Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
324359007
label
Reagan Candidacy (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
324359007
contentType
document
title
Reagan Candidacy (3)
citationUrl
collections
President Ford Committee Records
Robert Visser's Political Files
subjects
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
324359007
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-11-30
month
11
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
04c42223d5a01b3d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D13, folder "Reagan Candidacy (3)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Where's
the Rest of
Ronald
Reagan?
by Jules Witcover
and
Richard M. Cohen
FORD
Would you buy a used car from this man?
GERALD
LIBRARY
Of course you would.
That's the problem
Ronald "Dutch" Reagan is at the mike. He's wearing
time, the opening lines of the Official Baseball Guide
a three-piece tweed suit and holding a pipe. Behind
read, 'Baseball is a game for Caucasian gentlemen.'
him are the radio station's call letters, WHO, with
What changed that, he says, was his and others' "edi-
little lightning bolts through the "H." Reagan is pre-
torializing" against it over the air. He makes no
tending to call the Chicago Cubs game from Chicago,
mention of Jackie Robinson, who broke the major
except he is in Des Moines and the action is coming
leagues' color barrier fully ten years after Reagan
to him in dull play-by-play reports over a Western
left Des Moines. As for the opening line in the Base-
Union ticker. Reagan is twenty-one years old-and
ball Guide, in St. Louis, Editor Joe Marcin takes out
glib. In mid-pitch, the ticker breaks down, but Reagan
one guide from the 1930's, and then another, but he
keeps up the patter: Billy Jurges of the Cubs fouls
can't find the sentence. Finally, he says, "That's bull-
the ball off. The pitcher, Dizzy Dean of the Cards,
shit." Too bad, it made a nice story.
picks up the rosin bag and tosses it down; he shakes
Reagan goes on about racial segregation, this time
off a sign from the catcher and then another; he
turning to the military, which, in the Gospel Accord-
winds up and lets go, and Jurges fouls it off again,
ing to Ronald Reagan, began to see the light on the
this time behind third base, where two kids fight for
historic day of December 7, 1941
When the first
the souvenir. Finally, the ticker resumes its cadence
bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor, there was great
and Reagan grabs for the message: Jurges popped out
segregation in the armed forces. In World War Two
on the first pitch and has been on the bench most of
this was corrected. It was corrected largely under the
the time Reagan had him fouling off balls. No matter,
leadership of generals in the Pacific like MacArthur
it sounded damn good.
and General Eisenhower, supreme commander in the
Forty-three years later, Ronald Reagan is standing
European theater, and in the Navy
I think of the
before Washington journalists and announcing to
moment that reveals a change was occurring. When
them and anyone with a television set that he is a
the Japanese dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor, a
Presidential candidate. He tells them that he's running
Negro sailor whose total duties involved kitchen-type
because big government takes a whopping forty-four
duties-cooking and so forth-cradled a machine gun
percent of the average American's personal income.
in his arms, which is not an easy thing to do, and stood
It's a startling figure-Reagan concocted it while gov-
on the pier blazing away at Japanese airplanes that
ernor of California, and it includes admission to state-
were coming in and strafing, and that was all changed."
university football games and the price of postage
That was all changed in 1948, when President Tru-
stamps-but nobody quibbles. Reagan boards a char-
man-not Eisenhower or MacArthur-ended segrega-
tered jet and flies around the country. In Charlotte,
tion in the armed forces. Good story, though.
North Carolina, he's asked whether blacks in the
By now, Reagan has left Charlotte. His plane is
South needed to demonstrate to get the right to vote.
heading west, toward Los Angeles and the Burbank
Reagan ponders for a minute and harkens back to his
airport. He is up in the front first-class compartment
early days as a remote-control sportscaster: "At that
and he is talking about his campaign and why he is
not just another Barry Goldwater. As he speaks, the
Jules Witcover and Richard M. Cohen are reporters
words come out conversationally, but with a polish
for The Washington Post and the authors of A Heart-
and precision that sounds a lot like a recording. Reagan
beat Away: The Investigation and Resignation of
says he has examined what it was about Goldwater
Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew.
that spooked people. "Barry tried to tell us a number
90 ESQUIRE: MARCH
illustrated by Robert Pryor
[March corren 1976?]
Affidavit of Ronald Reagan
Candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination
I, Ronald Reagan, served as Governor of California from
1967 to 1975. On July 14, 1975, I authorized a political committee,
Citizens for Reagan, to organize and accept contributions in my
name. Such committee and authorization was required for the filing
and disclosure purposes of the Federal Election Act and Amendments
of 1971 and 1974. On the 20th of November, 1975, I formally declared
my candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination. On the 17th
of December, I formally responded, in writing, to the Federal Election
Commission, that my campaign agreed to all of the requirements for
the receipt of federal matching funds. On the 23rd of December, the
Federal Election Commission formally certified that Citizens for
Reagan was qualified to receive federal matching funds. Between
January 2 and March 22, 1976, Citizens for Reagan received $1,679,124.19
in federal matching funds. At the present time, Citizens for Reagan
has pending with the Federal Election Commission requests for over
$400,000 in matching funds. In addition, our committee has in house
another approximately one and a half million dollars in contributions
legally qualified for federal matching funds. These are currently
being processed by our committee for submission to the Federal
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Election Commission in the coming weeks.
Due to the severe contribution ceilings imposed by 18 U.S.C.
sec. 608 (b) (1) our committee has been forced to rely on federal
matching funds for a significant portion of its total revenue. As
of the present date, matching funds would account for over 29.8%
of all our revenue, if all requests presently submitted were paid.
As is, they account for 25.5% of our revenue.
As a result of the promise of federal matching funds and
the contribution ceilings in the current law, our committee has had
to rely in large part on extensive direct mail efforts. This was
necessary to raise the vast amounts of money required for a national
presidential campaign. Direct mail is very expensive, and given the
-2-
$1,000.00 contribution limit, it is not a very efficient way to raise
money, except that there is no other means available to raise large
amounts of funds on a broad national basis. The only other potential
vehicle, T.V., is not generally available to political candidates for
a party's nomination.
Thus, the current legislative scheme has forced our committee
to rely largely on direct mail fundraising. This system is workable
and can raise the required net funds only because of matching funds
payments. Without matching funds, there is no feasible or economic
way for most political candidates to raise enough net funds through
direct mail. The only alternative to this would be a ruling by the
courts that the contribution ceilings violated the First Amendment
rights of candidates and their supporters.
To further illustrate this point, it should be noted that
the early stages of direct mail barely pay for themselves with only
a modest surplus. Assuming a return of 2 to 1, which is very realistic
if not optimistic, it would take $6,545,000 in fundraising expenditures
to generate the total allowable campaign budget of $13,090,000. Thus,
only $6,545,000 would be left for the entire national campaign expendi-
tures. This amount was clearly recognized as insufficient when Congress
established the 18 U.S.C. sec. 608 (c) ceiling, now at $10,910,000.
With the addition of matching funds, the ratio changes from 2 to 1
to almost 4 to 1. Under those figures a committee need only spend
$3,272,500 to raise its total budget. This is far closer to the
realistic total of net money a national campaign against an incumbent
must have. Thus, with matching funds, broad based direct mail
becomes a viable fundraising method. Without matching funds, it could
not raise the new money needed to mount an effective challenge to an
incumbent President, as long as the contribution limits of 608 (b) (1)
are in force.
A campaign against an incumbent involves the primary task
of speaking directly to the public. It requires the challenger's
-3-
campaign to explain why it can do a better job and where it disagrees
on the issues. Needless to say, this speech is largely presented
through printed campaign literature, paid T.V. speeches and
commericals, radio advertising, personal appearances across the
country, and other forms of advertising and advocacy that all require
money. Free news media attention is at best a very partial supple-
ment to this effort.
Our campaign has been hindered by either the lack of matching
fund payments since March 22, 1976, or the contribution ceilings in
several very important ways:
1. We have not been able to sign contracts for convention
expenses at the Republican National Convention, whose pre-
liminary meetings begin in early August, 1976.
2. We have not been able to purchase as much media as we
would otherwise have in such critical April and May primaries
as Wisconsin and Texas.
3. We have been forced to reduce the use of our campaign
plane, and thus our ability to bring our message to people
in different parts of the country.
