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.
Source Description
This file includes a detailed analysis of Ronald Reagan's campaign speech in March 1976.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1673428
label
Reagan Campaign (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1673428
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Reagan Campaign (1)
description
This file includes a detailed analysis of Ronald Reagan's campaign speech in March 1976.
citationUrl
collections
President Ford Committee Records
Royston Hughes' Subject Files
subjects
Texas
North Carolina
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Economics
Labor
Presidential campaign, 1976
International relations
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1673428
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7aa97dcc4a5ceb40
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box B08, folder "Reagan Campaign (1)" of the
President Ford Committee Campaign Records 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Roy:
7yI -
fate the Comment
on Reagons ad stuff.
oa
BERALD S. FORD LIBRARY
\
2
RCBM Roy
Tim Austin
note: Wayne is B. Barroody's diputy
March 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM:
WAYNE VALIS mayore Nalis
SUBJECT:
Campaign Developments Post-Florida
Today I spoke with several Reagan supporters about Florida.
1. The Reagan Campaign views their recent switch to an "attack
strategy" as successful. Reagan staffer Dave Keene told a friend
that he. believes the recent Reagan attacks on detente and on the
President's alleged "pumping up the economy" were successful in
turning around the momentum of the Florida campaign. Keene
said that had the election in Florida been held a week ago, the
President would have won by a much larger margin than he did.
Therefore, Keene (and probably others on the Reagan staff) will
continue to urge this attack strategy.
2. A conservative Republican, who is usually a reliable source, said
that he was with the Reagan people last night and found no sentiment
whatsoever for reducing their efforts, much less thought of dropping
out of the race. Source advised me that Reagan will be stepping up
efforts in both Illinois and North Carolina.
3. The source also told me that it was the feeling of the Reagan people
that they were going to do a lot more to generate national headlines,
and that Reagan was going to say "interesting things" about the
President on a daily basis from now on. Rather than discuss their
own programs they will attack us.
4. The source feels that the Reagan supporters have invested so
much time and emotional and personal commitment to the effort
that many will be bitter-enders. He also said that some among
the RR campaign will favor third party efforts if Reagan gets knocked
out, even if Reagan himself reconciles with us. He believes that the
number, though, of these third party typ es will be very small and
their impact would be small on the general election.
FORD is LIBRARY BERMLD
MEMORANDUM
March 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM:
WAYNE VALIS Wayne valis
SUBJECT:
Reagan Strategy
Enclosed is the latest Right Report, published by the Richard A.
Viguerie Company, which is an accurate barometer of the thinking
of the Reagan camp and their allies.
FORD is LIBRARY 079838
MARCH 10, 1976
Vol. 5, No. 5
THE
RIGHT
REPORT
A NEWSLETTER THAT TELLS YOU WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE AMERICAN RIGHT
Copyright © 1976 Richard A. Viguerie Co., Inc.
Dear Subscriber:
REAGAN HANGS IN THERE. Conservatives who feared a Florida defeat might force Reagan
right out of the Presidential race were cheered by his announced intention, despite
his 47% - 53% Florida loss, to continue full steam ahead.
Florida was indecisive. Ford supporters believed they could eliminate Reagan if they
held him to under 45% of the vote. They failed.
Reagan lost in Florida because he responded too late to urgent suggestions that he
abandon the "Eleventh Commandment" and lay into President Ford's liberal weaknesses
and policy reversals. When the RR "good guy" effort narrowly failed in New Hampshire,
Reagan delayed eight days before coming out with his first strong defense policy blast
at Ford. There were then only five days left before the Florida primary.
Most sources agree that the 11th hour change in strategy rescued Reagan from a crush-
ing defeat. Reagan's Southern coordinator, Dave Keene, told TRR, "If we'd held the
election a week ago, we'd have lost by a hell of a lot more."
Another five days of hard-hitting campaigning, and we believe Reagan would have won
in Florida. Reagan's eight day delay in getting tough probably cost him what earlier
looked to be his first primary victory.
It was not until the very day of the Florida primary that Reagan, in Illinois, began
to attack the broken promises and unredeemed pledges of Gerald Ford. It was as if
Reagan forgot to tell the Florida and New Hampshire voters how he was different from
Ford. On March 9 Reagan cited Ford's flip flops on the New York City bailout, tax
increases, tax cuts, budget deficit proposals, and common situs picketing.
Still unmentioned were Ford's broken commitment that the Legal Services Corporation
would have a right-of-center tilt; Ford's allowing Vice President Rockefeller to gut
the Senate filibuster rule last year; Ford's lip service support while he was under-
mining Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, CIA director Jim Colby, and U.N Ambassa-
dor Patrick Moynihan; the Ford cave-in on energy price de-control; Ford's failure to
ask David Mathews any questions regarding his views on, say, busing before appointing
Mathews Secretary of HEW, and Ford's suggestion of mostly liberals as possible 1976
running mates.
Reagan's Florida organization was good, but many sources tell us his TV spots were in-
ferior, a startling finding in view of the former Hollywood star's mastery of the mediu
The Right Report, March 10, 1976, Page 2
The President Ford Committee has moved to intensify its efforts in the Illinois pri-
mary next Tuesday and the North Carolina primary March 23.
The Citizens for Reagan Committee now plans to keep attacking Ford daily, in hopes of
building momentum and gaining media attention. Reagan insiders now admit they erred
by being too nice to Ford for too long.
Money has become a major factor in this contest. Ford has more of it than does Rea-
gan. Ford outspent Reagan 3 to 2 in Florida. North Carolina Reagan leaders, for
instance, loudly complain that their national organization won't or can't get them
the money they need.
Here's why many movement-oriented conservatives are urging Reagan to stay in the race
even if the going gets tougher:
1. Ford is expected to leap to the left in domestic and foreign policy if Reagan
leaves the race.
2. Conservatives expect hot battles on platform and delegate allocation rules at the
Kansas City convention, and an intact Reagan team could be vital to conservative
chances on these issues.
3. If some tragedy, scandal, or blunder removed Ford from the race, Reagan must be
in a position to pick up the pieces.
Scotch one rumor: There's a story circulating in conservative circles that the New
Hampshire Reagan campaign shut down its telephone banks on primary day. Not SO.
The rumor arose when a TV crew filmed the phone banks in Ford's state headquarters on
election day and then found no phone banks operating in the Reagan state office. The
fact is that all six N.H. Reagan phone banks were operating, but none of them was set
up in the state office.
SEN. JACKSON NO CONSERVATIVE. The frequent media description of Sen. Henry "Scoop"
Jackson (D-Wash.) as a "conservative" only shows how far left some of our newsmen and
politicians have gone.
We happened to be present at the Commodore Hotel in New York City, May 4, 1974, when
the strongly socialist League for Industrial Democracy gave Jackson its "Man of the
Year Award." In his acceptance speech, Jackson bragged that he had received inspir-
ation from L.I.D. since he first joined the organization as a college student. (For
a thorough discussion of the Fabian socialist L.I.D., see Illinois GOP Congressman
Phil Crane's book, The Democrat's Dilemma.)
None of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls has surpassed Jackson's record of
supporting massive social welfare spending programs and harassing business with
swarms of bureaucrats. He was one of only four U.S. Senators to be rated 0% in 1975
by the National Taxpayers Union. Moreover, Jackson outdid his rivals in bitter,
demogogic denunciations of "unconscionable corporate oil profits" during and after
the Arab oil embargo crisis.
It's true that Jackson is for a strong national defense, and has been highly critical
of detente. He is frequently attacked by Pravda and Radio Moscow. But on domestic
Jackson as a patriotic socialist or a C.I.A. liberal.
policy, he's ADA all the way. Rather than calling him a "conservative ABRARY we'd describe
BER
THE RIGHT REPORT is published twice monthly by Richard A. Viguerie Co., Inc., 7777 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Va. 22043. All rights reserved.
Material may not be reproduced in any form without written permission. Publisher: Richard A. Viguerie. Editor: Lee Edwards. Assit. Publisher: Morton
Blackwell. Managing Editor: Joan P. Lawton. The information contained in this newsletter does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1976
RTLA
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT T. HARTMANN
FROM:
GWEN ANDERSON Ga
SUBJECT:
REAGAN SPEECH
In response to your request for the quickest possible
research check on the speech by former Governor Reagan,
we checked the drafts of the candidate's speech for factual
accuracy. See attached.
In checking any changes in the pre-released text as com-
pared to the speech as it was actually delivered on TV,
there were 28 minor changes, according to Bruce Wagner of
Campaign '76 (833-8950). Of the 28 changes, however, there
was only one factual change on page 11. That changed the
figure from 45% to 43%.
This preliminary report has been compiled by three of our
five research staff members headed by Agnes Waldron. The
other two researchers have been handling the President's
speech texts for Wisconsin. We have been assisted by the
NSC, FEA, OMB, and PFC staff members cited as sources.
The economic section, despite some data provided by CEA,
is obviously incomplete, but the material promised by Mr.
Seidman is not yet available at this writing (4 p.m.).
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORM
-1-
ERRORS IN CANDIDATE REAGAN'S
SPEECH OF MARCH 31, 1976
Page 1 - paragraph 3 - Reagan Statement
In this election season the White House is telling us a solid
economic recovery is taking place. It claims a slight drop in
unemployment. It says that prices aren't going up as fast,
but they are still going up, and that the stock market has shown
some gains. But, in fact, things seem just about as they were
back in the 1972 election year. Remember, we were also
coming out of a recession then. Inflation has been running
at around 6%. Unemployment about 7. Remember, too, the upsurge
and the optimism lasted through the election year and into 1973.
And then, the roof fell in. Once again we had unemployment.
Only this time not 7%, more than 10. And inflation -- wasn't
6%, it was 12%.
RESPONSE -- The peak of unemployment -- 8.9% -- was reached
in May, 1975. Latest unemployment figures -- February, 1976 --
show the rate was 7.6%. But Mr. Reagan in deprícating these
figures failed to note that total employment has returned to the
pre-recession peak of July 1974 with 86.3 million at work.
Prices are not going up as fast. Inflation in 1974 was at an
annual rate of 12.2%. Today it is at 6. 3%.
In 1972 we were further into recovery than we are today. But
Mr. Reagan has his statistical facts concerning 1973-74 comewhat
askew. The peak unemployment figure was reached in May 1975 at
8.9%. It never reached 10% as he states.
Source -- John Davies, CEA
TORD in LIBRARY GERALD
- -2-
Page 2 - paragraph 2
Now, in this election year 1976, we're told we're coming out
of this recession. Just because inflation and unemployment rates
have fallen, to what they were at the worst of the previous
recession. If history repeats itself will we be talking recovery
four years from now merely because we've reduced inflation from
25% to 12%.
RESPONSE -- All of the figures -- retail sales, GNP, durable
goods, housing, personal income, etc. clearly show we are
moving out of the recession - - the Administration's statements
are not based merely on improved unemployment and cost-of-living
statistics as Mr. Reagan implies.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
- -3-
Page 2 - paragraph 3
The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by
going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we éver have before.
It took this nation 166 years - - until the middle of World War II - -
to finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took this
administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the
debt. And this administration has run up almost one-fourth of
our total national debt in just these short nineteen months.
RESPONSE -- The national debt reached $72 billion in 1942.
The current estimated deficit for FY 1976 is $76.19 billion.
Gross federal debt for FY 1976 is estimated at $634 billion.
Thus the administration's share of the national debt is 15.6¢
not 25%.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
- 4
Page 2 - paragraph 4
Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And
we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we
stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease.
There's only one cause for inflation - - government spending
more than government takes in. The cure is a balanced budget.
Ah, but they tell us, 80% of the budget is uncontrollable. It's
fixed by laws passed by Congress.
RESPONSE -- The President has offered specific plans for a
balanced budget. But a large part of the cause of the current
recession is the result of past fiscal policies, rapid increases
in federal expenditures. There is no quick fix for problems
created a decade or more ago. A rapid return to a balanced
budget as Mr. Reagan calls for would provide faster progress
on inflation, but at the same time, it would mean a long delay
in recovery and much longer period of high unemployment.
The budget for FY 1977 estimates that 77.1% of the budget is
uncontrollable.
FORD is BERALD LIBRARY
-5-
Page 3 - last 2 sentences of top paragraph
But laws passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress.
And, if Congress is unwilling to do this, then isn't it time we
elect a Congress that will?
