARY P. NAFTALIS
Illinois" (191 F. Supp. at 511).
ARNOLD B. ELKIND
MATTHEW NIMETZ
Although Congress may have no power to require the removal of state of-
DAN L. GOLDWASSER
STANLEY PLESENT
MURRAY A. GORDON
STEVEN B. ROSENFELD
ficials, it may validly cut off federal aid. This was held in Oklahoma V. Civil
ELIZABETH HEAD
LOUIS SMIGEL
Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127 (1947). There the Court stated:
ROBERT HERMANN
BRENDA SOLOFF
WILLIAM JOSEPHSON
LEONARD W. WAGMAN
"While the United States is not concerned with, and has no power to
HAROLD P. WEINBERGER
regulate, local political activities as such of state officials, it does have
power to fix terms upon which its money allotments to the states shall
be disbursed.
FOOTNOTES
The Tenth Amendment does not forbid the exercise of this power
in the way that Congress has proceeded in this case. As pointed out in
1 53 Stat. 1148 (1939). The Act was amended from time to time, and in 1966 was
United States V. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124, the Tenth Amendment has
codified as 5 U.S.C. §§1501-1508 and 7321-7327.
been consistently construed 'as not depriving the national government
2 Report of the Commission on Political Activity of Government Personnel (3
of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power
vols. 1968).
3 H.R. 3000; H.R. 3935 is the identical bill with additional sponsors. S.372 is a
which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.'''
similar Senate bill.
330 U.S. at 143.
4 S.235 of the 93rd Congress was the most recent version of the Moss Bill.
5 5 U.S.C. 7324(a)(1) imposes this prohibition against employees in an Executive
The existence of power in the federal government to cut off aid does not
agency and employees of the government of the District of Columbia. In addition,
mean that it is good policy to do so. Although many states have laws directed
Section 7322 empowers the President to prescribe rules to this end applicable to em-
at the same political abuses as the Act, the Study Commission found such
ployees in an Executive agency or in the competitive service. Section 1502(a)(1) im-
statutes generally less onerous than the federal law. Furthermore, the Study
poses similar prohibitions against officers and employees of federally assisted state
Commission concluded that the state acts are generally inadequately en-
and local government agencies.
forced. For these reasons the withholding of federal funds to state and local
6 5 U.S.C. 7324(a)(2) imposes this prohibition with respect to employees of an
governments for failure to enforce the national policy embodied in the Act
Executive agency or of the government of the District of Columbia. The correspond-
would seem appropriate in flagrant cases. However, the proposal of the Moss
ing provision for employees of federally assisted state and local government, section
Bill to give the states the opportunity to set up their own plans in lieu of
1502(a)(3), was recently amended, as discussed later in the text, to prohibit a covered
employee only from being a candidate sponsored by a political party for elective
federal regulation also would seem a sensible resolution of the matter.
office.
7 5 U.S.C. 87351 proscribes political gifts to all superior employees while section
7323 proscribes such gifts between employees within an Executive agency, Members
V. CONCLUSION
of Congress and officers of a uniformed service. Section 7321 empowers the President
to prescribe rules prohibiting employees in an Executive Agency or in the competi-
There is little doubt that the Hatch Act is in need of substantial reform.
tive service from being coerced into making political contributions or to render po-
While we support the Clay Bill's attempt to liberalize the Act's prohibitions
litical service. Section 1502(a)(2) proscribes the coercion of political gifts from em-
against political campaigning and political solicitation, we believe that the
ployees of federally assisted state and local governments.
bill goes too far in this direction and should be revised to accommodate the
8 P.L. 93-443, $401.
original purposes of the Act (which we believe remain worthy) and to clarify
9 Two state court decisions striking down the respective states' "little Hatch Acts"
what political activities are prohibited and what activities are permitted. We
had raised considerable doubt as to whether the courts would continue to uphold
would further recommend that the Clay Bill enact comprehensive procedural
the Act. See Minielly V. Oregon, 242 Ore. 490, 410 P.2d 69 (1966); Bagley V. Wash-
provisions applying to all of the Act's prohibitions.
ington Township Hospital District, 65 Cal. App. 540, 421 P.2d 409 (1966).
14
15
10 Civil Service Commission V. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548
(1973), reversing 346 F. Supp. 578 (1972). In United Public Workers V. Mitchell, 330
U.S. 75 (1947), the Court had previously held that the Act did not violate rights
guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Ninth or Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
11 The constitutionality of the corresponding political campaigning provision
with respect to state and local government employees was not before the Court.
However, the decision in the Letter Carriers case would seemingly have supported
the constitutionality of that provision. This question has been rendered largely moot
by the 1974 amendment narrowing the provision with respect to such employees.
12 The Study Commission found that every state had one or more statutes re-
stricting the political activities of state and local government employees. Eight states
had laws which were more restrictive than the Act and nine had laws which were
on a par with the Act. The remainder imposed fewer restrictions. See Report, supra
note 2, vol. 2, pp. 92-107.
13 The Report of the Study Commission indicates that during the ten years im-
mediately preceeding the publication of the Report, there were 131 cases involving
federal employees and 43 cases involving state or local government employees. Id.
at vol. 2, pp. 173-75.
14 This procedure does not seem applicable in case of violation by a Presidential
appointee of the political interference prohibition of the Clay Bill. Compare section
2(a) of H.R. 3000, enacting the reference procedure in a new subsection (c)(2) for 5
U.S.C. §7323 [political solicitation], with sections 3(a) and 4 of that bill, under
which violations of 5 U.S.C. §7324 [political interference] by all covered employees
are punishable directly by the Civil Service Commission. For the reasons indicated
in the text, we believe the reference procedure should be utilized here as well as in
solicitation cases.