4. We have been forced to limit the amount of mailing our
committee had planned to undertake in the last month.
5. We have been unable to make any firm or stable plans
for our campaign budget in the coming two months. This
makes it virtually impossible to decide how much money
we, as a campaign, must raise between now and August 1976.
This limits our ability to campaign.
To illustrate this last point and summarize, we are faced
with a cruel dilema. If we count on matching funds, and they are not
received, then we will be denied valuable opportunities, perhaps
critical opportunities, to present our views to the public. If we
base our plans on not receiving any matching funds, then by the time
they are paid we will not be able to accept or use them due to having
used up our spending limitations under 18 U.S.C. sec. 608 (c). If
-4-
matching funds are not received and of certain continuity in the
very near future, then our campaign has as a practical matter been
denied an important right on a permanent basis. It should also be
noted that in preparation for matching fund payments and in reliance
on their promise, we have developed a system geared to them and made
financial commitments that we would not otherwise have made. We
estimate that to date we have spent about $75,000 on compliance
with matching fund regulations and in response to the matching fund
system. This money cannot be unspent.
VERIFICATION
STATE OF GEORGIA
) SS
COUNTY OF CHATHAM
Ronald Reagan, being duly sworn deposes and says that
the foregoing affidavit is true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief.
Ranned Veryan
Ronald Reagan
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
21 day of April, 1976.
Maulier d. Wathin
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Sept. 1979
notory Rubbic
Chathern County, S.
(Seal)
3/1/76
TR --
With regard to RR's tax base on properties owned:
Pacific Palisades -- Assessed at 1/4 of FMV --
$53,750
Homeowner's Exemption
1,750
$52,000
Tax Base - $14.2892 per $100 of Assessed Value
Address -- 1669 San Onofre Drive
Santa Barbara -- Assessed at 1/4 of FMV --
$11,550
5 parcels involved -- Tax Rate Area -- Tax Base per $100 of AV
81-040-03
90-001
$10.6852
81-040-37
90-005
10.0705
81-040-42
"
"
81-040-46
"
"
81-050-11
62-025
9.7500
(need assessed value of specific parcels)
Part of Wilson Trust - 500
Riverside County (Need an Address -- not listed under Reagan's name)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
3/1/76
Σ
TR --
With regard to RR's tax base on properties owned:
Pacific Palisades -- Assessed at 1/4 of FMV --
$53,750
Homeowner's Exemption
1,750
$52,000
Tax Base - $14.2892 per $100 of Assessed Value
Address -- 1669 San Onofre Drive
Santa Barbara -- Assessed at 1/4 of FMV --
$11,550
5 parcels involved -- Tax Rate Area -- Tax Base per $100 of AV
81-040-03
90-001
$10.6852
81-040-37
90-005
10.0705
81-040-42
"
"
81-040-46
"
"
81-050-11
62-025
9.7500
(need assessed value of specific parcels)
Part of Wilson Trust - 500
Riverside County (Need an Address -- not listed under Reagan's name)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
March 8, 1976
Mr. David Packard
26580 Taaffe Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Dear Dave:
Section 9003 (b) (2) of the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund Act provides that the candidate of a major party in a
Presidential election shall certify to the Commission, under
penalty of perjury, that no contributions to defray qualified
campaign expenses have been or will be accepted by such candi-
dates or any of their authorized committees. The purpose of
the certification, of course, is for such major party nominee
to receive the government's $20,000,000 check for the general
campaign.
Governor Reagan's contribution envelope indicates that
his committee is only accepting individual contributions up
to $1,000 prior to a nominating convention, but that this
solicitation may be repeated following the convention. As
indicated above, if he were to accept such funds at this time,
he would be prohibited from certifying for such payment. His
suggestion that they may seek additional contributions at a
later date, therefore, would appear to be merely superfluous
language and of no force and effect unless they were actually
currently accepting such contributions for the general election.
We very much appreciate your assistante in this regard.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Visser
General Counsel
RPV:jr
FORD is LIBRARY 038ALD
DAVID PACKARD
26580 TAAFFE ROAD
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA 94022
February 24, 1976
Mr. Robert P. Visser
General Counsel
The President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob:
Here's a copy of the Citizens for Reagan solicita-
tion which I discussed with you on the phone today. You
will note they specifically say, "Citizens for Reagan may
accept individual contributions up to $1,000 prior to a
nominating convention; and may be repeated following the
convention."
I will leave it up to you to bring this to the
attention of whomever you think may be appropriate.
David have Packard
Sincerely,
DP/ns
Encl.
Please make necessary changes if label attached
to reverse side is incorrect.
"THE
SPIRIT
OF '76!"
SEND YOUR CHECK TODAY.
Are you interested in helping to form citizen committees in your community?
If so, please indicate and note your political position
INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE UP TO A TOTAL
OF $100 PER YEAR OR $200 ON A JOINT RETURN.
I want to help the "Citizens for Reagan" committee put Ronald Reagan in the
White House.
My contribution is enclosed:
$1,000
$500
$100
$50
$25
$
Other
Make all checks payable to Citizens for Reagan and return in this pre-paid
envelope.
OCCUPATION
BUSINESS ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
In accordance with federal legislation, we are not able to accept either (a) any corporate checks
whatever, or (b) any personal contributions over $1,000. Citizens for Reagan may accept individual
contributions up to $1,000 (for example, a husband and wife may each give $1,000) prior to a
nominating convention; this may be repeated following the convention. A copy of our report will be
filed with the Federal Election Commission and will be available for purchase from that office in
Washington, D.C.
This Federal Statute requires us to request the above information from you.
If you receive more than one copy of this appeal
Please understand that we are using many mailing lists in
this important project and that occasional duplications
will occur. Won't you share any extra copies you receive
with a friend? Thanks for your understanding and con-
tinued support.
Make necessary corrections in address shown below
FEB 13 1976.
MR DAVID PACKARD
26580 TAAFFE RD
R127
LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022
FIRST CLASS
Permit No.
72124
Washington, D.C.
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
No Postage Stamp Necessary if Mailed in the United States
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY:
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
Suite 340
2021 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
UP-147
(CAMPAION FUND
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- RONALD REAGAN'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 15
Reoga
ALMOST $500, 000 IN DEBT, WHILE THE PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE HAS R
RESERVE OF ALMOST $1 MILLION, OFFICIAL SPENDING STATEMENTS SHOWED
TODAY.
REAGAN'S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FILED ITS MARCH 1 STATEMENT WITH THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMITTEE SHOWING DEBTS TOTALING $688,084 AGAINST 8
CASH BALANCE OF ONLY $197,606. MOST OF THE DEBT WAS FOR FUND RAISING
EXPENSES.
FORD ON THE OTHER HAND SHOWED A CASH BALANCE OF $949,212, WITH
DEBTS OF ONLY $27, 000.
REAGAN CONTINUED TO BE ABLE TO RAISE MORE MONEY THAN THE
PRESIDENT, ALTHOUGH FOR THE FIRST TIME FORD WAS SHOWING SIGNS OF
CATCHING UP. REAGAN HAS RAISED AND SPENT ABOUT $5. 5 MILLION,
INCLUDING $1.2 MILLION IN FEDERAL MATCHING MONEY, WHILE FORD HAS
RAISED $5 MILLION, INCLUDING ABOUT $1 MILLION IN FEDERAL MONEY.
THE CAMPAIGN REPORTS ALSO SHOWED THAT REAGAN HAD OUTSPENT FORD IN
THE EARLY PRIMARY STATES -- INCLUDING NEW HAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTS
AND FLORIDA WHERE THE FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR LOST TO THE
PRESIDENT.
REAGAN SPENT $115, 000 IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHILE FORD SPENT $94,000.
FORD WON BY 1,500 VOTES. IN MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE NEITHER CANDIDATE
CAMPAIGNED PERSONALLY AND WHERE FORD WON EASILY, REAGAN OUTSPENT HIS
OPPONENT $130, 000 TO $86, 000.
IN FLORIDA, WHERE FORD WON AN UNEXPECTEDLY EASY PRIMARY VICTORY 9
WEEK AGO, REAGAN SPENT $520,000 AND THE PRESIDENT $405, 000.