RESPONSE -- The open-ended or uncontrollable program caol
for outlays of $383.1 billion in FY 1977 (plus the third quarter)
$236.8 billion is allocated to payments for individuals. Doe
Mr. Reagan want to repeal the following:
Social Security and Railroad Retirement -- $108.0 billion
Federal Employees Retirement benefits - - $22.9 billion
Veterans Benefits -- $16.3 billion
Medicare and Medicaid -- $38.4 billion
Public Assistance programs -- $26.0 billion
FORD is DERALD LIBRARY
-6-
Page 3 - paragraph 2
Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he would end
inflation. Indeed, he declared war on inflation. And, we all
donned thos WIN buttons to "Whip Inflation Now. 11 Unfortunately,
the war -- it is ever really started -- was soon over. Mr.
Ford, without WIN button, appeared on TV, and promised he
absolutely would not allow the Federal deficit to exceed $60
billion (which incidentally was $5 billion more than the biggest
previous deficit we'd ever had). Later he told us it might
be as much as $70 billion. Now we learn it's $80 billion or
more.
RESPONSE -- The President did draw a line at a deficit of
$60 billion on March 29, 1975 in a televised address. The
largest single year deficit occurred in 1943 - - $57.4 billion.
The difference between 57.4 and 60 billion is of course $3.6
billion. The current estimated deficit for FY 76 is not $80
billion or more, it is $76.9 billion.
FORD is LIBRARY 02RALD
- 7
Page 3 - paragraph 3
Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion tax cut,
to be matched by a $28 billion cut in the proposed spending --
not in the present spending, but in the proposed spending in
the new budget. Well, my question then and my question now
is, if there was $28 billion in the new budget that could be
cut, what was it doing there in the first place?
RESPONSE -- The proposed $28 billion cut was not a cut in the
budget as suggested in the next to last line, it was a $28 billion
cut in Federal expenditures in programs already in place.
The President's proposal was an effort to prevent further
increases in spending.
SOURCE: John Davies, CEA
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
- -8-
Page 4 - paragraph 1
It would have been nice if they'd thought of some arrangement
like that for the rest of us. They could, for example, correct
a great unfairness that now exists in our tax system. Today,
when you get a cost of living pay raise -- one that just keeps
you even with purchasing power -- it often moves you up into
a higher tax bracket. This means you pay a higher percentage
in tax, but you reduce your purchasing power. Last year,
because of this inequity, the government took in $ 7 billion in
undeserved profit in the income tax alone, and this year they'll
do even better. Now isn't it time that Congress looked after
your welfare as well as its own?
RESPONSE -- Inflation does indeed increase taxes. The
President has recognized this and has been successful in
reducing the inflation rate by 50%. He has also proposed
curbing the rise in expenditures and matched this with a
comparable tax cut.
SOURCE: John Davies, CEA
FORD & LIBRARY 0FFALO
- -9-
Page 5 - paragraph 3
Ending inflation is the only long range and lasting answer to
the problem of unemployment. The Washington Establishment
is not the answer. It's the problem. Its tax policies, its
harassing regulations, its confiscation of investment capital to
pay for its deficits keeps business and industry from expanding
to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all need.
RESPONSE -- The President's economic policies are anti-
inflationary. That is why he has vetoed 46 bills and saved
the taxpayers $13 billion.
SOURCE: Pete Modelin, OMB
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
-10-
Page 6 - paragraph 2
At the time we were only importing a small percentage of our
oil. Yet, the Arab boycott caused half a million Americans
to lose their jobs when plants closed down for lack of fuel.
Today, it's almost three years later and "Project Independence"
has become "Project Dependence. 11 Congress has adopted an
energy bill so bad we were led to believe Mr. Ford would
veto it. Instead he signed it. And, almost instantly, drilling
rigs all over our land started shutting down. Now, for the
first time in our history, we are importing more oil than we
produce. How many Americans will be laid off if there is
another boycott? The energy bill is a disaster that never should
have been signed.
RESPONSE -- Candidate Reagan stated we were only importing
a small percentage of our oil -- actually 35%. When he stated
it's almost three years -- in fact -- it is only two years
March, 1974 to the present. The amount of oil that we imported
during 1975 was 6.0 bm/d, and we produced 8.4 mb/d.
SOURCE: FEA, Bruce Pasternak and Jim Peterson
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
-11-
SOURCE: CHRIS RATHKOPH/FRANK ZARB
FEA -- Administrator's Office
Page 6
Paragraph 2
Reagan Statement:
Today, it's almost three years later and "Project In-
dependence" has become "Project Dependence." Congress
has adopted an energy bill SO bad we were led to believe
Mr. Ford would veto it. Instead he signed it.
RESPONSE:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act passed by
the Congress in December signaled an end to the year long
debate between the Congress and the Administration on oil
pricing policy and opens the way to an orderly phasing out
of controls on domestic oil over forty months, thereby
stimulating our own oil production. Over time, this legis-
lation, by removing controls, should give industry sufficient
incentive to explore, develop and produce new fields in
the
FORD
outer continental shelf, Alaska, and potential new reserves
LIBRARY
in the lower forty-eight states. Removal of these controls
at the end of forty months should increase domestic pro-
duction by more than one million barrels per day by 1985
and reduce imports by about three million barrels per day.
More importantly, this bill enables the United States
to meet a substantial portion of the mid-term goals for
-12-
energy independence set forth over a year ago. Incor-
porated in this are authorities for a strategic storage
system, conversion of oil and gas-fired utility and in-
dustrial plants to coal, energy efficiency labeling,
emergency authorities for use in the event of another
embargo, and the authority we need to fulfill our inter-
national agreements with other oil consuming nations.
These provisions will directly reduce the nation's de-
pendency on foreign oil by almost two million barrels per
day by 1985. The strategic storage system and the stand-by
authority will enable the United States to withstand a
future embargo of about four million barrels per day.
FORD is LIBRARY OFRALD
-13-
Page 7 - paragraph 3
Page 9 - paragraph 2
California was faced with insolvency and on the verge of
bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well, this came very
hard for me because I felt taxes were already too great a
burden. I told the people the increase, in my mind, was
temporary and that, as soon as we could, we'd return their
money to them.
This was government-by-the-people proving that it works when
the people work at it. When we ended our eight years, we
turned over to the incoming administration a balance budget.
A $500 million surplus. And, virtually the same number of
employees we'd started with eight years before. Even though
the increase in population had given some departments a
two-thirds increase in work load.
RESPONSE -- The number of state employees increased from
113, 779 in 1967 to 127, 929 in 1975. Under Reagan, there were
three huge tax increases totalling more than $2 billion in 1967.
In 1967, there was an increase of $967 million, the largest state
tax hike in the nation's history. Of this, $2280 million went
for one-time deficit payment and state property tax relief. In
1971, the increase was $488 million with $150 million for property
tax relief. In 1972, an increase of $682 million with $650 million for
property tax relief. Much of this property tax relief was short
term, but the overall tax increases were permanent.
State personal income tax revenues went from $500 million
is
FORD
to $2.5 billion, a 500% increase. Taxable bracket levies were
increased from 7% to 11%. The size of the brackets was
GERALD
reduced so that taxpayers reached the highest bracket more
quickly and personal exemptions were reduced. Finally, after
he adamantly denied that he would ever do so, the Governor
agreed to a system of withholding state income taxes.
Bank and corporation taxes went up 100%. The state sales
tax rose from 4% to 6%: The tax on cigarettes went up 7
cents a pack and the liquor tax rose 50 cents per gallon.
Inheritance tax rates were increased and collections more than
doubled.
Page 7 - paragraph 3
-14-
Page 9 - paragraph 2
continued
Under Reagan, the average tax rate for each $100 of assessed
valuation rose from $8.84 to $11.15. Under predecessor Pat
Brown, the increase was much less in dollars and, percentage - -
from $6.96 to $8.84, and in the six years of Republican
Knight's administration, it was still less -- from $5.94 to
$6.96. One reason for the big increase under Reagan -- from
$3.7 billion to $8.3 billion - - is that the state paid a statutory
formulated percentage of the school costs -- one of the biggest
reasons for local property taxes.
Despite periodic efforts to provide relief there has been a
substantial increase in the burden carried by most property owners.
Inflation and high assessments have helped wipe out any savings.
Only $855 million of the record $10.2 billion budget in Reagan's
final year was for tax relief for homeowners and renters.
SOURCE: Peter Kaye, PFC
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
-15-
Page 10 - paragraph 4
And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by more
than 300,000 people. Saved the taxpayers $2 billion.
RESPONSE -- Substitute for 300,000 and $2 billion the following:
1. Drop by 20,000 persons in rolls due to correction in
accounting procedures in largest county, Los Angeles.
2. Migratory rate of unemployed into California declined
from 233, 000 in 1967 to 44,000 in 1971.
3. 110,000 decline in rolls attributed to Reagan even
though his welfare had not gone into effect when
decline occurred.
4. Rolls for welfare families increased in 8 years of
Reagan's Governorship from 729,357 to 1,384,400
and the cost went from $32.3 million to $104.4 million.
SOURCE: Peter Kaye, PFC
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
-16-
Page 11 - top sentence
And, increased the grants to the truly deserving needy by an
average of 43%. We also carried out a successful experiment
whichI believe is an answer to much of the welfare problem in
the nation. We put able-bodied welfare recipients to work at
useful community projects in return for their welfare grants.
RESPONSE -- The program never touched more than 6/10th
of 1% of welfare recipients. Also, the program designed to
have 59,000 participants in 1st year in 35 counties, but program
managed 1,100 participants in 10 counties in mostly rural farm
areas.
SOURCE: Peter Kaye, PFC
LIBRATY GERALD ? FORD
-17-
Page 12 - paragraph 4
Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file
billions of reports every year required of them by 'Washington.
It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year and it
adds $50 billion a year to the cost of doing business.
Washington has been loud in its promise to do something about
this blizzard of paperwork. And they made good. Last year
they increased it by 20%.
RESPONSE -- The figures 10 billion and 50 billion are
guestimates. No one has counted the number of pages in all
of these reports. Moreover, if it is liberally estimated that
it costs $100 an hour to work on these forms, the total
cost to business would be $4.3 billion.
Between December, 1974 and December, 1975, the number of
reports from the Executive branch agencies excluding IRS,
banking and regulatory agencies declined by 5%. However, the
number of hours of burden associated with filling out the reports
increased by 8%. One reason for that increase is reports
required by the Congress, i.e., the Real Estate Settlements Act
which requires information to be filed when house was sold added
4 million manhours of reporting burden last year. In the
absence of that report the reporting burden would have declined.
There are other reports mandated by Congress which have added
to this burden.
Dr. Duncan can see no reason for the increase of 20% that
candidate Reagan was talking about. It is also virtually
impossible to estimate cost to business in completing the forms
FORD
SOURCE: Dr. Duncan, OMB, and Roy Lawry of OMB
BERALD
LIBRARY
-18-
SOURCE: BUD MCFARLAND, NSC
Page 13
Paragraph 3
Reagan Statement:
We gave just enough support to one side in Angola to
encourage it to fight and die but too little to give it a chance of
winning.
Response:
The U.S. objective in supporting the FNLA/UNITA forces
in Angola was to assist them, and through them all of black Africa,
to defend against Soviet and Cuban intervention. Despite massive
Soviet aid and the presenve of Cuban troops, we were on the road to
success in Angola until December 19 when Congress adopted the
Tunney Amendment cutting off further U.S. aid to the FNLA and UNITA.
Page 13
FORD is OFRALD LIBRARY
Paragraph 3
Reagan Statement:
Mr. Ford's new Ambassador to the United Nations attacks
our long time ally Israel.
Response:
Governor Scranton not only did not attack Israel, his
veto blocked an unbalanced Security Council Resolution critical of
-19-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
Israel - - a resolution that every other member of the Security
Council voted for. In his March 23 speech in the United Nations
Security Council Gov. Scranton was simply reiterating long-standing
U. S. policy -- a policy articulated by every Administration since
1967 -- on Israel's obligations as an occupying power under international
law with regard to the territories under its occupation.
Page 13
Paragraph 3
Reagan Statement:
In Asia our new relationship with mainland China can have
practical benefits with both sides. But that doesn't mean it should
include yielding to demands by them as the Administration has, to
reduce our military presence on Taiwan where we have a long-time
friend and ally, the Republic of China.
as
Response:
FORD
READ
We have not reduced our forces on Taiwan as a result of
Peking's demands. Instead, our reductions stem from our own
assessment of U.S. political and security interests. We have drawn
our forces down because the Vietnam conflict has ended and because
the lessening of tension in the area brought about by our new relation-
ship with the People's Republic of China has made it possible.
-20-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
Page 13-14
Paragraph 3
Reagan Statement:
And, it is also revealed now that we seek to establish
friendly relations with Hanoi. To make it more palatable, we are
told this might help us learn the fate of the men still listed as
Missing in Action.