16
PHONE: 546-8288 PHIL
Get morton off
ORCO
Petroleum Company, Inc.
The PUBLIC TIT
177 EAST BROAD ST.
ABE OURIEL
ROCHESTER. N. Y. 14604
Ford's Hiring of Morton
Called 'Probably Illegal'
WASHINGTON (UPI) - President
tion to obey the campaign finance
Ford probably violated the election
law.
reform law by putting his political
Morton, former Maryland congress-
adviser, Rogers C. B. Morton, on the
man, Republican National Committee
public payroll, according to the chair-
chairman and secretary of interior and
man of the Federal Election
commerce, was named Tuesday to a
Commission.
$44,600 a year White House job with the
Thomas B. Curtis, a Republican
title of domestic and economics counsel-
named to the commission by Ford, asked
or. It would include duties as chief
that Morton "voluntarily" be moved to
political adviser within the White House
the President Ford Committee payroll,
and liaison with the Ford campaign and
but he said the FEC would investigate
the GOP.
the matter if necessary.
Democratic presidential candidate
The White House had no immediate
Fred Harris, the former senator from
comment on Curtis' remarks but said it
Oklahoma, filed a formal complaint with
had always been the President's inten-
the FEC on the matter.
STATE YORD LIBRARY
5 437d (a) (11)
$434(d) reporting exemption
5 591 do fines expends tures to influence In federalelection
5608 ceilings on contributions of expenditures
CO neern to carryout spirit of law.
Hatch Act exemption of WH employees should not be relied upon.
Difficu It but not impossible to distinguish political
activities from electroneering,
Anything done to help election should be reported.
Advance work 15 electroncering
GREAT FORD LIBRARY
Harris:
Use of appropriated funds not within jurisdiction
Costs of allocating expenses.
Regulation on volunteer services (revised) p.3
5. Interface on scheduling matters
Clearance on Ford policy positions t exchange of
information on development
Receive communications from PFC on
1. FORD JIBRARY
FORD
LIBRARY
LEGAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING "POLITICAL" FUNDS
1. The Problem. (a) A number of clearly political
functions of the President and his immediate staff involve the
expenditure of funds for travel, meals, entertainment, mailings,
souvenir gifts, etc. Traditionally, the financing of such activities
has been provided by the national political parties or campaign
committees supporting the incumbent President. In such cases,
the expenses are either paid in the first instance or reimbursed
from political funds. During the Nixon Administration, for
example, the cost of the President's political travels was
reimbursed to the Department of Defense from a White House
account supplied for that purpose from funds of the Republican
National Committee and the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(b) The General Accounting Office has taken the position
that this reimbursement through a White House account involved
that account and the career civil servant who administered it in a
"political committee" under the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971, separate from the political committees which provided
the funds, on the ground that political funds were received in and
expended from this account. Copies of the White House report
on these funds to GAO and the GAO opinion are attached.
(c) An 1883 statute, 18 USC 603, makes it a crime for any
officer or employee to solicit or receive "any contribution of money
or other thing of value" in "a room or building" in which official
duties are performed.
(d) If the above GAO interpretation is correct, and if the
receipt of funds for purposes of the 1971 statute would also be an
acceptance of funds under 18 USC 603, serious questions could be
raised as to the propriety of payments or reimbursements from
political funds in connection with White House activities. It might
also be necessary for all persons who participate in these expenditures
to register as political committees which involves the designation
of a chairman and a treasurer, and the filing of a statement of
organization detailing many facts appropriate to normal political
groups but not to the functioning of a White House office.
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
-2-
(e) There may be other statutory registration or reporting
requirements bearing on White House activities that might be
considered "political" or on behalf of a political candidate once a
President has announced that he will definitely be a candidate at
the next election.
2. Illustrative Problems. Consider the following cases:
(1) Bills for the costs of Presidential travel for purely
political purposes are sent by the Department of Defense to the
White House which sends them to a national political committee
which makes direct payment to the Department of Defense.
(2) A White House office conducts mailings to various
organizations and private interest groups and the cost of such
mailings is reimbursed from the funds of a national political
committee. The addressees are typically not partisan political
organizations but a full spectrum of private interest groups,
including labor, youth, business, etc. The mailings financed
in this way contain informational material, most of which is not
necessarily political, but some of which endorses Administration
legislative proposals and speaks well of various programs.
Presidential speeches, both partisan and official, are frequently
included in such mailings. After some criticism of a few mailings
it was decided to do all mailings of this kind from political funds,
though many if not most are not regarded as truly political.
Some mailings inviting group representatives in for a series of
biweekly informational meetings that are the subject of Ralph
Nader's Advisory Committee Act suit are financed in this way.
(3) An entertainment is given at the White House, on the
Sequoia, or at a commercial establishment and the bill is sent
to the White House Staff Secretary who relays it to a national
political committee for direct reimbursement.
(4) Political matters are discussed during a meal at the
White House or a commercial establishment and the cost is paid
as in #3 above. Such meetings may be with political leaders or
just members of the press.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-3-
(5) A White House official responsible for liaison with all
private interest groups (from the NAM to Ralph Nader) holds a
succession of luncheon conferences and the like attended by
representatives of such groups and the costs are reimbursed as
in #3 above.
(6) Presidential mementos such as cuff links and tie clips
are paid for by a national political committee and given out during
various White House meetings and ceremonies.
(7) A national political committee pays for any political or
issue polling requests by the White House.