IN ILLINOIS, REAGAN HAD SPENT $337,000 THERE AS OF MARCH 1.
COMPARED WITH $251, 000 FOR FORD.
&
FORD
UPI 03-15 06:52 PES
3/15/76
GERALD
LIBRARY
Presidential Campaign Junancing
Federal Election Commission show:
Reports filed with the
- President ford has out-raised
Ronald Reagan in Contrubutions received
through February by 725,000 and for
the month of February alone received
more than twice the amount of
contributions made to Reagan.
- Ronald Reagan borrowed ,088,000
to finance his campaign in February
9924,000 of this loan from matching
from a National bank. He repaid
the unpaid balance as of $ 164,000 does not
fund receipts from the U.S. Treasury, however
is not included on an optstanding his report debt to
the government.
- Ronald Reagan, in his losing effort
through five primaries, has spent $5
million versus President Ford's $4 million,
learning Reagan almost $700, 000 in debt
including the unre ported bank loan.
note:
Election Commission for the months of
- Reagans reports to the Federal
heads
verification as to father
January and February 1976 do not
Reagan filed
agree other in detail or in total with
Jan Report
an Amended
the cumulative year to date of gures
-
reported at the end of February and the
discrepancy amounts to hundred
thousand dollars.
Reagan Report Discrepancies
Total of
Cuml.
Line
Separate
End
Jan - Feb Repts Jan- Feb Repts
Feb Rept
15
Contributions
2,518,766.56
2,519,852.56
16
Loans
1,088,000.00
1,088,000.00
17
Refunds
46,270.79
49,924.79
18
Transfers In
220,417.53
8,478.03
19
Total Receipts
3,873,454.88
3,666,255.38
20
Operating Expend. 2,543,914.72 2,554,634.85
21
Loan Repayments
924,200.00
924,200.00
22
Fund Raising
404,037.43
404,037.43
23
Transfers out
214,439.50
2,500.00
24
Total Expenditures 4,086,591.65 3,885,372.28
Summary Page
14 Feb. 14 @ should agree with line 6 on Schedule 3C-
(it doesn't - Instead it agrees with an entirely different fegin)
14 (c) should be the total of lines 14(a)
and 14 as. it isn't - 14 b has
been subtracted rather than added
MEMORANDUM
March 15, 1976
TO: Stu Spencer, Peter Kaye , Bob Visser
FROM: Paul Haerle
Re: SUGGESTION OF THE WEEK
I suggest that, on Monday, if at all possible, we try to get
into the press and on the national TV something on the state
of Reagan's finances - assuming, as I do, that the news is
negative from his standpoint.
I think this would nicely offset any damage that might have
accrued because of the news regarding Bo.
dp
March 15, 1976
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Tim-
MEMORANDUM
my are we involved in Bob
March 30, 1976
memor
TO: Stu Spencer +
RY
FROM: Tim Ryan
RE: Reagan Media
Becase the count
Ronald Reagan has just purchased a 30-minute segment
on WISN TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin for $420.00. (WISN is a
CBS affiliate.) The tape will be shown on Sunday, April 4th
from 1:30 P.M. - 2:00 P.M.
The Station's Sales Manager, Jim Norton, called to
inform us of this buy and to offer us a 30-minute segment
on the same day from 12 Noon - 12:30 P.M. The cost would be
$420.00. Norton needs a reply by April 1st.
CC: Bruce Wagner
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
MGMWSHT HSB
®
2-028505E090 03/30/76
ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
western union
Mailgram
UNITED *
U.S.MAIL
* SERVICE
4143428812 MGM TDBN MILWAUKEE WI 100 03-30 1203P EST
*******
*
HOWARD CALLAWAY
RECEIVED MAR 3 1 1976
1828 L ST NORTHWEST SUITE 250
WASHINGTON DC 20036
AS PER CONVERSATION TODAY WITH TIM RYAN WISN-TV IS OFFERING YOU ONE
HALF HOUR OF TIME SUNDAY APRIL 4 12-1230PM AT $420
WE MUST HAVE YOUR DECISION BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS THURSDAY APRIL 1 1976
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
JAMES E NORTON WISN-TV
12:03 EST
MGMWSHT HSB
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
5241 (R2-74)
REPLY BY MAILGRAM - SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
TS
J
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, PHONE WESTERN UNION TOLL FREE ANY TIME, DAY OR NIGHT:
ALABAMA
800 325 5300
NEW YORK
ARIZONA
800 648 4100
Areas 315, 518, 607 & 716
800 257 2221
ARKANSAS
800 325
Areas 212, 516 & 914
800 257 2211
CALIFORNIA
800 648 4100
Except Manhattan
962 7111
COLORADO
800 325 5400
Bronx
962 7111
CONNECTICUT
800 257 2211
Queens
459 8100
DELAWARE
800 257 2211
Brooklyn
459 8100
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
800 257 2211
NORTH CARDLINA
800 257 2231
FLORIDA
800 325 5500
NORTH DAKOTA
800 325 5400
GEORGIA
800 257 2231
OHIO
800 325 5300
IDAHO
800 648 4100
OKLAHOMA.
800 325 5100
ILLINOIS
800 325 5100
OREGON
800 648 4100
INDIANA
800 325 5200
PENNSYLVANIA
IOWA
800 325 5100
Areas 215 & 717
800 257 2211
KANSAS
800 325 5100
Areas 412 & 814
800 257 2221
KENTUCKY
800 325 5100
RHODE ISLAND
800 257 2221
LOUISIANA
800 325 5300
SOUTH CAROLINA
800 257 2231
MAINE
800 257 2231
SOUTH DAKOTA
800 325 5300
MARYLAND
800 257 2211
TENNESSEE
800 325 5100
MASSACHUSETTS
800 257 2221
TEXAS
800 325 5300
MICHIGAN
800 325 5300
UTAH
800 648 4100
MINNESOTA
800 325 5300
VERMONT
800 257 2221
MISSISSIPPI
800 325 5200
VIRGINIA
800 257 2221
MISSOURI
800 342 5700
WASHINGTON
800 648 4500
MONTANA
800 325 5500
WEST VIRGINIA
800 257 2221
NEBRASKA
800 325 5100
WISCONSIN
800 325 5200
NEVADA
800 992 5700
WYOMING
800 648 4500
NEW HAMPSHIRE
800 257 2221
NEW JERSEY
800 632 2271
NEW MEXICO
800 325 5400
OR DIAL WESTERN UNION'S INFOMASTER SYSTEM DIRECTLY:
FROM TELEX
6161
FROM TWX
910 420 1212
Bob
3D-
Mlwk Sentinel 4/1/76
Conservative Unit Buying Reagan Ads
M. Stanton Evens, chairman said at # press conference at $18,000 for 33 newspaper and voters or Conservatives wh 0
of the American Conservative
the Pflster Hotel.
882 radio advertisements.
might cross over. Obviously,"
GERALD
LIBRARY FORD
TTR
April 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Stu Spencer
FROM: Bob Visser
RV
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
RE:
Ronald Reagan TV Speech
I was advised today that the "overnight" Neilson rating
regarding the NBC telecast of Ronald Reagan reflected a
dismal rating for that performance. In particular, the
overnight rating, which as I understand reflects ratings in
only the New York and Los Angeles regions, showed that:
1. In the New York region, which represents
approximately 10% of the viewing public, 16% (i.e.,
approximately 63,000 people) of all television sets
which were on that evening watched Mr. Reagan's
performance.
2. In the Los Angeles region, which represents
approximately 6% of the viewing public, 23% (i.e.,
approximately 82,000 people) of all television sets
which were on that evening were watching the performance.
In order to put these figures in context, I am advised
that in the Los Angeles region, 49% of all television receivers
were off that evening and that, therefore, Reagan had which a viewing
audience representing only 23% of the 51% of the sets were on
or approximately 11.7%.
(2)
In commercial TV terms, I am told that this rating
would be lower than the lowest rating of any show NBC
has put on this season. The official and complete Neilson
ratings will be available approximately the middle of next
week.
JR
put in
fill
April 8, 1976
distribute not
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rog Morton
Roy Hughes
Stu Spencer
FROM: Tim Ryan
RE:
Demographics for Reagan Speech
A. 17% of all sets on at time of speech were tuned
to NBC.