Response:
The Congress, reflecting the views of the American people
and the Administration, has called for an accounting of our Missing in
Action and the return of the bodies of dead servicemen still held by
Hanoi. The Administration, in keeping with this Congressional mandate,
has offered to discuss with Hanoi the significant outstanding issues
between us. We have not said we "seek to establish friendly relations
with Hanoi. 11 Such an assertion is totally false.
Page 14
Paragraph 2
FORG is DERALD LIOKARY
Reagan Statement:
In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger have taken
us from hinting at invasion of Cuba to laughing it off a ridiculous idea.
Except, that it was their ridiculous idea. No one else suggested it.
Once again -- what is their policy? During this last year, they carried
-21-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
on a campaign to befriend Castro. They persuaded the Organization
of American States to lift its trade embargo, lifted some U.S. trade
restrictions, they engaged in culture exchanges. And then on the eve
of the Florida primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called
Castro an outlaw and said he'd never recognize him. But he hasn't
asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose a single sanction, nor
has he taken any action himself. Meanwhile, Castro continues to export
revolution to Puerto Rico, to Angola, and who knows where else?
Response:
We did not persuade the OAS to lift the sanctions against
Cuba. At Quito in the fall of 1974 we did not support a motion in the
OAS to do so. At San Jose last summer the U.S. voted in favor of an
OAS resolution which left to each country freedom of action with regard
to the sanctions. We did so because a majority of the OAS members
had already unilaterally lifted their sanctions against Cuba, and because
the resolution was supported by a majority of the organization members.
Since that resolution passed, no additional Latin American country GERALE FORD
established relations with Cuba.
LIBRARY
The U.S. did not lift its own sanctions against Cuba, did not
enter into any agreements with Cuba, and did not trade with Cuba. We
did not engage in cultural exchanges. We validated some passports
for U.S. Congressmen and their staffs, for some scholars and for
-22-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
some religious leaders to visit Cuba. We issued a few select visas
to Cubans to visit the U.S. These minimal steps were taken to test
whether there was a mutual interest in ending the hostile nature of our
relations. This policy waś consistent with the traditional American
interest in supporting the free flow of ideas and people. We have,
since the Cuban adventure in Angola, concluded that the Cubans are
not interested in changing their ways. We have resumed our highly
restrictive policies toward Cuban travel. With regard to Cuban efforts
to interfere in Puerto Rican affairs, we have made it emphatically clear
in the UN and bilaterally to the Cubans and other nations that the U.S.
will not tolerate any interference in its internal affairs.
Page 15
R.
Paragraph 2
FORD
Reagan Statement:
GERALD
LIBRARA
The Canal Zone is not a colonial possession. It is not a
long-term lease. It is sovereign U.S. territory every bit the same as
Alaska and all the states that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase.
We should end those negotiations (on the Panama Canal) and tell the
General: We bought it, we paid for it, we built it and we intend to keep
it.
-23-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
Response:
Negotiations between the United States and Panama on the
Canal have been pursued by three successive American Presidents.
The purpose of these negotiations is to protect our national security,
not diminish it.
Finally, Governor Reagan's view that the Canal Zone is
"sovereign U.S. territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the
states that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase" is incorrect.
Legal Scholars have been clear on this for three-quarters of a century.
Unlike children born in the United States, for example, children born
in the Canal Zone are not automatically citizens of the United States.
Page 16
Paragraph 2
FORDO is LIBRARY
Reagan Statement:
Why did the President travel halfway 'round the world to
sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our stamp of approval on Russia's
enslavement of the captive nations?
We gave away the freedom of millions of people -- freedom
that was not ours to give.
Response:
The President did not go to Helsinki to put the stamp of
approval on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. On the contrary,
-24-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
he went to Helsinki along with the Chiefs of State or heads of
government of all our Western allies and, among others, a Papal
Representative, to sign a document which contains Soviet commit-
ments to greater respect for human rights, self determination of
peoples, and expanded exchanges and communication throughout
Europe. Basket three of the Act calls for a freer flow of people
and ideas among all the European nations.
The Helsinki Act, for the first time, specifically provides
for the possibility of peaceful change of borders when that would
correspond to the wishes of the peoples concerned. With regard to
the particular case of the Baltic States, President Ford stated
clearly on July 25 that "the United States has never recognized that
Soviet incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and is not doing
so now. Our official policy of non-recognition is not affected by the
results of the European Security Conference. 11 in fact, the Helsinki
document itslef states that no occupation or acquisition of territory by
force will be recognized as legal.
Page 16
FORD is LIBRARY 01RALO
Paragraph 3
Reagan Statement:
Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own freedom.
Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he thinks of the U.S. as Athens
-25-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
and the Soviet Union as Sparta. "The day of the U.S. is past and
today is the day of the Soviet Union. 11 And he added, My job
as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-
best position available. 11
Response:
Governor Reagan's so-called quotes from Secretary Kissinger
are a total and irresponsible fabrication. He has never said what the
Governor attributes to him, or anything like it. In fact, at a March 23,
1976 press conference in Dallas Secretary Kissinger said: "I do not
believe that the United States will be defeated. I do not believe that the
United States is on the decline. I do not believe that the United States
must get the best deal it can.
I believe that the United States is essential to preserve the
security of the free world and for any progress in the world that exists.
In a period of great national difficulty, of the Viet-Nam war,
of Watergate, of endless investigations, we have tried to preserve the
role of the United States as that major factor. And I believe that to
explain to the American people that the policy is complex, that our
involvement is permanent, and that our problems are nevertheless
soluble, is a sign of optimism and of confidence in the American people,
rather than the opposite. 11
GERALD
-26-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
Page 17
Paragraph 2
Reag an Statement:
Now we learn that another high official of the State
Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger refers to as
his "Kissinger", has expressed the belief that, in effect, the captive
nations should give up any claim of national sovereignty and simply
become a part of the Soviet Union. He says, 'Their desire to break
out of the Soviet straightjacket' threatens us with World War III.
In other words, slaves should accept their fate. 11
Response:
It is wholly inaccurate, and a gross distortion of fact,
to ascribe such views to Mr. Sonnenfeldt or to this Administration.
Neither he nor anyone else in the Administration has ever expressed
any such belief. The Administration view on this issue was expressed
by Secretary Kissinger before the House International Relations
Committee on March 29 as follows:
"As far as the U.S. is concerned, we do not
accept a sphere of influence of any country, anywhere,
and emphatically we reject a Soviet sphere of influence FORD
in Eastern Europe.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-27-
SOURCE: Bud McFarland, NSC
"Two Presidents have visited in Eastern
Europe; there have been two visits to Poland and
Romania and Yugoslavia, by Presidents. I have made
repeated visits to Eastern Europe, on every trip to
symbolize and to make clear to these countries that we
are interested in working with them and that we do not
accept or act upon the exclusive dominance of any one
country in that area.
"At the same time, we do not want to give
encouragement to an uprising that might lead to enormous
suffering. But in terms of the basic position of the
United States, we do not accept the dominance of any one
country anywhere.
"Yugoslavia was mentioned, for example. We
would emphatically consider it a very grave matter if out-
side forces were to attempt to intervene in the domestic
affairs of Yugoslavia. We welcome Eastern European
countries developing more in accordance with their national
traditions, and we will cooperate with them. This is the
policy of the United States, and there is no Sonnenfeldt
is
FORD
doctrine. 11
GERALD
AMOUNT
-28-
SOURCE: BUD McFARLANE, NSC
Page 16
Paragraph 1
Reagan Statement:
The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one
and in reserves four-to-one. They out-spend us on weapons
by 50%. Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface ships and
submarines two-to-one. We are outgunned in artillery
three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours four-to-one.
Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger, more powerful
and more numerous than ours. The evidence mounts that we
are Number Two in a world where it is dangerous, if not fatal,
to be second best.
RESPONSE:
Our nation is not "in danger," but it is damaging
to the interests of this country when a politician declares
to our adversaries and our friends abroad -- completely
falsely --- that we are in second place. Such statements
are both irresponsible and dangerous. They alarm our people
and confuse our allies.
-- It is meaningless to say the Soviet Army may
now be twice the size of the US Army! Considering that
about half of the Soviet Army is deployed on the Chinese
border, that isn't all that surprising. I suppose that ifooRD
GERAIN
LIBRARY
-29-
we had to defend our borders and thus doubled our forces
to do it, Mr. Reagan would be happier. Simplistic rhetoric
such as this reflects a disturbingly shallow grasp of what
true balance is all about.
-- For example, Mr. Reagan conveniently neglects to
point out that our strategic forces are superior to Soviet
forces. Our missiles are far more accurate and survivable.
We have over twice as many missile warheads and, after all,
it is the warheads which actually reach the target. Our lead
in this area has been increasing over the past several years.
Mr. Reagan likewise ignores our vast superiority in strategic
bombers.
In short, if Mr. Reagan wants to alarm with use of
numbers he can; but it only portrays his superficial under-
standing of these matters and by inflaming opinion -- at home
and abroad - falsely, does not serve the public interest.
---- Let's look at actions as opposed to words. President
Ford is the one who reversed the trend of shrinking defense
budgets. His last two defense budgets are the highest peace-
time budgets in the nation's history. Mr. Reagan should speak
to the Democratic Congress about its $32 billion cuts in
defense over the past six years.
Let's examine the question of America's strength.
First, we must dispose of the numbers game. National
defense is not bookkeeping.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
-30-
If it were, we could point out that our missile
warheads have tripled, that we lead the Soviet Union by more
than two to one. We would point out that we have over a
three to one lead in strategic bombers. We could point out
that our missiles are twice as accurate as the Soviet Union's.
We would point out that the Soviet Army -- which the
Governor says is twice the size of ours -- has the problem
of guarding a long border with China with a million men, and
that our borders with Mexico and Canada are peaceful.
But it is a confusing disservice to the American
people to dazzle them with numbers. If we were isolated in
a fortress America, then it might be important to compare
numbers. But we stand at the head of a great Alliance system
in Europe and are firmly tied to the strongest economic power
in Asia. We have friendly relations with most of the nations
of the world. These are the valuable accomplishments of all
of our previous Administrations since President Truman. We
cannot insult our friends and allies by pretending they do
not count.
Second, we cannot ignore that whatever might be the
balance of power today, it is not fixed. And in our military
programs, our defense budgets, we are indeed looking to the
future, to guarantee that this nation will never be in danger.
Consider our defense programs.
LIBRARY BERALD ? FORD
-31-
-- We are proceeding with the development and pro-
duction of the world's most modern strategic bomber, the B-1.
-- We are proceeding with the development and pro-
duction of the world's most modern and lethal missile launch-
ing submarine, the Trident.
- We are developing a new large ICBM.
--We are producing three new fighters.
--We are. planning the production of 15 new fighting
ships, including two carriers.
It is true that you can cite a figure that the Soviets
have more ships, but it is a trick to equate Soviet destroyers
with our modern nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
Unfortunately, the money we have put into defense
over the past several years has been inadequate. But the
responsibility for slashing $40 billion dollars must rest
with the Congress.
Fortunately, under the prodding of President Ford
the Congress has begun to awaken to the risks of constantly
reducing our defense spending.
When the budget he proposed this year passes, then
the trend will have been reversed.
So, we are in fact number one, and unless we falter,
or give way to panic, we will remain number one.
FORD is DERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
BURTON G. MALKIEL
SUBJECT:
Governor Reagan's March 31 Address
Governor Reagan's speech of March 31 is almost pure demagog-
ery. His facts are often wrong and his characterization of
present policies is grossly misleading. The major implica-
tion of the speech is that we are excessively stimulating
the economy for political purposes, just as was ostensibly
done in 1972, and the result will be more inflation and an
economic collapse. The analogy is completely unfair for the
following reasons:
(1) Just the opposite is true. Our policies are moderate,
balanced and geared to producing a solid and sustainable re-
covery and a reduction of inflation.
(a) The President's vetoes during 1975 and 1976
have saved the taxpayers $13 billion.
(b) Monetary expansion is now far more restrained
than in 1972. Over the last six months --- that
is, from September 1975 to March 1976 - the
broadly defined money supply (M₂) has grown at
an 8.6 percent annual rate. In the comparable
September 1971 - March 1972 period, it grew at
a 14.6 percent rate. It should also be pointed
out that a 14.6 percent rate is well above the
10-1/2 percent upper limit of the Federal Reserve's
present target range for the growth rate of the
broadly defined money supply.
(2) It is true that we are running a larger deficit now
than in 1972. However, the following points should be made:
(a) The unemployment rate is considerably higher now
and therefore so are the payments under automa ,GORD
stabilizing programs such as unemployment compen-
sation. Does Governor Reagan suggest we should
reduce or eliminate these programs?