3. The Statutory Standards. (a) The Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, P.L. 92-225, 86 Stat 3 (1972) contains
two separate definitions of a "political committee". The first is
in Title II containing amendments to the criminal code, as follows:
"(d) 'political committee' means any individual,
committee, association, or organization which accepts
contributions or makes expenditures during a calendar
year in an aggregate amount exceeding $1, 000;" (Sec 201).
The definition in Title III, which is the basis for the GAO opinion
on the White House Subsidiary Account is as follows:
"(d) 'political committee' means any committee,
association, or organization which accepts contributions
or makes expenditures during a calendar year in an
aggregate amount exceeding $1, 000;" (Sec 301). 2 USC 431 (d).
Titles II and III also contain differing definitions of "contribution."
The Title III definition is:
"(e) 'contribution' means-
(1) a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit
of money or anything of value, made for the purpose of
influencing the nomination for election, or election, of any
person to Federal office or as a presidential or vice-
presidential elector, or for the purpose of influencing the
FORD
result of a primary held for the selection of delegates
LIBRARY
to a national nominating convention of a political party
or for the expression of a preference for the nomination
of persons for election to the office of President, or for
the purpose of influencing the election of delegates to a
constitutional convention for proposing amendments to
the Constitution of the United States;
(2) a contract, promise, or agreement, whether
or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution for any
such purpose;
(3) a transfer of funds between political committees;
(4) the payment, by any person other than a candidate
or political committee, of compensation for the personal
services of another person which are rendered to such
candidate or committee without charge for any such
purpose; and
(5) notwithstanding the foregoing meanings of
"contribution", the word shall not be construed to include
services provided without compensation by individuals
volunteering a portion or all of their time on behalf of a
candidate or political committee;" 2 USC 431 (c).
LIVERAN TOME
(b) The prohibition in 18 USC 603 is as follows:
"Whoever, in any room or building occupied in
the discharge of official duties by any person mentioned in
section 602 of this title [including any Senator, Representative,
Delegate, Commissioner, or an officer or employee of the
U.S. or of any department or agency thereof, or anyone on
salary from the U.S.], or in any Navy Yard, port, or
arsenal, solicits or receives any contribution of money or
other thing of value for any political purpose, shall be
fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than
three years? or both. 11
4. Interpretation of 18 USC 603. (a) The legislative history
which the Office of Legal Counsel has provided indicates that this
statute was one of several prohibitions enacted in the same bill for
the purpose of prohibiting the solicitation of political contributions
from government employees. The intent appears to be clearly
directed to the initial receipt of funds and not to their subsequent
-5-
transfers. The term "contribution" is defined for purposes
of this statute to include-
"
a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit
of money, or anything of value, and includes a contract,
promise, or agreement to make a contribution, whether
or not legally enforceable;" 18 USC 591.
The definition is very broad in describing the sort of value that can
be a contribution, but again, the focus is clearly on the initial
procurement of the funds.
(b) As applied to the specific problems described in paragraph
2 above, it could be argued that this statute was not intended to reach
them since in every instance the contribution had already been com-
pleted before the funds came within a federal building. Clearly, no
solicitation or original donation is involved. Under this interpreta-
tion, transfers of political funds within a federal building would not
be covered by the statute if they were already the property of the
political group at the time they are first handled, transferred, or
received in a federal building.
5. Interpretation of the 1971 Act. (a) The reporting require-
ment arises if there is (i) a "political committee" as defined by the
Act and that committee (ii) either accepts contributions or makes
expenditures of more than $1,000 in a calendar year. Insofar as
any of the specific examples listed in paragraph 2 above involve
payment by a national political committee for a Presidential
political activity, there seems to be a reportable expenditure
under the Act. In that event, would the expenditure be reportable
solely by the national political party's committee.
(b) A legal uncertainty would arise, however, if any inter-
mediate decisions between personnel of the committee itself and
the ultimate payee are made by White House personnel who may
thereby be viewed as separate political committees. It would
seem clear that the kind of expenditures described in paragraph 2
all involve a direct outlay for goods or services by the national
political committee. In each case, however, the specific decision
to make the expenditure is made by someone in the White House; a
decision to take a Presidential political trip, to hold a reception or
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
6
entertainment for political purposes, to spend funds for a meal
for political purposes, or to conduct a mailing. Under the GAO
interpretation it could be argued that if the total expenditure in
any one category exceeds $1,000 in a calendar year, the person
or persons making those decisions should report as a separate
political committee.
(c) An alternative interpretation would be that the expenditure
is made by the national political committee through a decision to
finance a particular category of expenditures which it should report
under the Act. Under this view, the specific spending decisions
made from time to time would be viewed as essentially ministerial,
carrying out the basic policy decision made by the outside political
committee.
6. The Questions. Both the 1883 statute and the 1971 Act
as interpreted by GAO raise questions as to whether expenditures
of the kind described in paragraph 2 should be made in the future
and, if so, as to how they should be reported. There may be other
interpretations in addition to the possibilities mentioned above.
And there may be other relevant registration or reporting provision.
The questions to be decided are several: (1) What is the meaning
of the relevant statutes; (2) How would the paragraph 2 illustrations
be treated under such statutes; (3) How should such matters be
handled in order to comply fully with the letter and the spirit of
the relevant laws; and (4) Are there other reporting or registration
requirements not specifically noted above.
FORD
LIBRARY
October 1, 1974
Dear Mr. Staats:
Enclosed is a completed "Registration Form and Statement of
Organization for a Committee. covering manies channeled
through the former White House subsidiary account.