(1) TV sets on at the time were 9.3% of all
sets in U.S.
B. 17% figure equals 6,000,000 sets.
C. Total viewing audience -- approximately 12,000,000
D. NBC would terminate any show that has fewer
than 27% of the sets on at that time of day.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W. . Washington. D.C. 20006 . 202/452-7676
April 20, 1976
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
General Counsel
T. Timothy Ryan, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
Suite 250
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Sirs:
After reading of your letter to me in the Washington Post,
I actually received the same. I have reviewed it with some care
and find the charges of no merit. While I respect your integrity
as lawyers, I cannot help but believe that the charges embodied in
your letter represented a political ploy to offset your candidate's
questionable uses of the powers of the incumbency for purely political
purposes.
In this post-Watergate era, it was my hope that all campaigns
would recognize that basic changes had occurred in our system. Each
campaign is under severe financial limitations. These limitations,
however, become a mere mockery when an incumbent may use cabinet offi-
cers, making supposedly "non-political" speeches, at taxpayer expense,
to attack his opponent. We feel the whole practice of using the White
House as an auxilliary campaign headquarters raises serious ethical
and legal questions. We have so indicated to the Federal Election
Commission as you may have noted.
Even though the primary purpose of your "charges" is political
(I know how tight the contest is viewed over there), I feel I should
respond to your letter.
Pursuant to Advisory Opinion 1975-12 and the Federal Election
Commission's policy statement on delegate selection, which I an enclosing
for your information, our committee decided that it would not financially
authorize delegate candidates. Pursuant to this decision, our committee
has scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit of those
Citizens for Reagen- Senator Paul Laxalt. Chairman Henry M Buchanan. Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission Washington DC 20463
Page 2.
documents, even though their current legal status is uncertain due
to the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, January 30, 1976, Slip Opinion.
You may remember that under the Federal Election Commission's
guidelines, an unauthorized delegate is one who is not financially
authorized and whose campaign is not financially coordinated with
the Presidential candidate's campaign. The Federal Election Commission
inherently recognized a degree of political coordination when they
removed the provision from their delegate statement requiring campaign
officials running as delegates to run as authorized delegates. If a
state chairman is running as a delegate, no doubt his campaign will
know what the presidential campaign is thinking.
Your quarrel is not with our committee, but with Mr. Ford
who signed a confusing and poorly drafted bill. I should further
add that it is our policy to make campaign materials available to all
individuals who wish to support Governor Reagan; we might even give
you a couple of buttons and brochures to sway your votes. Our offices
are consistently open to the public (which does include delegates I
am told). While we have consistently presented our support, materials,
positions, and views to all who would listen (I think to about 40 million
individuals to date) we have not sought in any way to divert campaign
funds from the delegates' campaigns into the Reagan campaign. In this
regard I believe we have been scrupulous beyond what the Federal Elec-
tion Commission's rules require.
I hope this letter is an appropriate response to your letter
of the 14th of April.
Sincerely,
Loran a. Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
CC: John Sears, Esquire
William Cramer, Esquire
Ray Hutchison, Esquire
Hon. Ernest Angelo, Jr.
Mrs. William Staff
Hon. Ray A. Barnhart
Mr. James E. Lyon
Mr. Ronald B. Dear
Mr. L. E. Thomas
April 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stu Spencer
FROM: Bob Visser
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Tim Ryan
RE: ACU REAGAN PROJECT
The American Conservative Union (ACU) "Reagan Project"
has sent out a mailing to "fellow Conservatives" dated
March 26, 1976. This two-page solicitation letter has the
traditional Reagan pablum; in addition, on page two of the
letter, the ACU specifically notes:
"
the Supreme Court recently struck
down the limits on independent expenditures
by individuals and organizations--as long as
they re not coordinated with the candidate's
campaign. ACU--with your help--can conduct
an unlimited effort on behalf of Governor
Reagan--not subject to the Federal election
law ceiling.
We plan to do exactly that. The opportunity
is too great, the issues too crucial, to settle
for anything less than an absolute, all-out effort.
ACU can give the extra push that will elect
Ronald Reagan to the Presidency. (emphasis added)
Therein, the ACU Chairman, M. Stanton Evans, also
reminds his fellow Conservatives that "
even if you
have given the limit directly to the Reagan campaign, you can
still contribute to the ACU effort." In the solicitation
package is a card which should be filled out by prospective
contributors for FEC reporting purposes. This card notes
that the money is earmarked for the ACU Reagan Project. In
addition, the card states that "
ACU must go all out to
help elect Ronald Reagan President. "
The law is quite clear that earmarked contributions to
a political committee such as the ACU must be considered con-
tributions to the specifically-named candidate--Ronald Reagan.
Memorandum for Stu Spencer
April 27, 1976
Page Two
The Federal Election Commission's proposed disclosure regu-
lations published in the Federal Register September 29, 1975,
note that contributions to or expenditures by a political
committee (for example, the ACU), which are earmarked for a
specific candidate must be reported by that candidate. Thus,
the regulations state that:
"[e]armarking mean[s] any and all designa-
tions, instructions, or encumbrances (including
but not limited to those which are direct or
indirect, express or implied, oral or written)
which cause or result in all or any portion of
a contribution or expenditure being made to or
expended for the benefit of a clearly identified
candidate or political committee."
The regulation goes on to state that every political committee
registered with the Federal Election Commission and every
candidate for Federal office must file reports of contributions
and expenditures pursuant to the regulations. In particular,
the regulations are very specific with regard to the disclo-
sure of earmarked contributions and expenditures such as
contributions to the ACU Reagan Project which are earmarked for
Mr. Reagan's candidacy.
Since the solicitation letter from M. Stanton Evans
clearly indicates that funds received from this mailing will
be used for Governor Reagan's candidacy, contributions to the
ACU for Reagan Project would be considered earmarked contribu-
tions to the Reagan Committee. Thus, the regulations would
require that contributions to the ACU Reagan Project must be
reported by the Citizens for Reagan Committee and that any
individual who contributes more than $1,000 cumulatively to
the Citizens for Reagan Committee and the ACU Reagan Project
would possibly be in criminal violation of the law.
In Advisory Opinion 1975-74, the Commission responded
to questions posed by the Republican National Committee which
are relevant to this discussion. Therein, the FEC noted that
it is of the. view that/if an unearmarked contribution is made
by a donor to a political committee (the ACU is a political
committee for reporting purposes) which devotes the greater part
of its resources to supporting a particular Federal candidate
or a limited group of such candidates, then that contribution
must be treated as earmarked by the donor and must be prorated
against his $1,000 per candidate contribution limits according
to the number of candidates supported by the committee. In this
situation, the Commission noted that there could be no question
as to the ultimate destination of the contribution. Accordingly,
Memorandum for Stu Spencer
April 27, 1976
Page Three
regardless of the express wishes of the donor, his contribution
must be construed as earmarked and reported to the Commission
by the presidential candidate.
In conclusion, it is obvious that by the very message
contained in this solicitation letter, there can be no question
as to the ultimate destination of the contribution by any donor.
Accordingly, any contribution to the ACU based on the March 26,
1976 ACU Reagan Project solicitation letter, must be considered
earmarked to the Reagan campaign and reported by the Citizens
for Reagan and, as noted above, any individual who contributes
over $1,000 in the aggregate to the Citizens for Reagan and the
ACU Reagan Project would be in technical violation of a criminal
statute.
TTR:jr
April 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Barrett, Chairman
Nebraska PFC
FROM: Tim Ryan
RE: Reagan Delegate Activity
In accordance with our telephone conversation of
this date, enclosed are copies of our letter to Loren Smith,
General Counsel of Citizens for Reagan, and his reply to
same.
Best regards.
T.T.R.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
April 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rog Morton
Stu Spencer
R.
FORD
FROM: Bob Visser
Tim Ryan
GERALD
LIBRARY
RF: REAGAN ACTIVITY
We feel compelled, at this juncture, to bring certain
very serious allegations to your attention and to suggest
possible remedial action by the PFC. As you know, the
Reagan campaign has for some time been utilizing the support
of other supposedly independent committees to influence their
candidate's election. Previously, we noted the activity of
the Delegates for Reagan in Texas. This memorandum sets forth
the activity of other such groups.