AMOUNT
-2-
(b) Capacity utilization was 70.8 percent in the
4th quarter of 1975 versus 78.6 percent during
1972. There is far more room for expansionary
policies to increase real output without simply
generating inflation.
(c) The inflation of 1973 and 1974 was not wholly the
result of government deficits. It was also in-
fluenced by monetary policy and by unusual shocks
such as the quintupling of international oil
prices and a world wide food shortage.
The Reagan speech does not acknoweldge the considerable progress
made by the Administration in reducing inflation. Wholesale
prices increased 12.5 percent from March 1974 to March 1975.
In the twelve months through March 1976 the wholesale price
index increased only 5-1/2 percent. Inflation in the CPI was
also at double digit rates during the 12 months ending March
1975. Over the last 12 months the CPI has increased at an
annual rate of just over 6 percent.
The President's program of matching expenditure cuts with tax
relief is ridiculed by Reagan. "If there was $28 billion in
the new budget that could be cut, what was it doing there in
the first place?" The whole point is that the President did
not put the $28 billion in his budget. The $28 billion was
measured from a projected current service budget, i.e. a budget
assuming the continuance of programs Congress already legisla-
ted.
Indeed the President's program is based upon the very premises
which Governor Reagan would cite for himself. The President
has stated repeatedly that an enduring solution to the unemploy-
ment program must go hand in hand with a reduction in inflation.
To argue otherwise is dishonest. The President has proposed a
radical reordering of budget priorities SO as to improve the
operation of many federal programs and to slow the rapid rise
in federal outlays for the transfer and grant programs. These
proposals, if adopted, would enable the budget to swing back
into surplus as the recovery carries the economy back toward
full employment.
These proposals will also enable a reversal in the long decline
in real military outlays, and some modest further reductions
in taxes. The President's proposals will leave the incomes
of the American people for individuals themselves to spend
FORD
GERAL
-3-
rather than transferring it to the Federal Government. These
proposals, if adopted, will enable the transition in the
Federal budget which was not made in 1972-73. The President
has exercised his veto power 46 times in the past year to
insure that the transition is made.
To advocate an immediate balanced budget would be both irre-
sponsible and dishonest. Part of the deficit is due to the
recession and the reduced level of Federal revenues. Part
of the deficit is due to the explosion of Federal outlays for
transfers and grants. It took a decade and more to create
these problems. They cannot be solved overnight without im-
posing intolerable costs upon the American people. They can-
not be solved without a solid sustainable recovery, an endur-
ing reduction in inflation and the reordering of budget prior-
ities which the President has proposed.
An immediate balance in the federal deficit would require
either a large tax increase or a large expenditure reduction.
Such measures would shock the recovery and probably bring it
to a halt. The only way to achieve our goals is to follow a
prudent and disciplined budget policy, or reorder our budget
priorities, to curb the rapid rise in Federal outlays. Other-
wise, instead of overshooting the mark as we did in 1972-1973,
we will undershoot it --- and the American people will again
pay the dual price of recession and inflation.
There were also a number of factual errors in Governor Rea-
gan's speech. Among them are:
(1) Governor Reagan stated the unemployment rate was over
10 percent at some point during the recession. In
fact, it peaked at 8.9 percent in May 1975.
(2) Governor Reagan stated the FY 1976 budget deficit will
be over $80 billion. I n fact, our best estimate is
$76 billion.
(3) Governor Reagan stated that the maximum social secur-
ity benefit "today buys 80 fewer loaves of bread than
it did when the maximum payment was only $85 a month."
This would imply the average benefit in terms of dol-
lars of constant purchasing power has declined sub-
stantially. In fact, the average benefit in terms. of.
constant purchasing power has almost triplied since
1940 when the maximum benefit was $85.
(4) Governor Reagan indicated that since the energy BIN
was enacted "almost instantly, drilling rigs all over
our land started shutting down." In fact, there were
- -4-
1660 drilling rigs operating in 1975, the highest
number in a decade. Through mid March 1976 there were
as many rigs operating as were operating in the com-
parable period during 1975.
FORD & GERALD Library
Campaign76
Media Communications, Inc.
H
1828 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-8950
April 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
ROGERS MORTON
FROM:
BRUCE WAGNER
SUBJECT:
REAGAN IN TEXAS
The attached note indicates a very heavy Reagan
television schedule for two weeks in Texas.
We're developing an estimate of the costs.
CC: Stu Spencer
Roy Hughes
Peter Dailey
Peter Kaye
Peter H. Dailey, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer; Bruce S. Wagner, Executive Vice President; Robert C. Moot, Treasurer; Robert P. Visser, Secretary
Campaign76
Media Communications, Inc.
1828 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-8950
April 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
BRUCE WAGNER
FROM:
DAWN SIBLEY
S
SUBJECT:
REAGAN COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY IN TEXAS
We have just been informed that Reagan is buying 30 second
spot schedules in major markets in Texas to begin April 17.
It appears that he will be buying the maxium weight per week available-
approximately 350 - 400 points per week. He has requested
availabilities for 30 second, 5 minute and 1/2 hour units,
however, nothing has been ordered other than the aforementioned
30 second schedules.
These schedules are being placed by Goodwin, Dannebaum, Littman,
Wingfield, Inc., a local agency in Houston. We are informed
that additional orders will probably be placed on Thursday
or Friday.
CC: Clayt Wilhite
Peggy Pilas
Carol Karasick
Denise Considine
FORD in LIBRARY GERALD
Peter H. Dailey, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer; Bruce S. Wagner, Executive Vice President; Robert C. Moot, Treasurer; Robert P. Visser, Secretary
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROY HUGHES
FROM:
JIM CONNOR
On April 2nd I sent you a paper prepared by
the Research Office on Governor Reagan's
speech of March 31st. The material has
now been redone to include some additional
material and more accurate information
than the earlier report, and a copy is
enclosed for your information.
encl.
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
ERRORS IN CANDIDATE REAGAN'S
SPEECH OF MARCH 31,1976
REAGAN STATEMENT:
page 1, paragraph 3
"In this election season the White House in telling us
a solid economic recovery is taking place. It claims
a slight drop in unemployment. It says that prices
aren't going up as fast, but they are still going up,
and that the stock market has shown some gains. But,
in fact, things seem just about as they were back in
the 1972 election year. Remember, we were also
coming out of a recession then. Inflation has been
running at around 6%. Unemployment about 7%.
Remember, too, the upsurge and the optimism lasted
through the election year and into 1973. And then,
the roof fell in. Once again we had unemployment. Only
this time not 7%, more than 10. And inflation -- wasn't
6%, it was 12%. "
RESPONSE:
The peak of unemployment -- 8.9% -- was reached in May, 1975.
Latest unemployment figures -- March, 1976 -- show the rate was
7.5%. The employment is now at an all time high with 86.7
million at work. This exceeds the pre-recession peak of
July, 1974 and is a 2.6 million gain since March '75.
Prices are not going up as fast. Inflation in 1974 was at an annual
rate of over 12 percent. Today it is running at an annual rate of
about 6 percent.
In 1972 we were further into recovery than we are today. But
Mr. Reagan's statistical facts concerning 1973-74 are incorrect.
The peak unemployment figure was reached in May, 1975 at
8.9%. It never reached 10% as he states.
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 2
"Now, in this election year 1976, we're told we're
coming out of this recession. Just because inflation
and unemployment rates have fallen to what they were
at the worst of the previous recession. If history
repeats itself will we be talking recovery four years
from now merely because we've reduced inflation from
25% to 12%. "
RESPONSE:
All of the figures -- retail sales, GNP, durable goods, housing,
personal income, etc. clearly show we are moving out of the
recession -- the Administration's statements are not based merely
on improved unemployment and cost-of-living statistics as Mr.
Reagan implies.
LIBRAST GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 3
"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic
recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate
than we ever have before. It took this nation 166
years -- until the middle of World War II -- to
finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took
this administration just the last 12 months to add
$95 billion to the debt. And this administration
has run up almost one-fourth of our total national
debt in just these short nineteen months."
RESPONSE
The national debt reached $72 billion in 1942. The current
estimated deficit for FY 1976 is $76.9 billion. Gross federal
debt for FY 1976 is estimated at $634 billion. Thus the
administration's share of the national debt is 15.6%, not 25%.
FORD in LIBRARY 876879
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 4
"Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment.
And we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery
until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting
the disease. There's only one cause for inflation --
government spending more than government takes in.
The cure is a balanced budget. Ah, but they tell us,
80% of the budget is uncontrollable. It's fixed by laws
passed by Congress."
RESPONSE:
The President has offered specific plans for a balanced budget.
But a large part of the cause of the current recession is the
result of past fiscal policies, rapid increases in federal expendi-
tures. There is no quick remedy for problems created a decade
ago. A rapid return to a balanced budget, as Mr. Reagan calls
for, would provide fuel for inflation, but at the same time, it
would mean a long delay in recovery and much longer period of
high unemployment.
The budget for FY 1977 estimates that 77.1% of the budget is
uncontrollable.
FORDO DERALD a LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
page three, last two sentences of top paragraph
"But laws passed by Congress can be repealed by
Congress. And, if Congress is unwilling to do this,
then isn't it time we elect a Congress that will?"
RESPONSE:
The open-ended or uncontrollable programs call for outlays of
$383.1 billion in FY 1977. $236.8 billion is allocated to payments
for individuals. Does Mr. Reagan want to repeal the following:
Social Security and Railroad Retirement -- $108.0 billion
Federal Employees Retirement Benefits -- $22.9 billion
Veterans Benefits -- $16.3 billion
Medicare and Medicaid -- $38.4 billion
Public Assistance Programs -- $26.0 billion
FORD is LIBRARY 67V83D
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 3, paragraph 2
"Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he
would end inflation. Indeed, he declared war on
inflation. And, we all donned those WIN buttons to
"Whip Inflation Now. 11 Unfortunately, the war --
if it ever really started -- was soon over. Mr.
Ford, without WIN button, appeared on TV, and
promised he absolutely would not allow the Federal
deficit to exceed $60 billion (which incidentally was
$5 billion more than the biggest previous deficit
we'd ever had). Later he told us it might be as
much as $70 billion. Now we learn it's $80 billion
or more. 11
RESPONSE:
The President did draw a line at a deficit of $60 billion on March 29,
1975 in a televised address. The largest single yearly deficit occur-
red in 1943 -- $54.8 billion. The difference between $54.8 billion
and $60 billion is, of course, $5.2 billion. The current estimated
deficit for FY 76 is not $80 billion or more, it is $76.9 billion.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 3, paragraph 3
"Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion
tax cut, to be matched by a $28 billion cut in the
proposed spending -- not in the present spending, but
in the proposed spending in the new budget. Well, my
question then and my question now is, if there was
$28 billion in the new budget that could be cut, what
was it doing there in the first place?"
RESPONSE
The proposed $28 billion cut is a cut in the anticipated $56
billion year-to-year increase in Federal spending that would
take place unless strong measures are taken. The President
has proposed the reform measures needed to accomplish this
objective; cutting in half the growth rate of federal spending
and making it possible to give the American people further tax
cuts.
FORD is LIBRARY DERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 4, paragraph 1
"It would have been nice if they'd thought of some
arrangement like that for the rest of us. They could,
for example, correct a great unfairness that now
exists in our tax system. Today, when you get a
cost-of-living pay raise -- one that just keeps you
even with purchasing power -- it often moves you
up into a higher tax bracket. This means you pay
a higher percentage in tax but you reduce your pur-
chasing power. Last year, because of this inequity,
the government took in $7 billion in undeserved pro-
fit in the income tax alone, and this year they'll
do even better. Now isn't it time that Congress
looked after your welfare as well as its own?"
RESPONSE:
Inflation does indeed increase taxes. The President has recognized
this and has been successful in reducing the inflation rate by 50%.
He has also proposed curbing the rise in expenditures and matched
this with a comparable tax cut.
FORD is LIBRARY OFRALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 5, paragraph 3
"Ending inflation is the only long range and lasting
answer to the problem of unemployment. The Wash-
ington Establishment is not the answer. It's the
problem. Its tax policies, its harassing regulations,
its confiscation of investment capital to pay for its
deficits keeps business and industry from expanding
to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all
need. "
RESPONSE:
The President's economic policies are anti-inflationary. He has
vetoed 46 bills and saved the taxpayers $13 billion. (Source: OMB)
Monetary expansion is now far more restrained than in 1972. Over
the last six months, the broadly defined money supply has grown
at an 8.6% annual rate. In the comparable September 1971-
March 1972 period, it grew at a 14.6% rate. It should be noted
that a 14.6% rate is well above the 10.5% upper limit of the
Federal Reserve's present target range.