While the information concerning these accounts should be reported,
a question exists in my opinion as to whether the reason is that the
White House subsidiary account was a "political committee" within
the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. A
"political committee" is defined in section 201 of that Act (18 USC
591 (d) as "any individual, committee, association, or organization
which accepts contributions or makes expenditures.. "; and section
301 (d) of that act defines a "political committee" as "any committee,
association, or organization which accepts contributions or makes
expenditures... It does not appear to me that the White House
subsidiary account could be a committee, association oz organization,
or an individual within the meaning of the statute, but appears to
be a custodial and bookkeeping device to facilitate disbursements on
behalf of the actual committees. The actual political committees
involved, I am informed, were the Republican National Committee
(RNC) and the Committee for the Re-Election of the President
(CREEP). Accordingly, these forms show these organizations as
the only committees involved, for which the White House subsidiary
account was a custodial and bookkeeping device. I am informed
that distributions were made from the account to serve the purpose
of these two committees, and attributable to their activities, without
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
any discretion 03 declaion making on the part of the White House
custodian, and on termination of the account its entire balance
was returned to the CREEP.
Sincerely yours,
Duiley H. Chapman
Associate Counsel
CANDIDATE(S)
THE UNITED STATES AND
IN
ENCLESS
OF
Few
the
with
The
e
General
et
United
States
or,
if
The Honorable Elmer B. State
Compireller General of the United States
Washington, D.C.
$1,00
ng
resultual
funds
name
of
committee
to
Bs-
iling address and ZIP
Penus
to of this distration
FORD it LIBRARY GRRALD
fillated or connected organine
comented
TAB B
GENERAL OFFICE INSTRUME ACC
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS
October 23, 1974
Dudley H. Chapman, Esquire
Associate Counsel
The White House
Dear Mr. Chapman:
Account. Enclosed is a copy of our report on the White House Subsidiary
and assistance in this matter.
We wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your courtesy
Sincerely yours,
ally S.Hagles
Acting Director
Enclosure
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
UNITED
GENERAL OFFECE GENERA INFORMATION
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS
REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS
TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
FORD LIBRARY
ON
THE WHITE HOUSE SUBSIDIARY ACCOUNT
I.
BACKGROUND
This report covers an audit undertaken by the Office of Federal
Elections of the U.S. General Accounting Office to determine whether
the White House Subsidiary Account was required to register and report
to the Office of Federal Elections under the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971.
We undertook this audit, pursuant to section 308(a)(11) of the
Act, because the June 10, 1974 report of the 1972 Campaign Liquidation
Trust (successor to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President)
disclosed that it received $1,022.89 in * *unspent funds advanced
for political purposes" from the White House Subsidiary Account on
March 28, 1974. The White House Subsidiary Account had not registered
or filed reports with this Office.
TORD LIBRARY is GERMID
Our audit covered the period April 7, 1972, the effective date
of the Act, through March 27, 1974. For this period, the Subsidiary
Account reported an opening cash balance of $10,114, receipts of $6,198,
and expenditures of $16,312.
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Failure to Register and Report In a Timely Manner
Section 301 of the Act defines a "political committee" as
any organization that accepts contributions or makes expenditures
during a calendar year in an aggregate amount exceeding $1,000
"for the purpose of influencing the nomination * * *or election of
any person to Federal office * *." Sections 303(a) and 304(a)
require that each "political committee" file a registration
statement and periodic reports of receipts and expenditures with
the appropriate supervisory officer.
Wilbur H. Jenkins, the Administrative Officer at the White
House, was the designated treasurer of the Subsidiary Account.
Mr. Jenkins informed us that the Subsidiary Account was created
in October 1970 for the primary purpose of paying the expenses
of political advance men. Mr. Jenkins further stated that he
had made bank deposits for the Subsidiary Account and had signed
the checks, but that Bruce Kehrli, the White House Staff
Secretary, had approved and directed all such transactions during
the period covered by our audit.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2
-
After an initial delay in gaining access to the records
of the Subsidiary Account, we were allowed access in early
July 1974. Our review indicated that receipts of the
Subsidiary Account after April 7, 1972, consisted primarily of
$10,000 in cash deposited on April 19, 1972, and a $5,000 check
deposited on January 9, 1973. We found that the Finance Committee
to Re-elect the President (Finance Committee) had transferred
the $15,000 to the Subsidiary Account. A report disclosing pre-
April 7, 1972, transactions (filed September 28, 1973, by the
Finance Committee under a court order in a suit by Common Cause)
shows a pre-April 6, 1972, cash payment of $10,000 to Bruce
Kehrli, c/o The White House for "advance for travel and expenses
of White House staff." A footnote in the report stated that
Mr. Kehrli was not an employee, agent, or trustee of the Finance
Committee, but was an employee of the White House. Hugh Sloan,
former Finance Committee treasurer, through his attorney, stated
that he remembers making the cash payment to Bruce Kehrli prior
to April 7, 1972.
The report of the Finance Committee filed with this Office
on March 10, 1973, disclosed a $5,000 payment to the Subsidiary
Account on January 2, 1973, for the purpose of "reimbursement to
White House - Campaign Expenses." This appears to be the $5,000
check deposited by the Subsidiary Account on January 9, 1973.
-
3
-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The majority of the Subsidiary Account's disbursements were
made to pay the expenses of political advance men during the
1972 Campaign and to pay for political luncheons and parties.
Its final disbursement was the $1,022.89 of unspent funds refunded
to the Finance Committee's successor on March 27, 1974.
On the basis of the foregoing information, we advised
Mr. Jenkins by letter dated August 19, 1974, that the White
House Subsidiary Account appeared to be a political committee
which would be required to register and report.