The American Conservative Union (ACU) "Reagan Project"
has sent out a mailing to "fellow Conservatives" dated
March 26, 1976. This two-page solicitation letter has the
traditional Reagan pablum; in addition, on page two of the
letter, the ACU specifically notes:
"
the Supreme Court recently struck
down the limits on independent expenditures
by individuals and organizations--as long as
they're not coordinated with the candidate's
campaign. ACU--with your help--can conduct
an unlimited effort on behalf of Governor
Reagan--not subject to the Federal election
law ceiling.
We plan to do exactly that. The oppor-
tunity is too great, the issues too crucial,
to settle for anything less than an absolute,
all-out effort. ACU can give the extra push
that will elect Ronald Reagan to the Presi-
dency. (emphasis added)
The ACU Chairman, M. Stanton Evans, also reminds his
fellow Conservatives that "
even if you have given the
limit directly to the Reagan campaign, you can still contribute
to the ACU effort.' In the solicitation package is a card which
should be filled out by prospective contributors for FEC reporting
- 2 -
purposes. This card notes that the money is earmarked for the
ACU Reagan Project. Further, the card states that "
ACU
must go all out to help elect Ronald Reagan President.
"
The law regarding this type activity is quite clear.
Earmarked contributions to a political committee such as the
ACU must be considered contributions to the specifically-
named candidate--Ronald Reagan. The Federal Election Commission's
proposed disclosure regulations published in the Federal Register
September 29, 1975, note that contributions to or expenditures
by a political committee (for example, the ACU), which are
earmarked for a specific candidate must be reported by that
candidate. Thus, the regulations state that earmarking means
that:
"[a]ny and all designations, instructions,
or encumbrances (including but not limited to
those which are direct or indirect, express or
implied, oral or written) which cause or result
in all or any portion of a contribution or
expenditure being made to or expended for the
benefit of a clearly identified candidate or
political committee."
Since the solicitation letter from Evans clearly states
that funds received from this mailing will be used for Governor
Reagan's candidacy, contributions to the ACU Reagan Project would
be considered earmarked contributions to the Citizens for Reagan
Committee. Thus, contributions to the ACU Reagan Project must
be reported by the Citizens for Reagan Committee and any indi-
vidual who contributes more than $1,000 cumulatively to the
Citizens for Reagan Committee and the ACU Reagan Project would
be in criminal violation of the law.
It is obvious that by the very message contained in this
solicitation letter, there can be no question as to the ultimate
destination of the contribution by any donor. Accordingly, any
contribution to the ACU based on the March 26, 1976 ACU Reagan
Project solicitation letter, must be considered earmarked to the
Reagan campaign and reported by the Citizens for Reagan and, as
noted above, any individual who contributes over $1,000 in the
aggregate to the Citizens for Reagan and the ACU Reagan Project
would be in technical violation of a criminal statute.
It must be pointed out that certain individuals have
contributed substantial sums of monies to each of the afore-
mentioned organizations. It is our opinion, therefore, that
contributors such and Mr. and Mrs. St. John Garwood (Chairman
of the Reagan delegates in Austin, Texas), both of whom have
given $1,000 to the Citizens for Reagan and the Delegates for
Reagan, and $10,150 to the ACU, should be investigated by the
FEC. If they knew at the time that their funds were all to be
used for Reagan then they have wilfully violated a criminal
statute. The preponderance of the evidence would lead any
- 3 -
reasonable man to the conclusion that they had knowledge
of this activity. Others who have contributed heavily to a
number of these organizations are Mr. and Mrs. H. E. Childes
of Fort Worth--$5,000, and Mr. and Mrs. John Brown--$6,000,
a Mr. McAllister who purchased 1/2 hour of TV time to show
Reagan's stock 1/2 hour talk. Other examples will be avail-
able early next week.
In conclusion, we recommend that the PFC reverse its
previous position of not filing complaints with the FEC against
Reagan. Such action is essential at this point because the
Reagan people, in coordination with the previously-named
committees (ACU, Delegates for Reagan, Christians for Reagan,
Florida Friends of Reagan), are apparently running rough shod
over the Federal election laws. We suggest that individual
complaints be filed with the Commission against such committees
(and possibly the individuals involved), as soon as we have
determined that there is probable cause that a violation of
the law has taken place. We would propose that complaints
be filed immediately, or at the latest on Monday, so that it
does not appear political against the Citizens for Reagan, all
Delegates for Reagan Committees in Texas, the ACU and Florida
Friends of Reagan. Moreover, we would propose that additional
complaints be filed as the facts and circumstances may warrant.
You should be aware that once a complaint is filed, we
will be restricted from publicly commenting on the facts
involved therein.
jr
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
May 3, 1976
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
General Counsel
PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE
Suite 250
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find a contribution from one of your
people's "fat cats". He apparently knew the right address
but the wrong candidate.
As you may note from the face of this one hundred
cent check, it is a corporate contribution and SO should
be returned to the contributor. I hope all your contribu-
tors are both equally generous and equally competent.
Please note the date on the check, 4/2/76. The delay
was either a delay on the part of the contributor or the
post office. We were not holding up this check to hinder
your Texas campaign by denying you badly needed funds.
Sincerely,
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
Enclosure: 1 check
CC: T. Timothy Ryan
FORD & BERALD LIBRARY
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxalt Chairman Henry M Buchanan Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission Washington DC 20463
INV. NO.
AMOUNT
DR. WM. NEQUETTE & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
WM. L. NEQUETTE, D.D.S.
1924
CHARLES W. MC CAULEY, D.D.S.
14021 WEST GREENFIELD AVENUE
NEW BERLIN, WI 53151 4-2
0759-1127
1976
AY
TO THE
ORDER OF
Grendent Ford Electron Committee
$/.00
one and 0/100 0
DOLLARS
New Berlin
STATE BANK
Bart of Action Monine Forma
NEW BERLIN - WISCONSIN
⑆0759⑉1127⑆
21⑉688⑈ One Nigurato
COLART CHECKS. DC
May 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stu Spencer
Fred Slight
FROM: Tim Ryan
TR
RE: Reagan Connection with Associated Builders & Contractors
The Associated Builders & Contractors (ABC), is a
national organization made up of all non-Union construction
firms in the United States. It has approximately 10,000
members and is dedicated to what they call the "merit shop"
concept. If you translate this into Union terms, it means
they are vehemently ANTI-UNION.
To all unionized construction workers, especially
those in Michigan, the ABC is synonymous with unfair wages
and the general right-to-work attitude.
It is my feeling that Ronald Reagan's relationship
with the ABC could be utilized to our benefit in Michigan.
Reagan was the key-note speaker for the ABC National Conven-
tion in October, 1975. (I am attempting to secure a copy of
RR's remarks at that meeting.) The President of ABC is
Joe Rogers, Reagan's campaign or finance chairman in Tennessee;
I am not sure which.
If you could link Reagan to the ABC in Michigan and a
general attitude of supporting a national right-to-work
law, it would seriously impair his prospects with unionized
cross-over voters.
T.T.R.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Trim r if Rd
yorder samplaid
RN
Bob Shel
No is
\
May 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Visser
FROM: Tim Ryan R
RE: Reagan Activity
On Friday, May 7th, I spoke with Sal Guzzetta, a
prior employee of Young & Associates, a political consul-
ting firm on the West Coast. Guzzetta now has his own
firm.
Guzzetta has been working for Ron Elersich, a
candidate for State Assembly from the 39th District in
the Los Angeles area. A number of weeks ago, Guzzetta
and Elersich terminated their relationship. At the
present time, Guzzetta's associate, Eunice McTyre, in
working for Elersich. McTyre informed Guzzetta that
sometime last week, Burt Buchanan, a known Reagan func-
tionary in the L.A. area, approached Elersich and his
committee members, Hal Bernson, Jerry Nordsgard and
Larry Calamino, offering to give the Elersich campaign
$1,000 if the committee members and Elersich were to
raise $1,000 for Reagan. Buchanan told them that he
has already given Reagan his $1,000 and this would be the
only way he could get more money into the Reagan campaign.