Wholesale prices increased 12.5% from March 1974-March 1975,
while the price index went up only 5.5% between March 1975 and
March 1976.
Employment reached an all-time high of 86.5 million in February.
New orders for manufactured goods were up 2.4 percent in
February.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD r
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 6, paragraph 2
"At the time we were only importing a small percentage
of our oil. Yet, the Arab boycott caused half a million
Americans to lose their jobs when plants closed down for
lack of fuel. Today, it's almost three years later and
"Project Independence" has become "Project Dependence. "
Congress has adopted an energy bill so bad we were led
to believe Mr. Ford would veto it. Instead he signed it.
And, almost instantly, drilling rigs all over our land
started shutting down. Now, for the first time in our
history, we are importing more oil than we produce. How
many Americans will be laid off if there is another
boycott? The energy bill is a disaster that never should
have been signed."
RESPONSE:
Candidate Reagan stated we were only importing a small percentage
of our oil when the Arab oil embargo occurred in 1974. In fact,
we were already importing 35% of our petroleum needs. The
amount of oil that we imported during 1975 was 6.0 mb/d, and
we produced 8. 4mb/d.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act passed by the Congress
in December ended a year-long debate between the Congress
and the Administration on oil pricing policy and opened the way to
an orderly phasing out of controls on domestic oil over forty
months, thereby stimulating our own oil production. By removing
controls, this bill should give industry sufficient incentive over
a period of time to explore, develop and produce new fields in
the outer continental shelf, Alaska, and potential new reserves
in the lower forty-eight states. Removal of these controls at
the end of forty months should increase domestic production by
more than one million barrels per day by 1985 and reduce imports
by about three million barrels per day.
The average number of active rotary drilling rigs in March 1976
FORD
was approximately 270 less than in December 1975 which was the
highest level since 1962. Except for the two years after the
embargo, this First Quarter downturn reflects a normal seasonal
LISEARY
trend. Further, preliminary estimates indicate that 1976 invest-
ments by the petroleum industry in production and development
activities will exceed those of 1975.
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 6, paragraph 2
RESPONSE: (continued)
More importantly, this bill enables the United States to meet
a substantial portion of the mid-term goals for energy independence
set forth over a year ago. Incorporated in this are authorities
for a strategic storage system, conversion of oil and gas-fired
utility and industrial plants to coal, energy efficiency labeling,
emergency authorities for use in the event of another embargo,
and the authority we need to fulfill our international agreements
with other oil consuming nations. These provisions will directly
reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil by almost two
million barrels per day by 1985. In addition, the strategic
storage system and the stand-by authorities will enable the United
States to withstand a future embargo of about four million barrels
per day.
Oil rigs didn't begin shutting down. There were 1660 drilling
rigs operating in 1975, the highest number in a decade. Through
mid-March 1976, there were as many rigs operating as were
operating in the comparable period during '75.
FORD is LIBRARY 03RALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 7, paragraph 2
"When I became Governor, I inherited a state govern-
ment that was in almost the same situation as New
York City. The state payroll had been growing for
a dozen years at a rate of from 5 to 7,000 new
employees each year. State government was spend-
ing from a million to a million and a half dollars
more each day than it was taking in. The State's
great water project was unfinished and underfunded
by a half a billion dollars. My predecessor had
spent the entire year's budget for Medicaid in the
first six months of the fiscal year. And, we learned
that the teachers' retirement fund was unfunded. A
four billion dollar liability hanging over every prop-
erty owner in the state. I didn't know whether I'd
been elected Governor or appointed receiver."
RESPONSE:
The bonded indebtedness of California at $4 billion does not compare
to New York City's current problem.
The State payroll increased from 113,779 in 1967 to 127, 929 in 1973.
The state budget more than doubled under Ronald Reagan. From
$4.6 billion in 1967 to $10.2 billion in 1973.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 7, paragraph 3
Page 9, paragraph 2
"California was faced with insolvency and on the verge
of bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well,
this came very hard for me because I felt taxes
were already too great a burden. I told the people
the increase, in my mind, was temporary and that,
as soon as we could, we'd return their money to
them.
"This was government-by-the-people proving that it
works when the people work at it. When we ended
our eight years, we turned over to the incoming
administration a balanced budget. A $500 million
surplus. And, virtually the same number of employees
we'd started with eight years before. Even though the
increase in population had given some departments a
two-thirds increase in work load.'
RESPONSE:
The number of state employees increased from 113, 779 in 1967
to 127, 929 in 1975. Under Reagan, there were three huge tax
increases totalling more than $2 billion.
In 1967, there was an increase of $967 million, the largest state
tax hike in the nation's history. Of this, $280 million went for
one-time deficit payment and state property tax relief. In 1971,
the increase was $488 million with $150 million for property tax
relief. In 1972, an increase of $682 million with $650 million for
property tax relief. Much of this property tax relief was short
term, but the overall tax increases were permanent.
State personal income tax revenues went from $500 million to
$2.5 billion, a 500% increase. Taxable bracket levies were in FORD
creased from 7% to 11%. The size of the brackets was reduced
so that taxpayers reached the highest bracket morequickly and 70038
LIBRARY
Page 7, paragraph 3 and Page 9, paragraph 2 (continued)
personal exemptions were reduced. Finally, after he adamantly
denied that he would ever do so, the Governor agreed to a system
of withholding state income taxes.
Bank and corporation taxes went up 100%. The state sales tax
rose from 4% to 6%. The tax on cigarettes went up 7 cents a
pack and the liquor tax rose 50 cents per gallon. Inheritance
tax rates were increased and collections more than doubled.
Under Reagan, the average tax rate for each $100 of assessed
valuation rose from $8.84 to $11.15. Under predecessor Pat
Brown, the increase was much less in dollars and percentage --
from $6.96 to $8.84, and in the six years of Republican Knight's
administration, it was still less -- from $5.94 to $6.96. One
reason for the big increase under Reagan -- from $3.7 billion to
$8.3 billion -- is that the state paid a steadily smaller per-
centage of the school costs -- one of the biggest reasons for
local property taxes.
Despite periodic efforts to provide relief, there has been a sub-
stantial increase in the burden carried by most property owners.
Inflation and high assessments have helped wipe out any savings.
Only $855 million of the record $10.2 billion budget in Reagan's
final year was for tax relief for homeowners and renters.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 10, paragraph 4
"And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by
more than 300,000 people. Saved the taxpayers $2
billion."
RESPONSE:
Substitute for 300,000 and $2 billion the following:
1. Drop by 20,000 persons in rolls due to correction in
accounting procedures in largest county, Los Angeles.
2. Migratory rate of unemployed into California declined
from 233,000 in 1967 to 44,000 in 1971.
3. 110,000 decline in rolls attributed to Reagan even
though his welfare program had not gone into effect
when decline occurred.
4. Rolls for welfare families increased in 8 years of
Reagan's Governorship from 729,357 to 1,384,400
and their state expenditures went from $408 million
to $995 million.
FORDO is LIBRARY QERALB
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 11, top sentence
"And, increased the grants to the truly deserving needy
by an average of 43%. We also carried out a successful
experiment which I believe is an answer to much of the
welfare problem in the nation. We put able-bodied welfare
recipients to work at useful community projects in return
for their welfare grants. "
RESPONSE:
The average payment of the AFDC in 1970 was $193.00 per family;
in 1974, it was $239.00. The average payment for Old Age
Assistance in 1970 was $117.00 per person; in 1974, the average
payment was $129.00 per person.
The program never touched more than 6/10th of 1% of welfare
recipients. Also, the program was designed to have 59,000
participants in the first year in 35 counties, but it managed
only 1, 100 participants in 10 counties in mostly rural farm
areas.
In May 1974 the California Auditor General found that 262
participants found regular work as a result of the program at a
cost of $1.5 million. This amounts to $6,000 in overhead costs
plus regular welfare costs for each person placed in regular
employment.
In 1974, because the program was a complete failure, it was
repealed by the Legislature.
FORDO is LIBRARY 03RALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
page 12, paragraph 4
"Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file
billions of reports every year required of them by Washington.
It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year and
it adds $50 billion a year to the cost of doing business.
Washington has been loud in its promise to do something
about this blizzard of paperwork. And they made good.
Last year they increased it by 20%. "
RESPONSE:
The figures 10 billion and 50 billion are guestimates. No one has
counted the number of pages in all of these reports. Moreoever,
if it is liberally estimated that it costs $100 an hour to work on these
forms, the total cost to business would be $4.3 billion.
Between December, 1974 and December, 1975, the number of reports
from the Executive branch agencies excluding IRS, banking and
regulatory agencies declined by 5%. However, the number of hours
of burden associated with filling out the reports required by the
Congress, i.e., the Real Estate Settlements Act which requires
information to be filed when a house is sold added 4 million manhours
of reporting burden last year. In the absence of that report the
reporting burden would have declined. There are other reports
mandated by Congress which have added to this burden.
LIBRARY GERALD : FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 2
"We gave just enough support to one side in Angola to
encourage it to fight and die but too little to give it a
chance of winning. "
RESPONSE:
The U.S. objective in supporting the FNLA/UNITA forces in
Angola was to assist them, and through them all of black Africa,
to defend against a minority faction supported by Soviet arms and
Cuban intervention. Despite massive Soviet aid and the presence
of Cuban troops there was a good chance for a satisfactory outcome
in Angola until December 19 when Congress adopted the Tunney
Amendment cutting off further U.S. aid to the FNLA and UNITA.
FORD is 038870 LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 3
"In Asia our new relationship with mainland China can
have practical benefits with both sides. But that doesn't
mean it should include yielding to demands by them as
the Administration has, to reduce our military presence
on Taiwan where we have a long-time friend and ally,
the Republic of China. "
RESPONSE:
We have not reduced our forces on Taiwan as a result of
Peking's demands. Instead, our reductions stem from our own
assessment of U.S. political and security interests. We have
drawn our forces down because the Vietnam conflict has ended
and because the lessening of tension in the area brought about
by our new relationship with the People's Republic of China
has made it possible.
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 3
"Mr. Ford's new Ambassador to the United Nations
attacks our long time ally Israel."
RESPONSE:
Governor Scranton not only did not attack Israel, his veto blocked
an unbalanced Security Council Resolution critical of Israel - - a
resolution that every other member of the Security Council voted
for. In his March 23 speech in the United Nations Security Council
Governor Scranton was simply reiterating long-standing U.S.
policy -- a policy articulated by every Administration since 1967 --
on Israel's obligations as an occupying power under international
law with regard to the territories under its occupation.
FORD is LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13-14, paragraph 3
"And it is also revealed now that we seek to establish
friendly relations with Hanoi. To make it more palatable,
we are told this might help us learn the fate of the men
still listed as Missing in Action. 11
RESPONSE:
The Congress, reflecting the desire of the American people and
the Administration for an accounting of our Missing in Action and
the return of the bodies of dead servicemen stil held by Hanoi
has urged the Administration to make a positive gesture toward
Hanoi in an effort to obtain such information. The Administration,
in keeping with this Congressional mandate, has offered to discuss
with Hanoi the significant outstanding issues between us. We have
not said we 'seek to establish friendly relations with Hanoi.' Such
an assertion is totally false.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 14, paragraph 2
"In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger have
taken us from hinting at invasion of Cuba to laughing it
off as a ridiculous idea. Except, that it was their
ridiculous idea. No one else suggested it. Once again --
what is their policy? During this last year, they carried
on a campaign to befriend Castro. They persuaded the
Organization of American States to lift its trade embargo,
lifted some U.S. trade restrictions, they engaged in
culture exchanges. And then on the eve of the Florida
primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called
Castro an outlaw and said he'd never recognize him.
But he hasn't asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose
a single sanction, nor has he taken any action himself.
Meanwhile, Castro continues to export revolution to
Puerto Rico, to Angola, and who knows where else?
RESPONSE:
We did not persuade the OAS to lift the sanctions against Cuba.
At Quito in the fall of 1974 we did not support a motion in the
OAS to do so. At San Jose last summer the U.S. voted in favor
of an OAS resolution which left to each country freedom of action
with regard to the sanctions. We did so because a majority of
the OAS members had already unilaterally lifted their sanctions
against Cuba, and because the resolution was supported by a
majority of the organization members. Since that resolution
passed, no additional Latin American country has established
relations with Cuba.
The U.S. did not lift its own sanctions against Cuba, did not
enter into any agreements with Cuba, and did not trade with Cuba.