After further discussions with representatives of the
Subsidiary Account, a registration statement and a report of
receipts and expenditures were filed with this Office on
October 1, 1974, on behalf of the "Republican National Committee/
Committee to Re-elect the President (The White House Subsidiary
Account) " A transmittal letter signed by Mr. Dudley H. Chapman,
White House Associate Counsel stated that:
"**
*It does not appear to me that the White House
Subsidiary Account could be a committee * * *within the
meaning of the statute, but appears to be a custodial
and bookkeeping device to facilitate disbursement on
behalf of the actual committees. The actual committees
involved, I am informed, were the Republican National
Committee (RNC) and the Committee for the Re-election of
the President (CREEP) "
4
-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Mr. Chapman added that decision-making and discretion were
not exercised in the White House. Contrary to Mr. Chapman's
statement, however, the former treasurer of the Finance Committee,
Paul Barrick, told us that the Subsidiary Account was a White
House account and not part of the Finance Committee or the
Campaign Liquidation Trust and that the Finance Committee had
reported all funds advanced to the Subsidiary Account and had no
responsibility to report as to the use of funds by the
Subsidiary Account. We found nothing in our review of the
Subsidiary Account to show any Finance Committee involvement,
except for the transfer of $15,000.
We conclude that the White House Subsidiary Account was a
"political committee" within the meaning of section 301 (d) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act because it was an organization which
accepted and spent more than $1,000 in both 1972 and 1973 for the
purpose of supporting the re-election of President Nixon through
the use of campaign funds.
The failure to disclose the existence of such a political
fund in the White House until two years after the campaign period
appears to constitute a violation of the Act.
B. Failure to Keep Complete and Accurate Records
Section 302 of the Act requires the treasurer of a political
committee to keep a detailed and exact account of all contributions
received and expenditures made by the Committee.
-
5
-
FORD & QURALD LIBRARY
The disbursements made by the Subsidiary Account were
adequately documented. All expenditures were supported by
invoices and canceled checks. However, although we were able
to determine independently the apparent source of the Subsidiary
Account's receipts, its treasurer could not provide any
documentation to verify the source or dates of the receipts.
With respect to the $10,000 cash receipt previously mentioned,
a footnote to the Subsidiary Account's reported cash on hand at
April 7, 1972, disclosed that it:
"Includes $10,000 in cash which W. Jenkins was advised
orally by B. Kehrli was received from CREEP prior [to]
April 7. These funds were not turned over to W. Jenkins
to deposit until April 19, 1972. The date of the initial
receipt by B. Kehrli has not been determined."
Obviously, there is still uncertainty as to when the $10,000 cash
was actually received by the Subsidiary Account and some doubt
as to custody and control of the funds until they were deposited in
the bank.
The failure of the Subsidiary Account to maintain complete and
accurate records of its receipts appears to be a violation of
section 302 of the Act.
III. RECOMMENDED FURTHER ACTION
We recommend to the Comptroller General that the following matters
be brought to the attention of the Attorney General for such action as
he deems appropriate:
1. The Subsidiary Account's failure to register and file ROFFERD
of receipts and expenditures with this Office in a time
GERALD
6
LIBRARY
-
-
manner as required by sections 303(a) and 304(a)
of the Act.
2. The Subsidiary Account's failure to maintain complete and
accurate records of its receipts as required by section 302
of the Act.
Flug Acting Director &. 2.24gle
Office of Federal Elections
Date: October 23, 1974
Approved: B. thats
Comptroller General
of the United States
Via LIBRARY
Date: October 23, 1974
-
7
-
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20230
December 17, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The time has come to substantially strengthen your campaign
for the nomination. The actions required to accomplish this
are of paramount priority. Failure to perfect the campaign
organization and strategy presents a very real risk of de-
feat. The voter impression is that the campaign is too far
away from you, that it is not representative of your candi-
dacy and because of it you are losing ground. Whether true
or not, this is the perception.
I believe this impression can be corrected by putting a
senior political counselor in the White House who will be
the prime link between you and your campaign and between
the campaign and the Cabinet and senior elements of your
staff.
This person must have a broad-gauge political perspective,
must be able to comfortably work with you on a daily basis,
must be able to work with the press, but not as a surrogate,
and must have the respect of a wide spectrum of the Repub-
lican Party. Above all, this person must be your prime
associate in the development of an objective campaign strat-
egy. Separately, I have attached a list of people whom I
would suggest. My ranking would put George Bush, Bill
Ruckelshaus and Ody Fish at the top of the list.
I very strongly recommend that this action be taken. I
think it will be welcomed by Bo Callaway. It has the en-
dorsement of the Vice President, Bill Simon, Bill Seidman,
Jim Cannon, Dick Cheney and others with whom I have dis-
cussed the matter.
Yours sincerely,
LIBRARY
George Bush
John Byrnes
Ody Fish
Bryce Harlow
Melvin Laird
Leon Parma
George Romney
Richard Rosenbaum
William Ruckelshaus
William Scranton
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 15, 1976
Barry called and would like you
to add 3 USC 105 and 106 to your
list.
shirley
R.
FORD LIBRARY
1.
FORD
GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF LEGAL RESPONSES
TO ISSUES RAISED BY MORTON APPOINTMENT
LIBRARY
1. Statutes which have possible relevancy
a) 18 U.S.C. § 209 (salaries of government employees
payable only by U.S.)
b) 31 U.S.C. § 628 ("sums appropriated for expenditure
in the public service shall be applied
solely to the objects for which they
are respectively made, and for no
others.")
c) 18 U.S.C. § 607 (payments to promote political objects
from one government employee to another)
d) 2 U.S.C. § 431 (e) (4) (inclusion in "contribution" of
compensation paid by any "person" for
the "personal services of another
person which are rendered to such
candidate or political committee without
charge"; see definition of "person" in
§ 431 (h) which does not include the
government)
(e) 2 U.S.C. § 431 (e) (5) (exclusion from "contribution"
of "the value of services provided
without compensation by individuals
who volunteer a portion or all of their
time on behalf of a candidate or
political committee")
f) 2 U.S.C.