CC: Skip Watts
FORD if LIBRARY GERALD
UP-125
(POLITICAL CHARGES)
(BY CLAY RICHARDS)
WASHINGTON (UPI) RONALD REAGAN AND A RALPH NADER GROUP COMBINED
TODAY TO CHARGE THAT PRESIDENT FORD'S CAMPAIGN HAS VIOLATED THE
ELECTION LAW BY NOT PAYING FOR POLITICAL APPEARANCES BY SECRETARY OF
STATE HENRY KISSINGER.
THE NADER GROUP JOINED REAGAN IN AN EARLIER COMPLAINT THE FORMER
CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR FILED IN MARCH WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER. SINCE FEC
COMPLAINTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; THE MATTER HAD NOT SURFACED BEFORE.
THE REAGAN COMMITTEE IN ITS COMPLAINT SAID THAT BY NOT CHARGING
KISSINGER'S "CURRENT ROUND OF POLITICAL STUMP SPEECHES". TO THE FORD
CAMPAIGN, LIMITATIONS ON SPENDING IN THE ELECTION LAW WERE "A MERE
MOCKERY".
PETER KAYE, PRESS DIRECTOR OF FORD'S CAMPAIGN, DISMISSED THE
CHARGES.
"I I JUST THINK IT'S A FRIVOLOUS ATTEMPT BY THE REAGAN CAMPAIGN AT
GRABBING SOME HEADLINES,' HE SAID. "DR. KISSINGER HAS NOT MADE ANY
POLITICAL SPEECHES. ALL HE'S DONE IS SPEAK OUT ON FOREIGN POLICY.
WE MAKE A VERY CAREFUL DELINEATION OF WHAT IS A POLITICAL SPEECH
BY AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL," HE SAID. "WE DO PICK UP THE EXPENSES
OF CABINET OFFICERS WHEN THEY ARE ON POLITICAL TRIPS."
REAGAN'S LAWYER LOREN SMITH SAID IN A LETTER TO THE FEC: "IF AN
INCUMBENT IS TO BE ABLE TO USE INDIVIDUALS LIKE DR. KISSINGER, PAID
FOR BY THE PUBLIC, FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES, WHILE THESE INDIVIDUALS
EXPENSES ARE NOT CHARGED AGAINST THE INCUMBENT'S CAMPAIGN, THEN THE
LIMITATIONS IN THE LAW ARE A MERE MOCKERY.
THE NADER GROUP, CALLED PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, SAID IN A
LETTER TO FEC CHAIRMAN THOMAS CURTIS, THAT KISSINGER'S SALARY "WHILE
HE ENGAGES IN ON-DUTY CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES," MUST BE CHARGED AGAINST
THE SPENDING LIMITATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW.
A SPOKESMAN FOR THE FEC ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE REAGAN COMPLAINT WAS
FILED IN MID-MARCH, BUT SAID R WEEK LATER THE COMMISSION'S POWERS TO
POLICE THE ELECTION LAW WERE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME
COURT, SO NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
UPI 05-14 05:06 PED
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
MN
May 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Nessen
Press Secretary
The White House
FROM: Bob Visser
General Counsel
RE: May 4, 1976 News Conference
It has recently been brought to my attention that
in your news conference on May 4, 1976, you are reported
as stating that "Perhaps some places 80 percent of the
advertising for former Governor Reagan is paid for by groups
which say they are unauthorized or unofficial and, therefore,
they don't have to report their spending." (Emphasis supplied)
In addition, you indicated that you did not believe that there
had been any response to my letter of April 14, 1976, to Loren
Smith, Counsel for the Reagan Committee.
These statements are inaccurate and I would like to clarify
the factual circumstances regarding these matters. First, any
such "unauthowized" groups of delegates would be required to file
quarterly reports with the FEC on FEC Form 5. The next report
for activities conducted during the period from April through June
would be required to be filed on July 10, 1976. The fundamental
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Memo to Ron Nessen
May 20, 1976
Page Two
basis of our objection to such so-called unauthorized activities
is that such expenditures which were actually conducted with
the advice, consent and/or cooperation, direct or indirect, of
the Citizens for Reagan Committee would not be reported by the
Reagan Committee as campaign expenditures and therefore directly
chargeable to its expenditure limitations. Moreover, in the event
that such allegedly "unauthorized" expenditures are actually
authorized expenditures, contributions by individuals to such a
group would be limited by the individual contribution limitation
of $1,000. Second, attached hereto is a copy of the reply I
received from Loren Smith, dated April 20, 1976, regarding this
matter.
As you know, these matters were informally brought to the
attention of the Federal Election Commission during the period
in which they had been stripped of their investigatory and civil
enforcement powers by the recent Supreme Court decision in Buckley V.
Valeo. Although I have urged Secretary Morton to consider filing
a formal complaint in this matter once the Commission has been
reconstituted, it is now my opinion that the Commission may
institute such an investigation on its own initiative and that a
formal complaint would be counter productive and unnecessary at
this time.
I shall keep you advised of any further developments with
regard to these matters.
ccRog Morton
11
From the desk of
Nola Haerle
6/3/76
Tim,
Note local disclaimer -- are they
registered with FEC?
NH
President Ford Committee
3309 SPENARD RD., ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3673
For Your Information
mailed to
all deligates
pudslin
REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT
Alaska Republicans For Reagan
Mailing Address: 1011 W. 12th Ave., Anchorage
274-6328
Headquarters: 1011 W. 12th Ave., Anchorage
May 4, 1976
Dear Delegate:
I, like you, am concerned about the future of this country.
I, like you, had hoped that after Watergate Gerald Ford would
lead us away from deficit spending, appeasement abroad, and
military weakness. I have concluded he has not done this.
Instead he has fired a Secretary of Defense who disagreed with
Kissinger's Detente, accepted America's status as the second
strongest nation in the world, is acquiescing in the Give-Away
of the Panama Canal Zone, and has presided over $100 Billion in
deficits in just two years. Ronald Reagan is my choice for
President because He Promises A New Secretary of State, The
Restoration of American Military Superiority, No Give-aways of
American Territory Such As The Panama Canal Zone To Leftist
Dictators, And, He Promises A Balanced Budget. If you Believe
as I do that Strong Leadership Is Needed In The White House As
We Enter Our Two-Hundredth Year, Then I Urge You To Vote For
Ronald Reagan at our State Convention.
Sincerely,
Matilyn I Day
Marilyn J. Gay
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
State Co-Chairman
Please make your check payable to "Alaska Republicans For Reagan"
Executive Committee
Del Allison David Asplund Senator W.E. Bradley State Rep. Glenn Hackney Frank W. Harris Bertha Midyett Marie Mahnke Hope Alexander Marilyn Gay
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
June 30, 1976
Honorable Mary Louise Smith
HAND DELIVERED
Chairman, Republican National Committee
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D. C. 20003
Dear Mrs. Smith:
In recent days, as you know, we have sought to obtain
equitable treatment from the Republican National Committee
regarding rooms and convention tickets at the Republican
National Convention for Citizens for Reagan, the official
presidential campaign organization of Ronald Reagan. Because
we have been unable to obtain equal treatment through amicable
negotiations, Citizens for Reagan is insisting that the
Republican National Committee fully comply with its legal
obligation, under 26 U.S.C. Section 9008 (c), to stage a
national convention that does not benefit any Republican
candidate for the nomination in any way over any other
candidate.
As you, of course, know, this year for the first time the
national convention of our party is fully funded by the tax-
payers. Through a system of equal payments to both major parties,
a public decision has been made to take the funding of this part of
the nominating process out of private hands. In so doing,
however, the legal mandate is clear: the convention shall
not be a vehicle to advance the candidacy of any one person
over another.
In Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion - 1975 -
72, which you requested, the Federal Election Commission dealt
with the problem of a political party benefiting only one
candidate for its nomination. In that Advisory Opinion, the
Commission found that it would be presumed an impermissible
campaign contribution to pay Mr. Ford's travel to party events
after January 1, 1976. Before that date the Commission noted:
"TII n the period prior to January 1, 1976, /
during
which the Republican National Committee paid over
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxalt. Chairman Henry M. Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463
Mrs. Smith
June 30, 1976
Page two
three hundred thousand dollars in Ford travel
expenses7, the RNC will accord equitable treat-
ment to all of its presidential candidates."