We did not engage in cultural exchanges. We validated some
passports for U.S. Congressmen and their staffs, for some
scholars and for some religious leaders to visit Cuba. We issued
a few select visas to Cubans to visit the U.S.. These minimal
steps were taken to test whether there was a mutual interest in
ending the hostile nature of our relations. This policy was
consistent with the traditional American interest in supporting
the free flow of ideas and people. We have, since the Cuban
adventure in Angola, concluded that the Cubans are not interested
FORD
in changing their ways. We have resumed our highly restrictiv
policies toward Cuban travel. With regard to Cuban efforts to
LIBRAR
interfere in Puerto Rican affairs, we have made it emphatically clear
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 14, paragraph 2
RESPONSE: (continued)
in the UN and bilaterally to the Cubans and other nations that
the U.S. will not tolerate any interference in its internal affairs.
LIBRARY BEHALD ? FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 15, paragraph 3
"The Canal Zone is not a colonial possession. It is not
a long-term lease. It is sovereign U.S. territory every
bit the same as Alaska and all the states that were carved
from the Louisiana Purchase. We should end those
negotiations (on the Panama Canal) and tell the General:
We bought it, we paid for it, we built it and we intend
to keep it."
RESPONSE:
Negotiations between the United States and Panama on the Canal
have been pursued by three successive American Presidents.
The purpose of these negotiations is to protect our national
security, not diminish it.
Finally, Governor Reagan's view that the Canal Zone is "sovereign
U. S. territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the states
that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase" is incorrect.
Legal Scholars have been clear on this for three-quarters of a
century. Unlike children born in the United States, for example,
children born in the Canal Zone are not automatically citizens
of the United States.
BERALD ? FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 16, paragraph 1
"The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one
and in reserves four-to-one. They out-spend us on
weapons by 50%. Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface
ships and submarines two-to-one. We are outgunned in
artillery three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours
four-to-one. Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger,
more powerful and more numerous than ours. The
evidence mounts that we are Number Two in a world
where it is dangerous, if not fatal, to be second best.
RESPONSE:
Our nation is not "in danger, 11 but it is damaging to the interests
of this country when a politician declare to our adversaries and
our friends abroad -- falsely -- that we are in second place.
Such statements are both irresponsible and dangerous in that
they alarm our people and confuse our allies.
It is meaningless to say the Soviet Army may now be twice the
size of the U.S. Army when about half of the Soviet Army is
deployed on the Chinese border. More meaningful is the Soviet
Army strength in Europe. Such rhetoric based on simplistic
factural comparisons indicate a disturbingly shallow grasp of what
true balance is all about.
Mr. Reagan conveniently neglects to point out that our strategic
forces are superior to Soviet forces. Our missiles are far.
more accurate and survivable. We have over twice as many
missile warheads and, after all, it is the warheads which actually
reach the target. Our lead in this area has been increasing over
the past several years. Mr. Reagan likewise ignores our vast
superiority in strategic bombers.
Addressing the implication that the President has tolerated a weak
defense policy, President Ford is the one who reversed the trend
of shrinking defense budgets. His last two defense budgets are
the highest peacetime budgets in the nation's history. Mr. Reagan
might better speak to the Democratic Congress about its $32
billion cuts in defense over the past six years.
Examining in more detail the question of America's strength firstru
we must dispose of the numbers game. If national defense were a
GERAL
LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 16, paragraph 1
RESPONSE: (continued)
matter of bookkeeping we could point out that:
- Our missile warheads have tripled;
- --We lead the Soviet Union by more than two-to-one;
- -We have over a three-to-one lead in strategic
bombers;
- Our missiles are twice as accurate as the Soviet
Union's.
But it is a disservice to the American people to confuse them
with any such numbers comparison. Two important facts are
ignored by Governor Reagan.
First, the United States stands at the head of a great Alliance
system in Europe, and we are firmly tied to the strongest
economic power in Asia. We have friendly relations with most
of the nations of the world. These relations are the product
of our longtime bipartisan foreign policy and the valuable
accomplishments of all of our previous Administrations since
President Truman.
Second, we cannot ignore that whatever might be the balance
of power today, it is not fixed. In our military programs and
our defense budgets, we are indeed looking to the future to
guarantee that this nation will never be in danger.
In our defense programs many new programs insure our position
of strength:
- -We are proceeding with the development and production
of the world's most modern strategic bomber, the B-1.
We are proceeding with the development and production
of the world's most modern and lethal missle launching
submarine, the Trident.
- - We are developing a new large ICBM.
TUND
GERALD
AND
r
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 16, paragraph 1
RESPONSE: (continued)
- - We are producing three new fighters.
-- We are planning the production of 15 new fighting ships.
It is true a figure that can be cited to show that the Soviets have
more ships, but it is a distortion to equate Soviet destroyers with
our modern nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
The money we have put into defense over the past several years
has been inadequate. However, the responsibility for slashing
$32 billion dollars must rest with the Congress, not the
Administration.
Fortunately, under the prodding of President Ford, the Congress
has begun to awaken to the risks of constantly reducing our
defense spending. If the budget he proposed this year passes,
the trend will have been reversed.
In fact we are number one. Unless we falter our give way to
panic we will remain number one.
a.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 16, paragraph 2
"Why did the President travel halfway 'round the world
to sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our stamp of approval
on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations?
We gave away the freedom of millions of people--
freedom that was not ours to give."
RESPONSE:
The President did not go to Helsinki to put the stamp of approval
on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. On the contrary, he
went to Helsinki along with the Chiefs of State or heads of
government of all our Western allies and, among others, a Papal
Representative, to sign a documents which contains Soviet commitments --
to greater respect for human rights, self-determination of peoples,
and expanded exchanges and communication throughout Europe.
"Basket three" of the Act calls for a freer flow of people and
ideas among all the European nations.
The Helsinki Act, for the first time, specifically provides for the
possibility of peaceful change of borders when that would correspond
to the wishes of the peoples concerned. With regard to the particular
case of the Baltic States, President Ford stated clearly on July 25
that "the United States has never recognized the Soviet incorporation
of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and is not doing so now. Our
official policy of non-recognition is not affected by the results of
the European Security Conference." In fact, the Helsinki document
itself states that no occupation or acquisition of territory by force
will be recognized as legal.
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT
Page 16, paragraph 3
"Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own
freedom. Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he
thinks of the U.S. as Athens and the Soviet Union as
Sparta. 1 The day of the U.S. is past and today is the
day of the Soviet Union. 1 And he added, 1 My job as
Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable
second-best position available. I "
RESPONSE
Governor Reagan's so-called quotes from Secretary Kissinger are
a total and irresponsible fabrication. He has never said what the
Governor attributes to him or anything like it. In fact, at a
March 23, 1976 press conference in Dallas, Secretary Kissinger
said: "I do not believe that the United States will be defeated.
I do not believe that the United States is on the decline. I do
not believe that the United States must get the best deal it can.
"I believe that the United States is essential to preserve the
security of the free world and for any progress in the world that
exists.
"In a period of great national difficulty, of the Viet-Nam war,
of Watergate, of endless investigations, we have tried to preserve
the role of the United States as that major actor. And I believe
that to explain to the American people that the policy is complex,
that our involvement is permanent, and that our problems are
nevertheless soluble, is a sign of optimism and of confidence in
the American people rather than the opposite. "
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT
Page 17, paragraph 2
"Now we learn that another high official of the State
Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger
refers to as his "Kissinger", has expressed the belief
that, in effect, the captive nations should give us any
claim of national sovereignty and simply become a part
of the Soviet Union. He says, 'Their desire to break out
of the Soviet straightjacket' threatens us with World War III.
In other words, slaves should accept their fate."
RESPONSE:
The statement is wholly inaccurate, and a gross distortion of fact,
to ascribe such views to Mr. Sonnenfeldt or to this Admistration.
Neither he nor anyone else in the Administration has expressed any
such belief. The Administration view on this issue was expressed
by Secretary Kissinger before the House International Relations
Committee on March 29 as follows:
"As far as the U.S. in concerned, we do not accept a
sphere of influence of any country, anywhere, and
emphatically we reject a Soviet sphere of influence in
Eastern Europe.
"Two Presidents have visited in Eastern Europe; there
have been two visits to Poland and Romania and Yugoslavia,
by Presidents. I have made repeated visits to Eastern Europe,
on every trip to symbolize and to make clear to these countries
that we are interested in working with them and that we do
not accept or act upon the exclusive dominance of any one
country in that area.
"At the same time, we do not want to give encouragement
to an uprising that might lead to enormous suffering. But in
terms of the basic position of the United States, we do not
accept the dominance of any one country anywhere.
"Yugoslavia was mentioned, for example. We would emphatically
consider it a very grave matter if outside forces were to attempt
to intervene in the domestic affairs of Yugoslavia. We welcome
Eastern European countries developing more in accordance with
their national traditions, and we will cooperate with them This
is the policy of the United States, and there is no Sonnenfeldt GERAL
doctrine. "
TLIBRANK
feb
April 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Rogers Morton
Stu Spencer
Bob Moot
FROM:
Bob Visser
net
RE:
Citizens for Reagan - Report of Receipts and
Expenditures for a Candidate or Committee
Supporting any Candidate (s) for Nomination or
Election to Federal Office
Attached hereto is a copy of the Detailed Summary
Schedule of Receipts and Expenditures and Allocation of
Primary Expenditures by State for a Presidential Candidate
filed by the Citizens for Reagan. The full text of the
report is in my office for review. After I have had an
opportunity to review this report, I will submit it
to Bob Moot for review.
FORD is LIBRARY BERALB
Identification Number
= Form 3.
Report for è question " which failher
mary 1276
receipts or expenditures second $1000
7 the form does not reiste any committes or candidate of the responsibility TO this any
76 6 APR 12 All: 17
and Usn. 311, Fre, or por staction report
P60000668
RONALD REAGAN
10960 WILSHIRE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES
CA 90024
March Report - - April 10, 1976
1 that 1100 struve named committes or candidate did not receive contributions or mas
Anditudes in excess of $1000 UNING the calmolar CUBET indicated. I will resume filing qua
reports in the next avener in only - gov experitures exceed $1000.
Date
sure Ranad of Commuter treaturer Nengan or Candidate
April 10, 1976
CHECK
Report of Receipts and Expenditures
FEC Form 3
January 1976
for a Candidate or Committee
Federal Election Commission
132 K Street, M.W.
Supporting any Candidate(s) for
Washington, D.C. 20463
Nomination or Election to Federal Office
Note: Committees authorized by a candidate to receive contributions and make expenditures in connection(v with more APP than 12 one election must 17 maintain separate
records with respect to each election, and file separate reports with respect to each election.
1(a) Name of Candidate or Committee (in full)
2 Identification Number
Citizens for Reagan
C 000029918
3(a) Is this a report of a candidate or Authorized
Candidate Committee?
Yes
k
(b) Address (number and street)
No
1835 K Street N. W. Suite 800
(b) If "Yes," for which election?
on
(c) City, State and ZIP code
(General, Primary, Runoff)
(Date)
Washington, D. C. 20006
4 Type of Report (Check appropriate box and complete, if applicable)
(e)
January 31 Report
(a)
Amendment
(c)
July 10 report
X
(f)
Alternative Monthly Report 4/10/76
(b)
April 10 Report
(d)
October 10 report
(g)
Termination
(h)
Tenth day report preceding
election on
in the state of
(primary, general or convention)
(date)
(i)
Thirtieth day report following
election on
in the state of
(primary, general or convention)
(date)
Committee Summary of Receipts and Expenditures
5 Covering Period: From 3/1/76
Through 3/31/76
Column A
Column B
Section A- Cash Balance Summary
This Period
Calendar Year-To-Date
6 Cash on hand January 1, 1976
$416,723.48
7 Cash on hand at beginning of reporting period
$191,691.14
8 Add total receipts (from line 19)
$1,581,115.49
$5,248,850.80
(a) Subtotal.
$1,772,806.63
$5,665,574.28
9 Subtract total expenditures (From line 24)
$1,610,601.74
$5,503,369.39
10 Cash on hand at close of reporting period
$ 162,204.89
$ 162,204.89
11 Contributed items on hand to be liquidated (attach itemized list)
$
Section B - Expenditures Subject to Limitation Summary
(Candidates and Authorized Candidate Committees Only)
12 Operating expenditures (from line 20)
$1,047,454.90
$3,609,485.12
13 Less Refunds and Rebates (from line 17)
$ 91,716.80
$ 141,786.88
14 (a) Expenditures subject to limitation
$ 955,738.10
$3,467,698.24
(b) Expenditures from prior years subject to limitation
$ 635,125.65
(c) Total expenditures subject to limitation
$4,102,823.89
I certify that I have examined this Report, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.