§
431
(f)
(1)
("expenditure" includes any
payment made for the purpose of influencing
a nomination or election to Federal
office)
g) 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (d) (1) (exempts "employees paid from
the appropriation for the office of the
President" from the general prohibition
against having Executive Branch employees
participate in "political management
or in political campaigns")
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
in
-2-
DEPARTMENT
IND
2. Possible issues
a) The nature and extent of services by Counsellor Morton
and his aides as they are covered by the objects for
which appropriations to the office of the President
are made, namely all services ordinarily performed
for a President whether or not he is involved in a
nomination/election campaign and those which may be
campaign-related but which are required because he
is the incumbent President.
b) The nature and extent of services by these individuals
as:
(i) they fall outside the objects of the applicable
appropriations and they are not performed on
the individual's own time, or
(ii) they are rendered to the President as candidate
or to his election committee and they are not
volunteered on the individual's own time.
3. Positions taken by Chairman Curtis
a) He has interpreted Morton's public statements to give
as a justification for his role for the President the
uses which incumbent Congressmen make of their staffs
for campaign purposes, and in the Chairman's view this
is all wrong because two wrongs do not make a right.
b) He concedes that the President and everyone on his
staff have a legitimate "political" role not only in
policy-making but in communicating and defending
policy decisions to the American people, but that is
not to say they can have a role in "electioneering"
unless the costs attributable to that role are
reported and accounted for as coming within the
President's campaign spending limits. He thinks a
workable distinction can be made and has to be made,
or a serious inequity is created between incumbents
and challengers.
c) The FEC has no concern with whether or not these
"electioneering" costs rightly or wrongly come out
of appropriated funds but, if they do represent
services for which the individual is compensated by
his federal salary, they must be reported as campaign
receipts and expenditures. He concedes that truly
"off-time" volunteer services would fall outside this
LIBRARY
requirement.
-3- -
d) He wants to work, through informal means or through
an advisory opinion, to achieve voluntary compliance
with the Federal Election Campaign Laws, notwith-
standing that a complaint has been filed which may
involve the same issue.
(He has offered to meet in this regard on
Monday, January 19, at 3:00 p.m.)
in
FORD
LIERATY GENALS Ford
OMI 01-15 06:46 PES
THE LIBRARY
LIBRARY
8273
FORD
R A
:
POLITICS 1-15
SUB NIGHT LD POLITICS UNDATED A245 FOR 10TH PGH BGNG: WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SET UP A MEETING BETWEEN FORD'S WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL, PHILIP W. BUCHEN, AND FEC OFFICIALS "TO EXPLORE THIS
CONCERN," BUT CURTIS' SCHEDULE PREVENTED A FULL DISCUSSION OF THE
ISSUE.
NO DATE FOR A NEW MEETING WAS SET, BUT IT WAS EXPECTED TO TAKE
PLACE NEXT WEEK WHEN CURTIS RETURNS FROM AN OUT OF TOWN TRIP.
PICKUP 11TH PGH: "THE PRESIDENT
UPI 01-15 06:48 PES
N.Y. Times
Thurs V/76 1/15/76
POST FOR MORTON
DRAWS CRITICISM
Strauss and Election Aide
View It as Political.
By WARREN WEAVER JR.
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14-The
DS
Martins file
Ann H. McLellan 611 South Main Street Oxford, Ohio 45056
THE 1. youn LIBRARY
Jan. 15, 1976.
Dear m. Buchen: :
I cannot under stand how you
could have been so in sensitive as
not to have appreciated The
impropriately of Rogen merton
being que a high paying federal
post to work for President
Jords relection
Where have you been for the last 507
10 year? If I occasionally better considered
that ford might be a
candidate for reclection than some?
of these Democrate running, There's your no
bland assumption that w
in compatibility or impurpriaty
paying a man unauthorized Tax
payers money w run a political
Compaign has certainly S haren
that inclination keep up this
record of outrageous appointments
- vide Braden or state Dept.
Consumer affair officer -
and the unemployed, underpaid,
overtaged citizens of this
country will have no choice
but to defeal Jeny come
November
decency or decorum wedo.
If you quye have no sense The of
Nixon's A iniquities in wearing
line that goodold Jeny has redeemed
thin
David m c/ellan
OFI 01-15 06:46 PES
8273
R A
POLITICS 1-15
SUB NIGHT LD POLITICS UNDATED 8245 FOR 10TH PGH BGNG: WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SET UP 0 MEETING BETWEEN FORD'S WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL, PHILIP W. BUCHEN, AND FEC OFFICIALS "TO EXPLORE THIS
CONCERN," BUT CURTIS' SCHEDULE PREVENTED A.FULL DISCUSSION OF THE
ISSUE.
NO DATE FOR A NEW MEETING WAS SET, BUT IT WAS EXPECTED TO TAKE
PLACE NEXT WEEK WHEN CURTIS RETURNS FROM AN OUT OF TOWN TRIP.
PICKUP 11TH PGH: "THE PRESIDENT
UPI 01-15 06:48 PES
THE THIS LIBRARY
6:55 p.m.