40 Fed. Reg. 56589 (1975).
If the Republican National Committee is going to do some-
thing for one candidate, it must do it for every candidate for
that same office.
Our committee is concerned about preferential treatment
given by the convention managers and the Republican National
Committee to the White House and, therefore, to the Ford
Committee. The allocation of a quota of rooms and passes
to the White House is grossly improper. Currently, 388 hotel
rooms are allocated to the Ford campaign and White House, while
only 100 rooms are allocated to the Reagan campaign. The Ford
groups have received 650 gallery passes, while the Reagan
campaign has received only 300. We must demand absolute numerical
equality in all of these areas.
The White House and the incumbency have no proper role
in this convention. Any special functional role granted to the
White House officially recognizes a serious misuse of govern-
ment funds and the incumbency by the Ford campaign.
I recognize that these are strong words, but they express
deep concerns for a fair and honest convention. I am having
this letter hand-delivered so we may resolve this matter this week.
I will call you at 11:00 A.M. Friday hoping that this matter
can be resolved. If we do not reach a mutually acceptable
solution at that time, then I'm afraid we will have no recourse
but to initiate litigation or complaint proceedings before
the Federal Election Commission.
Sincerely,
Lora a.Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
cc: Honorable Ody J. Fish, Vice Chairman
Arrangements Committee, Republican National Committee
William C. Cramer, Esq., General Counsel
Republican National Committee
Robert P. Visser, Esq., General Counsel
President Ford Committee
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
NORTH DAKOTA
Bogan
File
Right to Life
ASSOCIATION
BOX 551
BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 58501
PHONE 258-3811
July 2, 1976
My dear Friend,
Let me congratulate you on being selected as a delegate to the North Dakota
State Republican Convention. As such, you are playing a vital role in the
American political process in democratic government. You have a great
responsibility, not only to your party but to the American people and to
our beloved nation, the United States of America, as you select the national
delegates who will journey to Kansas City later this summer and there select
the presidential nominee of your party.
I do not intend to tell you whom you should support. However, you must
understand that in the end it will be the American people, voters such as
myself, including Independents, Democrats and Republicans, who will make
the decision as to who will be the next president of the United States.
For the past ten years I have had the opportunity to work within the North
Dakota Right to Life Association as we have fought to control abortion.
As I am sure you know, we believe that abortion is the taking of a human
life, that abortion should never be done except to save the life of the
mother. The people of North Dakota spoke clearly on the subject of abortion
in the 1972 referendum. In this referendum they agreed with us that
abortion is immoral. That vote was 78% in favor of our position.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court nullified our state law and approved
abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. There
is no effective way to control abortion by the legislative process. Our
state legislature in a near unanimous vote approved a memorialization
calling upon the United States Congress to pass a Human Life Amendment which
would guarantee the right to life of the unborn child. To date, 25 states
have passed such a memorialization and other states are in the process of
doing SO.
Because of our interest in this issue, we are concerned as to who is
selected as president of the United States. Even though the legislative
branch of government will be the one who will eventually pass an amendment,
leadership from the Executive branch in the form of presidential leadership
will play an important part. Your two principle candidates are Mr. Gerald
Ford and Mr. Ronald Reagan. Let us look briefly at how both of these
gentlemen feel about abortion.
Mr. Ford has said that he believes that abortion is wrong. He further
states that he believes that the Supreme Court went too far in their
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
decision in Roe VS Wade. He has said that he believes the states should
have the right to control abortion within each of their jurisdictions but,
most important, he has said that he does not intend to advocate or support
a Human Life Amendment. This appears to me to be a fuzzy position. On
the one hand, he believes the Court was wrong - he is opposed to abortion,
but intends to do nothing about it as president of the United States. His
statement that he would favor a states rights approach is totally unacceptable
to the anti-abortion movement. A states rights amendment would simply write
into the Constitution of the United States the right of the state to either
abolish abortion or to condone it. Because the Constitution of the United
States guarantees the right to life of every individual, including the
unborn, as clearly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, abortion should be
outlawed in North Dakota as well as in New York, Hawaii or any other state.
The state should not have the right to decide whether it would permit
abortion or not, but rather should be mandated to protect the life of the
unborn.
This is a serious matter. Over one million unborn children have been des-
troyed during this past year, most of them for no other reason than the fact
that their mother did not want them.
Mr. Reagan has madehis position crystal clear. He calls abortion immoral.
He favors the passage of a Human Life Amendment which would outlaw abortion
except to save the life of the mother. This position is clear - this position
is logical because it is the only position that will ever guarantee the right
to life for the unborn. This position clearly protects the mother as well
as the unborn child, and places America in a strong moral position. My
organization feels that Mr. Reagan has shown great courage in taking this
position and he has indicated by taking it that he understands the abortion
issue. I believe that this clarity of understanding in this area indicates
that he does have the moral courage and the informational background to take
equally clear, concise positions on other critical issues facing our nation.
This is what America needs today. Both parties have the dark cloud of im-
morality surrounding them. The Republican Party must carry the burden of
Watergate and Mr. Nixon. The Democratic Party has the almost unbelievable
sex scandals ranging as an albatross around their neck.
There is no question in my mind that the American people want morality,
forthrightness and honesty in government, and they are prepared to vote
for the man whom they think embodies these principles.
I would ask you to carefully ponder this matter, to read and re-read this
letter and consider our viewpoint before you select the delegates who are
committed to either Mr. Ford or Mr. Reagan.
Sincere best wishes for an open convention, and once again I remind you that
the decision as to whom you will support is yours at this moment in history,
but in the November election the American people will make the decision.
Sincerely yours,
G lhert H. fortman M.D.
Albert H. Fortman, M.D.
Chairman
North Dakota Right to Life Association
Box 551
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
PHILIP M. CRANE
OFFICES:
SUITE 1406
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
LONGWORTH BUILDING
12TH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202/223-3711
WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
Congress of the United States
SUITE 101
SUBCOMMITTEES:
1450 SOUTH NEW WILKE ROAD
HEALTH
SOCIAL SECURITY
House of Representatives
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 60005
312/394-0790
Clashington, B.C. 20515
Dear Fellow Republican:
I agreed to serve as chairman of the Illinois Citizens For Reagan
Committee because I sincerely believe that Governor Ronald Reagan
is the man best suited to lead our nation into its third century.
Ronald Reagan is a strong leader. He has a proven record as a
common-sense, fiscally-responsible, creative administrator. He
came to the governorship of California at a time when it had a
budget deficit of $800 million and left it with a surplus of $500
million; reduced state taxes; streamlined government; and left with
a state payroll roughly comparable to what it had been eight years
before. Even more importantly, he introduced creative reforms in the
area of public welfare the first of their kind in the Nation --
that saved California taxpayers an estimated $2 billion and lopped
400,000 undeserving recipients off the rolls.
Ronald Reagan has the ability to reach out and touch the American
people. He is the most capable articulator of traditional Republican
philosophy in our party. He can inspire and motivate, a critical
ingredient of leadership which is sorely lacking in our National
Government today.
Ronald Reagan is a man of principle. He demonstrated this a Governor
of California through implementation of traditional values as well as
through his courage in standing up to powerful vested interests.
Ronald Reagan is not a part of the Washington "buddy system". He is
not a part of the insulated power elite in Washington that has lost
contact with the over-taxed, over-regulated. harassed middle class
Americans who represent the backbone of our great Nation. He brought
a fresh perspective to Sacramento as a "Citizen Governor". Now, he can
bring a fresh perspective to Washington as a bonafide President of the
People.
Furthermore, Ronald Reagan is our strongest candidate. There can be no
question that Ronald Reagan is the most electable candidate our Party
can nominate to run against Jimmy Carter in the fall. (See attached
memorandum.)
I urge you to support Governor Reagan.