FORM
76ml/11
April 9, 1976
(Signature of Treasurer or Candidate)
(Date)
Note: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may subject the person signing this Report to the penalties of 2, U.S.C. § 441
(text on reverse side of form).
For further
Federal Election Commission
information
1325 K Street, N.W.
Contact:
Washington, D.C. 20463
January 1976
Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N.W.
Detailed Summary Schedule of Receipts and Expenditures
Washington, D.C. 20463
(Page 2)
Name of Candidate or Committee
Report Covering the period
Cifizens for Reagan
From: 3-1-76
To: 3-31-76
Column A
Column B
Part I - Receipts
This Period
Calendar year-to-date
15 Contributions and other Income:
(a) Itemized (use Schedule A)
$ 698,731.51
(b) Unitemized
$ .424,237.18
(c) Sales and Collections Included Above:
List by event on memo Schedule D ($ 9130.58 )
(d) Subtotal of contributions and other income
$1,122,968.69
$3,644,155.89
16 Loans and Loan Repayments Received:
(a) Itemized (use Schedule A)
$ 364,265.00
(b) Unitemized
$
15.00
(c) Subtotal of loans and loan repayments received
$ 364,280.00
$1,452,280.00
17 Refunds, Rebates, etc.:
(a) Itemized (use Schedule A)
$ 90,449.65
(b) Unitemized
$ 1,267.15
(c) Subtotal of refunds, rebates, etc
$ 91,716.80
$141,786.88
18 Transfers In:
(a) From Affiliated Committee (Itemize all on Schedule A)
$ NONE
(b) From other Committees (Itemize all on Schedule A)
$ 2,150.00
(c) Subtotal of transfers in
$
2,150.00
$ 10,628.03
19 Total Receipts
$1,581,115.49
$ 5,248,850.80
Part II - Expenditures
20 Operating Expenditures:
(a) Itemized (use Schedule B)
$ 1,033,782.13
(b) Unitemized
$ 13,672.77
(c) Subtotal of operating expenditures
1,047,454.90
$3,609,485.12
21 Loans, Loan Repayments, and Contribution Refunds:
(a) Itemized (use Schedule B)
$ 417,039.59
(b) Unitemized
65.00
$
(c) Subtotal of loans and loan repayments made and contribution refunds
$ 417,104.59
$1,341,304.59
22 Fundraising Expenditures: (Apply to 20% Exemption)
(a) Itemized (use Schedule B)
$ 146,042.25
(b) Unitemized
$ NONE
(c) Subtotal of fundraising expenditures
$ 146,042.25
$550,079.68
23 Transfers Out:
(a) To Affiliated Committee (Itemize all on Schedule B)
$ NONE
(b) To Other Committees (Itemize all on Schedule B)
$ NONE
(c) Subtotal of transfers out
$
NONE
$ 2,500.00
24 Total Expenditures
1,610,601.74
$5,503,369.39
Part III - Debts and Obligations
25 Debts and obligations owed to the Committee (Itemize all on Schedule C)
$ 90,809.30
26 Debts and obligations owed by the Committee (Itemize all on Schedule C)
$ 1,169,693.20
Part IV. Receipts and Expenditures, Net of Transfers to and from Affiliated Committee's
27 Total Receipts (from line 19)
$1,581,115.49
28 Less Transfers In (from line 18(a))
$ NONE
EDNO
29 Net Receipts
$1,581,115.49
30 Total Expenditures (from line 24)
$1,610,601.74
GERALD
LIBRARI
31 Less Transfers out (from line 23(a))
$
NONE
32 Net Expenditures
1,610,601.74
FEC Form 3c
January 1976
Allocation of Primary Expenditures by State
Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N.W.
for a Presidential Candidate
Washington, D.C. 20463
1(a) Name of Principal Campaign Committee
2 Identification Number
Citizens for Reagan
C-00029918
(b) Committee Address
3 Name of Candidate
1835 K Street, N.W., Suite 800
(c) City, State and Zip code
Washington, D.C. 20006
Ronald Reagan
Report Covering Period
ALLOCATION BY STATE
From: 3/1 To: 3/31/76
ALLOCATION THIS
YEAR TO DATE
ALLOCATION THIS
YEAR TO DATE
STATE
STATE-
PERIOD
ALLOCATION
PERIOD
ALLOCATION
Alabama
7,942.32
28,961.40
Nebraska
3,488.32
12,474.17
Alaska
409.28
1,228.87
Nevada
6,749.42
18,928.95
Arizona
9,898.74
20,878.60
New Hampshire
2,699.46
117,680.34
Arkansas
4,717.06
16,452.60
New Jersey
9,524.03
28,618.83
California
32,521.75
95,951.80
New Mexico
2,874.40
8,228.96
Colorado
9,382.75
23,864.95
New York
23,859.85
71,694.13
Connecticut
4,054.07
12,182.98
North Carolina
171,182.82
359,823.53
Delaware
738.36
2,216.67
North Dakota
799.20
2.401.00
District of Columbia
962.36
2,889.76
Ohio
13,735.73
41,270.08
Florida
140,413.94
659,580.43
Oklahoma
6,676.71
21,122.67
Georgia
7,315.45
30,554.69
Oregon
5,807.69
14,318.27
Hawaii
1,089.57
3,271.51
Pennsylvania
15,613.43
46,912.86
Idaho
2,907.14
6,935.59
Rhode Island
1,719.54
4,163.42
Illinois
162,636.27
499,672.49
South Carolina
11,851.91
24,644.65
Indiana
14,380.38
41,981.25
South Dakota
1,665.57
3,398.36
lowa
8,691.50
29,467.42
Tennessee
5,548.85
16,391.25
Kansas
3,562.80
12,538.49
Texas
46,087.25
97,044.24
Kentucky
4,763.00
18,113.23
Utah
1,410.35
4,236.70
Louisiana
5,120.98
14,383.90
Vermont
597.33
1,794.95
Maine
1,465.04
8,706.59
Virginia
8,201.89
21,214.50
Maryland
5,248.72
15,772.93
Washington
8,343.32
28,550.09
Massachusetts
14,018.44
144,815.36
West Virginia
2,342.29
9,039.23
Michigan
11,470.87
34,469.16
Wisconsin
39,909.39
104,396.47
Minnesota
10,184.68
26,017.46
Wyoming
472.87
1,403.01
Mississippi
2,834.53
9,681.20
Puerto Rico
3,268.70
9,821.96
Missouri
13,835.40
51,205.18
Guam
94.02
284.90
Montana
940.24
2,822.73
Virgin Islands
105.09
318.39
Column Totals
481,505.64
1,814,617.24
Column Totals
394,629.43
1,070,175.9
4 Total Allocated Expenditures
876,135.07
2,844,793.1
5 Total Non-allocated Expenditures
734,466.67
2,658,576.2
6 Total Campaign Expenditures (Lines 4 & 5)
1,610,601.74
5,503,369.3
FORD LIBRAR,
Campaign76
Media Communications, Inc.
1828 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-8950
file
April 13, 1976
TO:
STU SPENCER
FROM:
CLAYT WILHITE
SUBJECT:
REAGAN ACTIVITY IN INDIANA AND TEXAS
Evidence of heavy Ronald Reagan media activity in Texas and
Indiana continues to mount:
1. He will begin his half hour TV programming on
April 19 in Houston. This is almost two weeks
before the primary and far earlier than any in
any other state.
2. He has purchased :60's and :30's in two major
Indiana markets (Indianapolis and Ft. Wayne) to
begin running this coming Friday, April 16th.
If this pattern continues, it seems obvious Reagan plans to
make a stand against the President in a major Mid-Western state
hoping to follow Texas, Alabama and Georgia victories with one
in the President's backyard. (Incidentally, we have received
no news of Reagan media purchases in Alabama or Georgia.)
Our two week Indiana media plan is scheduled to commence on
Tuesday, April 20th. To make necessary arrangements for that
start date, we should have your approval of the plan by
Thursday, April 15th.
As agreed earlier today, the Texas media plan will begin on
April 15th.
The revised Texas plan and the recommended Indiana, Georgia
and Alabama plans will be forwarded to you tomorrow.
CC: Rogers Morton
Roy Hughes
Bruce Wagner
Pete Dailey
Ed Terrill
Skip Watts
FORD is LIBRARY CERVID
Peter H. Dailey, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer; Bruce S. Wagner, Executive Vice President; Robert C. Moot, Treasurer; Robert P. Visser, Secretary
COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY
RONALD REAGAN
TEXAS
DATE REC'D AT CMCI MARKET STATION
DATES
COST
SCHEDULE
4/13
HOUSTON
KTRK
4/19 MON
$2,100
1/2 HOUR 7-7:30 PM
(ABC AFFILIATE)
FORD is LIBRARY DERAL
COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY
RONALD REAGAN
INDIANA
DATE REC'D AT CMCI
MARKET
STATION
DATES
COST
SCHEDULE
4/13
INDIANAPOLIS
WISH
4/16-5/2
$7,900
60's
10 Spots
mostly prime
FORT WAYNE
WTPA 4/26-5/3
30's
20 spots
60% prime
40% fringe
DERALD R. FORD
file
April 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rog Morton
Stu Spencer
Skip Watts
FROM: Bob Visser
Tim Ryan
DR
RE: Reagan Delegate Activity in Texas
As you are aware, for almost two months, we have
been monitoring the activities of the "Delegates for Reagan"
in Texas. This group of "unauthorized delegates" has provoked
much comment and complaint from our Texas people. In order
to have a first-hand view of the situation, we went to
Austin on Monday, April 12, 1976, to meet with our people.
While in Austin, we met with Roger Wallace and Beryl
Milburn of the Texas PFC, Shirley Green, Coordinator of the
San Antonio area, Nora Ray, Coordinator for the Fort Worth
area and Enid Gray, Coordinator for Dallas. In addition,
Duncan Boeckman, attorney for the PFC in Texas and counsel
to the Texas Republican Party was in attendance.
At the start of the meeting, we set forth the law with
regard to contributions and expenditures by delegate-candidates.
Special attention was given to the legal distinction between
authorized and unauthorized delegate-candidates. Further, it
was explained that delegate-candidates could become de facto
authorized by their actions or by the actions of the candidate,
his campaign committee, or their agents. In particular, we
pointed out that the Federal Election Commission's (FEC's)
policy statement and guideline on delegate selection approved
by the Commission on 2/10/76 states:
"An "authorized delegate" is a delegate
(1) who is authorized or requested by a Presidential
candidate (or the candidate's committee or agent) to
receive contributions or make any expenditure on
behalf of the Presidential candidate; (2) who is
reimbursed by a Presidential candidate for any
expenditures made on behalf of the Presidential
candidate; or (3) whose own delegate fund-raising FORD
or spending is subject to direct or indirect control
by the Presidential candidate. --
GERAL
LIBRARY
- 2 -
'COMMENT: Financial authorization of a
delegate by a Presidential candidate is
separate and distinct from any other
authorization or approval which may be
required under party rules or State law.
The fact that a delegate has to secure the
approval of the Presidential candidate before
he/she can appear as a "Jones delegate" on
the primary ballot does not alone constitute
financial authorization by the candidate.
Examples of actions which would con-
stitute authorization of a delegate include:
(a) The Presidential campaign transfers
funds to the delegate for use in the Presidential
candidate's or the delegate's campaign;
(b) The Presidential campaign publicly or
privately solicits contributions to a specific
delegate or slate;
(c) The Presidential campaign guarantees
loans to or for a delegate;
(d) The Presidential campaign directs or
the Presidential candidate and delegate jointly
plan fund-raising, advertising, or other campaign
solicitation activities;
(e) A delegate is authorized to raise or
spend funds on behalf of that candidate."
In addition, we noted that expenditures by truly unau-
thorized delegate-candidates. were actually independent expenditures
as that term was re-defined by the Supreme Court in Buckley V.
Valeo. Thus, the Commission commented on its policy regarding
independent expenditures by delegate-candidates:
"The decision in Buckley V. Valeo permits
an individual or political committee (other
FORD
than a national or State committee of a political
party) to spend without limit to support or oppose
any candidate for Federal office so long as this
GERALD
LIBRARY
is done independently of the candidate or authorized
delegate. Such expenditures may be made to support
or oppose either the Presidential candidate or the
delegate. --
'COMMENT: Generally, an "independent expenditure" is
characterized by a lack of direction or control by
the Presidential candidate or authorized delegate.
- 3 -
Examples of independent expenditures with
respect to delegate campaigns include:
(i) a person places an ad in a local news-
paper advocating the election of a Presi-
dential candidate or an authorized delegate
without any control, cooperation, consent or
suggestion whatever, direct or indirect, of
the candidate or the delegate; (ii) an
individual prints bumper stickers and dis-
tributes them on his own initiative without
any control, cooperation, consent or suggestion
whatever, direct or indirect, of the Presidential
candidate or authorized delegate.'