Wednesday, January 14
Barry called to inform you that Fred Harris has now
filed a formal complaint on the Morton position.
If we get any press calls we should advise that it is
inappropriate for us to comment at this time.
SERALD
R. FORD LIBRARY
Office of Legal Counsel
RIMENT QUI ARO DONIMA JUSTITA OF STATE
January 15, 1976
Honorable Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Buchen:
As requested in our phone conversation today,
I am enclosing a copy of the memorandum to
Mr. Dean forwarding a draft response to Mr.
Nader's lawyer concerning alleged Federal
subsidization of reelection campaigns.
Sincerely,
as/sh
Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Enclosure
Memo dated
Oct. 20, 1972
1. YORD LIBRARY
-1976 ENTENNIAL REVOLUTION
Files
RCC:NS:frj
Mr. Siegel
Mrs. Gauf
John Dean John
OCT 20 1972
C
MEMORANDUM FOR HONORABLE JOHN W. DEAN III
Counsel to the President
Re: Alleged Federal Subsidization
of Re-election Campaign
Pursuant to your request of October 18 I am forward-
ing herewith a draft response to the Nader lawyer's letter
to Secretary Shultz.
Roger C. Cramton
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
SEAL THIS
DRAFT REPLY
Alan B. Morrison, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law
2000 P Street, N. W., Suite 515
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Mr. Morrison:
This will acknowledge your letter of October 10, 1972,
to the Secretary of the Treasury, which has been referred
to me.
You refer to press articles and other media reports
apparently asserting that certain members of the White House
staff have been devoting substantially all their time to the
election campaign of the President. You express the view
that these activities, even though authorized by the Hatch
Act, regulating political activities of federal officers and
employees, do not "permit the payment of their salaries when
they are doing nothing else but working on a political cam-
paign.'
The exemptions in the Hatch Act for certain federal
officials and employees plainly recognize that the official
duties of those persons encompass the explanation and the
defense of the President's policies in the course of a
political campaign. Nor does the Act purport to or attempt
to set any limits on the time those officials may devote to
such activities, an obviously impractical task. The Act
specifically exempts from its coverage several classes of
persons, including the following: "an employee paid from
the appropriation for the Office of the President"; "the
head or assistant head of an Executive department or mili-
tary department"; and an employee, appointed by the President
YORD TEBRACK
by and with the consent of the Senate, who determines polictes
pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign
powers or "in the nationwide administration of Federal laws."
5 U.S.C. 7324(d) (1), (2), (3).
The legislative history of the Hatch Act recognized that
functions performed by White House staff members and other
policy-making officials in explaining and defending the Presi-
dent's policies were well within their scope of their official
duties and responsibilities, and an inseparable part of their
functions of assisting the President.
When in 1939 Senator Hatch together with other sponsors
introduced S. 1871, which was to become the Hatch Act, he was
deeply concerned about the threat to good government arising
from pernicious political activities on the part of adminis-
trative and supervisory employees in general. But Senator
Hatch was not so oblivious to the practical and effective
administration of public affairs as to believe that policy-
making officials should also be made subject to the Act. On
the contrary, he frankly disclaimed any such view stating
"that a person holding a policy-making position not only
should have the right and opportunity, but he ought to go
out and defend his administration and its policies. Certainly
it is not my intention to prohibit such action." (84 Cong.
Rec. 4303, April 17, 1939)
Subsequently Senator Hatch had occasion to point out the
differences between policy-making officials who are "distinctly
political officers" exercising functions in that capacity, and
other governmental employees.
He said:
"Mr. President, there is a distinction between
ordinary Government employees and officers who are
charged with the high duty and responsibility of
formulating programs and policies, because the latter
- 2 -
I FORD
must not only sell those policies - 15 I may use
that expression - to the country, but they must
be able to defend their policies against attack.
Everyone knows that to be so. Such officers are
distinctly political officers, and it is not
difficult to distinguish between them and other
governmental employees, the great mass of whom
perform merely clerical duties, which are not
political in any sense
"
(86 Cong. Rec.
2432, March 6, 1940)
The views expressed by Senator Hatch and other Members
of Congress in this connection merely reflact common experience
in the conduct of political affairs and in government adminis-
tration. It strikes an appropriate balance between forbidden
political activity and the need to bring home to the people
how the President's policies will affect them.
So far as we know, at no time has salary been denied to
a policy-making official in the White House in either a
Democratic or Republican administration because he has engaged
in defending the administration's policies during a political
campaign. And this involvement in White House affairs is
recognized as proper regardless of whether it is undertaken
at a time substantially before an election or shortly before
it.
I should add, moreover, that there are no White House
employees engaged in such purely political activities as selling
buttons and the like. Their activities are devoted wholly to
an explanation and advocacy of Presidential policies.
Sincerely,
John W. Dean III
Counsel to the President
- 3 -
LIBRARY REBALE THE
- 2 -
#417-1/16
Q
In this frigid air he plunges into this?
MR. CARLSON: I think the President finds it
very stimulating, invigorating. In fact, it was so stimu-
lating that the President returned to the office about
8:15 and worked until 11 o'clock last night.
Q That was this morning?
MR. CARLSON: No, last night.
I think you are all up to date on our meeting
with Mr. Curtis. As mentioned yesterday, the meeting was
planned sometime following the completion of the regular
session. That regular session didn't end until very late.
Mr. Curtis had to catch a plane for an appointment this
morning in St. Louis, and so the meeting has been postponed
until hopefully the first part of next week. Of course,
Mr. Buchen is available at the earliest convenience to
meet with Mr. Curtis.
Q
A question on that. In the meantime, has
Mr. Morton gone on the White House staff payroll, or what
is his status?
MR. CARLSON: Mr. Morton will be working as
Secretary of Commerce through the end of the month, and
then it is proposed that February 1 it will be Mr. Richard-
son coming aboard.
The President has been invited and will attend the
Quadrennial Commemorative Session of the Virginia Assembly.
This will take place at Colonial Williamsburg on January 31
at 4 p.m. The final details have not all been worked out,
but this is just to keep you up to date.
Q Will he address that?
MR. CARLSON: Yes, he will.
On weekend plans, there has been some interest.
The President will be in the White House over the weekend,
and he will be devoting a substantial amount of time each
day to the State of the Union Message and also reviewing
the final budget document.
Q
Has he set a record for working on the
StaTe of the Union Message?
MR. CARLSON: I don't know.
Q
John, on the State of the Union Message,
do you have any long-range idea as to when it will be
available here?
MORE
#417
STATE TIBRARY
- 5 -
#417-1/16
Q
How many subcommittees are there?
MR. CARLSON: I think six.
Q
John, I was wondering, how does the White
House reconcile what Ron defined as Mr. Morton's
incidental duties with the Ford campaign agreement in
writing with Common Cause not to use taxpayer-supported
services of any public office except for security
purposes?
MR. CARLSON: Les, I think I should just not
comment on the whole Morton issue until after they have a
chance to meet, probably Monday.
Q
You think that is when Buchen and Morton's
counsel -- will he meet with Morton or the counsel --
MR. CARLSON: He will meet with the FEC counsel
and the chairman.
Q
Can you say anything about the deteriorating
situation in Angola?
MR. CARLSON: We have seen the reports that you
are probably referring to, and without getting into military
movements, we are concerned about the current situation in
which Cuban troops are fighting in an area where they have no
legitimate interest.
The President will continue to work through
diplomatic channels, and to use whatever means are available
to him --
2
What does that mean?
MR. CARLSON: -- to see that this conflict can
be resolved without foreign intervention.
Q
That is kind of a joke to say it can be
resolved without foreign interference. It is being
resolved quite decisively with foreign interference, both
the Cubans and the Soviets.
MR. CARLSON: I think our position has been quite
clear we have advocated a cease-fire and an immediate with-
drawal of all foreign intervention and a solution of the
African problem by Africans.
Q
Isn't that policy rather dated at this point
because it is clear pro-Soviet forces with Cuban soldiers
in the field are making a mockery of the President's goals?
MORE
#417
STATE FORD LIBRANT
- 10 -
#418-1/19
Q
What time is the meeting, Ron?
MR. NESSEN: 11:30.
Q
Will they have to pay their own way?
MR. NESSEN: As far as I know.
Q
All of those who were invited have
accepted except those two?
MR. NESSEN: The two Governors we have not heard
from yet. All the mayors who were invited have accepted.
Q
But these were hand-picked mayors?
MR. NESSEN: As representatives of the Conference
of Mayors and the League of Cities and then kind of a broad
geographical selection.
Q
Are their views on the budget embargoed until
10:00 a.m. Wednesday, also?
MR. NESSEN: I don't see how we could do that. They
will probably have to stay away from specific figures and
so forth, whatever few figures are left unpublished.
Q
Ron, if you brief us in the afternoon,
tomorrow, it is not going to give any filing time between
the President's briefing and yours.
MR. NESSEN: I know, and that is why I mentioned
a later briefing.
Q
You can't file anyway.
Q
I think we need a briefing tomorrow.
MR. NESSEN: Moving right along, Phil Buchen is
going to be meeting this afternoon with Tom Curtis and
the Council over at the FEC. This is a meeting that you
know was supposed to be held last Friday, and then Tom
Curtis had a longstanding commitment, I guess, to go to
St. Louis and could not attend, so that meeting will be
today at 3:00.
I will talk to Phil afterward and see what sort
of report we can pass on after the meeting is over. I
don't have any idea of how long it is going to be.
Q
Perhaps he could come out and talk to us
after that.
FORD LIBRARY
MR. NESSEN: Let me talk to him after he gets
back.
MORE
#418
- 11 -
#418-1/19
Q
Will the meeting be at the White House or
the FEC?
MR. NESSEN: At the FEC.
Q
Ron, will he take up the question of whether
or not you should be paid by the campaign as well?
Curtis has now raised that point.
MR. NESSEN: I saw that. I don't know that that
will specifically come up. As John told you last week,
when describing the intention of the original meeting,
it was to listen to the concerns of Chairman Curtis and to
answer whatever questions he had about the Morton appoint-
ment.
Now, whether Chairman Curtis wants to raise
questions about other White House officials, I don't have
any way of knowing.
Q
What time is that meeting?
MR. NESSEN: 3:00.
Q
What is your reaction to Mr. Curtis' comments,
Ron?
MR. NESSEN: Basically, I don't have any, Phil.
Q
Could I follow Phil's question? Do you still
perceive your role as nonpolitical?
MR. NESSEN: Well, again, to go back to what we
talked about last week when it came to Rog Morton's appoint-
ment, it is difficult to separate -- after all, we have a
political system -- so I think basically it is difficult
to separate and make any clear-cut line, and clearly you
ask me questions that are political and I try to answer
them when I can.
0
That is all your fault.
MR. NESSEN: No, it is not. It is just an illus-
tration of how difficult it is to draw that line.
Q
Ron, how about Peter Kaye? I have known
you to refer questions more than once over to him.
Wouldn't that be one answer? Isn't he the political
spokesman?
MR. NESSEN: He is certainly the spokesman for
the campaign, yes.
MORE
#418