In other words, viewing the Commission's position regarding
"authorized delegates" and the statement set forth on inde-
pendent expenditures, the Commission apparently has determined
that a delegate-candidate or a group of delegate-candidates
may on their own! that is, without any coordination, control
or direct or indirect suggestion by the candidate or his
campaign committee, or their agents) spend unlimited amounts
of funds to influence their candidacy and that of the presi-
dential candidate they support. In addition, an individual
may contribute an aggregate of $25,000 to such a delegate-
candidate or group of delegates, notwithstanding the fact that
he has already contributed $1,000 to the Presidential candidate
they support.
This basic legal foundation leads us to a discussion of
the activities of the "Delegates for Reagan" in Texas.
Since the Citizens for Reagan nationally, and their
Texas State Committee have been strapped for money, it is our
understanding that the 100 individuals running as delegates
pledged to Reagan decided some months ago to conduct their cam-
paigns as "unauthorized delegates"--officially endorsed by
Ronald Reagan but not authorized to expend or receive money on
behalf of the Citizens for Reagan according to their campaign
literature. This organization appears to be operating in a
number of metropolitan areas, e.g., San Antonio and Fort Worth,
but apparently is not a coordinated State effort.
Since the "Delegates for Reagan" is a group of unauthorized
delegate-candidates, it may not under the aforementioned FEC Policy
State and Guidelines coordinate fundraising, advertising or other
financially-related activities with the Texas Citizens for Reagan.
GERALD
LIBRARY
4
In this regard, the Executive Director for Reagan in Texas, Ron
Dear, noted on February 27, 1976, that
the law requires
that the official Texas Citizens for Reagan Campaign is not
allowed to jointly plan or coordinate activities with the Reagan
delegate-candidates
(emphasis added). This statement
recognizes that it is almost impossible for the Texas Citizens
for Reagan to work together with unauthorized candidates without
some financial effect and, therefore, de facto authorization.
Our Texas people, specifically, Wallace and Milburn,
have for some time been arguing that the Delegates for Reagan
and Texas Citizens for Reagan have, for all practical purposes,
been one campaign or organization. This allegation appears to
have some apparent validity in certain areas of Texas.
Over 20 of the "unauthorized" delegate-candidates pledged
to Reagan are members of the official Texas Citizens for Reagan
campaign organization. In this regard, some of the delegate-
candidates serve as Co-Chairmen of the Texas Citizens for Reagan
Regional Chairmen, Congressional District Coordinators and
Members of the Texas Citizens for Reagan Executive Committee.
It would, therefore, be very difficult to eliminate coordination
between the Citizens for Reagan and the Delegates for Reagan.
Based on our 2/12/76 meeting and on materials supplied
by our Texas people, the following activity has taken place or
will, in the near future, take place which raises serious ques-
tions regarding the continued operation of the Delegates for
Reagan as an "unauthorized" group of delegate-candidates with no
expenditure limitations during the up-coming Primary:
I.
ADVERTISING -- It appears that in some areas of Texas,
e.g., San Antonio, the Delegates for Reagan are producing news-
paper ads and pamphlets which request voters to go to the polls
for Reagan delegates in the Primary. These materials also note
the "Reasons for Reagan" which is in the same type and appears
to be exactly the same copy as the Citizens for Reagan campaign
materials distributed in Texas (Attachment A). By utilizing this
copy, the Delegates for Reagan accomplish the same advertising
goal as the Citizens for Reagan. However, the Citizens for
Reagan do not pay for these materials nor do they report such FORD
expenditures as campaign expenditures.
II.
FUNDRAISING -- To date, the only example of joint fund-
LIBRARY
raising of which we are aware is a fundraising reception to be
held in Fort Worth this Thursday. According to a report in the
Sunday edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Attachment B),
a reception will be held at the Hilton Inn at 1:15 p.m. on Thursday.
Tickets to the reception cost $50.00 each. Ticket requests were
directed to the Citizens for Reagan Headquarters at 1020 W. 7th
Street, in Fort Worth rather than the Delegates for Reagan Head-
quarters at 1012 W. 7th Street. It was also noted in the article
- 5 -
that tickets could be obtained at the door and checks
"
should be made payable to the Delegates for Reagan. "
The hosts for this reception are "unauthorized" delegate-
candidates for Reagan and members of the Citizens for Reagan
Fort Worth operation.
III.
INSTRUCTIONS TO REAGAN DELEGATE-CANDIDATES -- Prior to
the selection of delegates by the statutorily required delegate
selection committee for the 21st Congressional District, Willard
King, Chairman of the Citizens for Reagan in that district sent
a letter to the "Republican Leadership". In that letter he
stated:
"Prior to suggesting a candidate his
permission will be required. In all fairness
I think he should be reminded that all expense
of attending the convention is a personal
expense and it is estimated that it will run
approximately $500.00. It is also hoped that
each delegate selected will spend a considerable
amount of money for his own election. A thousand
dollars has been suggested. Of course a delegate
candidate must live in the 21st Congressional
District and must pledge his support for Ronald
Reagan.
IV.
STATEMENTS OF PFC REGIONAL COORDINATORS --
A. Shirley Green - San Antonio Area. Mrs. Green stated
at our meeting in Austin that there is no real distinction between
the Delegates for Reagan or the Citizens for Reagan. After
visiting the Reagan offices in San Antonio, Mrs. Green noted that
the offices are located next to each other at 6838 and 6840 San
Pedro. The offices interconnect and apparently share the same
duplicating and printing machines. In addition, she stated that
the Regional Chairman for Citizens for Reagan, Dorothy Doehne,
and the Congressional District Chairman, Willard Keane, were both
working out of the Delegates headquarters while she was at that
location.
B. Nora Ray - Fort Worth Area. In addition to the afore-
mentioned 4/15/76 Fort Worth fundraiser, Mrs. Ray stated that on
March 30, 1976, a meeting of all "unauthorized" delegate-candidates
for Reagan was held at the Citizens for Reagan headquarters in
Fort Worth. This meeting called to discuss the Reagan campaign
was conducted by Pat Jacobsen, Regional Chairman for the Citizens
for Reagan. In addition, Nora noted that at this meeting of
delegate-candidates, Julian Read, a public relations and political
consultant from Austin, discussed the campaign. We do not know
who is paying for Mr. Read. Finally, it was pointed out that
apparently James Garvey, a prominent Republican fund-raiser from
Fort Worth who is also a delegate-candidate, is funding the
"Delegates for Reagan" campaign in his area.
LIBRARY
- 6 -
C. Enid Gray - Dallas Area. Mrs. Gray was not aware
of a "Delegates for Reagan" official organization or any head-
quarters for the delegate-candidates in the Dallas area at the
time of our meeting. However, she now advises us that such
an organization exists in Dallas.
A meeting of the "unauthorized" delegate-candidates
for Reagan was held at the Citizens for Reagan headquarters in
Dallas on April 8 or 9, 1976. This event was covered by
WFAA-TV in Dallas. On the newscast, the commentator stated
that the delegates met to discuss fundraising and their cam-
paigns. It was specifically noted that the delegate-candidates
would be required to raise funds on their own. However, Enid
stated during a telephone conversation on 4/13, that a recently
mailed flyer (We will have a copy on or about 4/14.) from the
Delegates for Reagan requesting volunteers and funds asks that
all returns be sent to the Citizens for Reagan headquarters
located at 8428 Kate Street in Dallas.
SUMMARY - It appears from the oral and documentary evidence
assembled to date that at least some of the supposedly "unauthor-
ized" delegate-candidates associated with the Delegates for
Reagan organization are most likely de facto "authorized" dele-
gates. Accordingly, any expenditures by such individuals or
groups with which they are connection would be expenditures by
the Reagan Committee. In addition, contributions to such
authorized delegates would be treated as contributions to the
Citizens for Reagan Committee. In other words, individuals who
had previously given $1,000 to the Citizens for Reagan, could
not provide funding for such authorized delegates.
FORD
LIBRARY
If You Want To
Elect
Gov. Ronald Reagan
President
I
YOU MUST
1. Vote in the Republican Pri-
mary on Saturday, May 1st
- and
2. Vote for Each of the Four
Delegates pledged to Gov.
Reagan:
IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT, LOOK AT YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE,
DETERMINE YOUR PRECINCT NUMBER, AND - CALL 459-1253.
Past for the Detecle for Reagan Comm. K2, Denks Charman By CITIZENS FOR REAGAN as 10 or receive money on bener BERALD of CITIZENS
FOR REAGAN to Advisory opinion 1975-12 of the Federal Election Commission
GE
LIBRARY
IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 10
Reasons for Reagan:
Mark your ballot four times as shown below:
Inflation. The one basic cause of inflation is
R. Miller Hicks, delegate for RONALD REAGAN
government spending more than it takes in When
Rhoda Benson, delegate for RONALD
Washington runs in the red, year after year. it cheapens
REAGAN
every dollar you earn: it makes a profit on your cost-of.
Judge St. John Garwood, delegate for RONALD
living wage increases by pushing you into higher tax
REAGAN
brackets: it borrows in the capital market to cover its
deficits. cutting off business and industry from that
Sue Briscoe. delegate for RONALD REAGAN
capital which is needed to fuel our economy and create
jobs: It robs your savings of value: and it denies retired
people the stability they need and expect for their fixed
Energy. The one thing we shouldn't forget is this If
we relax government controls on natural gas. nuclear
comes
plants and domestic sources of oil. we won't have to
The cure: a balanced budget The federal govern.
must set a timetable a systematic plan, to balance
worry any longer about being dependent on the Middle
East and other oil exporters
and Crime. "We must remember that the principal
reasons for locking UP criminals are punishment and
Welfare. "For years there has been = group of peo-
isolation - to keep them from hurting law-abiding
citizens. and to serve as a deterrent to others It does
ple calling for a Federal takeover of welfare. Actually
we should do the opposite - and decentratize welfare
no good to take guns from the law abiding The most
"If Joe Dosks is using his welfare money to go down
effective gun control is mandatory sentences for those
to the pool hall and drink beer and gamble. and the
who commit crimes with guns in their possession.
When a would-be lawbreaker knows he can kill without
people on his block are paying the bill directly. Joe is
apt to undergo a change in his lifestyle - or get off
facing the ultimate penalty. when he knows that perole
welfare
or probation may come easy for him we cannot say we
have effective deterrents to increased crime.
Detente. Through detente WA have sought peace
with our adversaries We should continue to do SO. but
as Social Security. "Social Security must be
must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication
strengthened and improved. The program needs to be
that they also seek a lasting peace with us. Too often
retormed But any reform must have as its first priority
we act as if a concession on our side - with none by
the guarantee that all those counting on Social
them la automatically helpful to the process as a
Security will continue to receive their monthly check
whole Detente will work only if it is a two-way street -
and that their benefits won't decline in purchasing
something for something.
power, but will keep pace with inflation.
There are inequities that must be corrected affect-
Defense. A decade ago we had military superiority
ing women. people 65-and-over who want to continue
Today. we are in danger of being surpassed by a nation
to work, and younger workers. But reforms must be
that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to
made with care 50 that they don't jeopardize those
everything we stand for As 3 nation. we must commit
already retired. those now working, or those who will
ourselves to spend whatever is necessary to remain
enter the work force in the future.
strong. To be second is to be last."
FORD LIBRARY
REMEMBER: There is no voter registration
by party in Texas. You may vote in the
Republican primary regardless of political
affiliation.
"Together we can make those decisions which will re-
store confidence in our way of life and release that
energy that is the American spirit.
"Together we can renew the greatness of America!"
Rand Reagan
Delegates for Reagan
R. MILLER HICKS
RHODA BENSON
JUDGE ST. JOHN GARWOOD
SUE BRISCOE
Reasons
REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT HDQTRS.
3009 North Lamor
Austin, Texas 78705
for Reagan
Texas Citizens For Reagan
4721 Richmond Ave. Houston, Texas 77027
Paid for by Citizens for Reagan. Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman;
Henry M. Buchanan, Treasurer.
"A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commis-
sion and is available for purchase from the Federal Election
Commission, Washington, D.C."
FORDO is LIBRAR DERALD
j
14a FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 1976
Attachment
2
Reagan
plans visit
to FW area
Presidential candidate
Ronald Reagan will land at
Meacham Field at 11:15 a in
Thursday on one leg of his
campaign tour of Texas to
gather support for the May 1
FORD is LISKARY LIBRARY DERALD