Sincerely,
Thil brane AMERICA REVOLUTION WEEKTENNING
Philip M. Crane
Member of Congress
1776-1976
@
(Not Printed at Government Expense
MEMORANDUM
Summer, 1976
Philip M. Crane
Member of Congress
RE: DECISIVE REASONS WHY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN IS THE STRONGEST
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR NOVEMBER
1. Governor Ronald Reagan is unquestionably the most articu-
late, telegenic politician in either party. This provides a unique
opportunity to reach millions of Independents and Democrats in the
most persuasive possible way in the campaign. In contrast, as point-
ed out by columnist George Will, Gerald Ford is the singularly most
inarticulate President since the invention of broadcasting. As Presi-
dent, he repeatedly has exhibited an inability to communicate with
the American people. In a tight campaign this fall, the Republican
Presidential candidate must be able to reach out and touch the Ameri-
can voter. Governor Reagan-has shown that he can reach people, Gerald
Ford has shown he cannot.
2. Governor Reagan demonstrated in the primaries that he has a
talent for pulling Independents and Democrats into his camp. He
demonstrated this same ability when he ran for Governor of California
and won against Brown by over one million votes when Democrats out-
registered Republicans by a ratio of five to three. This appeal he
again demonstrated in the California primary where he polled over 1.5
million votes and his plurality over Ford was three quarters of a
million votes (more than his margin of victory over Jess Unruh in 1970
and approaching his margin of victory over Pat Brown in 1966). As any
politician with a track record knows, you have to be doing something
right to enjoy that kind of enduring support from the constituency
which knows you best.
3. It is apparent that 1976 looms as the year of anti-incumbents.
Not only does this explain in part the incredible successes Reagan
has enjoyed against an incumbent President, but it also explains Carter's
phenomenal capturing of the Democratic nomination as well as Jerry
Brown's surprising victories. That being the case, it is obvious that
being a part of the Washington scene for a quarter of a century con-
stitutes a political liability in this unusual election year. Gerald
Ford is part of the Washington "buddy system,' Ronald Reagan is not.
Paid for by Citizens for Reagan
Chairman. Senator Paul Laxalt
4. Governor Reagan runs stronger than President Ford in the
states Republicans must capture in November if the Republican Presi-
dential nominee is to have any chance of winning the election. As
Pat Buchanan and William Safire have observed, President Ford has
essentially won his races in states where in close elections Republi-
cans fair poorly. (See attached articles.) Reagan, by contrast, has
beaten Ford by two to one and three to one margins in those parts of
the country where Republican strengths are greatest and growing. As
the June 7th issue of U.S. News and World Report observed, fully
one-half of the eligible voters today live in the Southern and Western
states. If one totals the electoral votes in states west of the
Mississippi and south of Ohio, there are 27 more electoral votes there
than are necessary to win a national election. Interviews with Demo-
crats and Republicans coupled with the primary experience demonstrated
conclusively that Ronald Reagan runs much stronger in the South than
Ford. The South moreover has the largest regional chunk of electoral
votes in the nation.
5. President Ford is vulnerable on the issues. Ford has alienated
the grain growers and cattle-growers because of his embargo on grain
sales which helps to explain Reagan's surprising victory in Nebraska.
Ford has further antagonized the oil states by signing the Democrats'
energy bill which helps to explain why Ford got no delegates in
Oklahoma, no delegates in Texas, no delegates in Louisianna, no dele-
gates in Mississippi and no delegates in California. Furthermore, Ford's
inflexible support for Secretary Kissinger and his policies--particu-
larly the signing of the Helsinki Accord and retention of Helmut
Sonnenfeld--has cost the Republicans the support of naturalized Ameri-
cans from Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. The heritage groups
number hundreds of thousands of Americans today and they have been
increasingly voting in the Republican column since Yalta. They are,
however, totally alienated by Ford's support of Kissinger and his
policies. In a tight election this means the possible loss of large
northern industrial states. President Ford also is vulnerable on
the issue of National Defense. As even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
has acknowledged in Senate testimony, the United States no longer can
claim military superiority over the Soviet Union. Jimmy Carter has al-
ready called for increased naval expenditures. This fall, with Ford
as the nominee, we would be vulnerable to "missile gap" charges similar
to those successfully employed by candidate John Kennedy in 1960 with
this important exception: in 1976 the charge would be accurate.
6. The stigma of Watergate, particularly the Nixon pardon, would
be devastating to candidate Ford in the fall. Attached is a column from
the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer which notes that Robert Strauss, the
Democratic National Chairman, is determined to make an issue of Presi-
dent Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Beyond that, Clark Mollenhoff
has just published an explosive book entitled The Man Who Pardoned Nixon
which in addition to being an unflattering commentary on President
Ford, the man, also raises questions about Ford's involvement in
Watergate. We would be foolish to an extreme if we thought that
Democrats will not make hay with some of the contents of this book.
7. Gerald Ford has demonstrated an inability to use effectively
the advantages of Presidential incumbency. It is argued that incum-
bency constitutes a significant advantage in an election. The very
fact that Gerald Ford is in a horse race down to the wire, having lost
more primaries than any incumbent President in history coupled with
the fact that Reagan is way out in front of Ford in the popular vote
nationally, shows his inability as a candidate to use effectively the
office of the Presidency. The primaries have shown that unlike pre-
vious elected incumbent Presidents, appointed President Ford has no
basic constituency. Furthermore, the greatest advantage that incum-
bency provides in a Presidential race is the ability to hype up the
economy to create the impression (real or imagined) that the nation's
economic future looks bright. This advantage of incumbency is one
that President Ford could use in his own behalf certainly, but one
he could use equally well to Reagan's advantage.
NEWS AND OBSERVER - RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 8, 1976
Strauss Says Pardon an Issue
WASHINGTON (UPI) - don is," Strauss told reporters. why within 10 days of the time
Democratic Chairman Robert "He (Ford) is going to have a President Nixon admitted be
Strause
said
Monday
that
if
he
chance
to
defend
it
if
I
have
RON PAUL
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
22D DISTRICT, TEXAS
1724 LONGWORTH BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
COMMITTEES:
(202) 225-5951
BANKING, CURRENCY AND
HOUSING
Congress of the United States
HOUSTON OFFICE:
515 RUSK, SUITE 12102
HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
house of Representatives
(713) 226-4486
Mashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Republican Delegate,
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ron Paul,
the newest Republican Member of Congress. I was
elected on April 3 to fill the vacancy in the 22nd
District of Texas caused by the retirement of former
Congressman Bob Casey.
When I chose to run against five Democrats for this
seat, all of the experts said it was impossible to
elect a Republican. Casey was a Democrat, and the
seat had never been held by a Republican. Though it
was expected that I would lose by a 60-40 margin, I
won with more than 56 percent of the vote!
During the campaign, I made no secret of the fact
that I preferred Governor Reagan over President Ford
for the Republican Presidential nomination. I stressed
my opposition to big government and wasteful spending,
while supporting the principles of free enterprise and
individual liberties--the same issues which have won
Governor Reagan a national constituency. Thus, while
Republicans were losing a seat in New York which had
never before gone Democrat, I was well on my way to
victory in Texas in a district which had never gone Re-
publican.
What this dramatizes is that Reagan can help elect new
Republican Members to Congress in those areas where the
party must look for growth--namely, in the South, the
Midwest and the West. For these reasons I strongly
urge you, for the welfare of our party, to support Gov-
ernor Reagan for President. Reagan alone has the abili-
ty to pull Independents and Democrats to the Republican
side, as he demonstrated overwhelmingly in the Texas
primary on May 1. I feel that he is the best hope to
enable our party--after a generation of dominance by the
Democrats, to regain control of Congress and begin a
rebirth of freedom across our land.
Sincerely,
Ron Peul
Ron Paul, M.C.
(not printed at government expense)
WILLIAM M. KETCHUM
KERN, INYO, TULARE AND
18TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
Los ANGELES COUNTIES
DISTRICT OFFICES:
413 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
800 TRUXTUN AVENUE, # 302
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2915
Congress of the United States
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 323-8322
567 W. LANCASTER BOULEVARD
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CHRISTOPHER C. SEEGER
House of Representatives
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA 93534
(805) 948-8116
Washington, D.C. 20515
192 BE. LINE STREET
BISHOP, CALIFORNIA 93514
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
(714) 873-4942
June 15, 1976
Dear Republican Delegate:
I am writing to urge your commitment to the nomination of Ronald
Reagan for President of the United States.
By way of introduction, I am the Congressman from the 18th District
of California which includes the vast farming areas of the Southern
San Joaquin Valley. I am myself a farmer. One of my greatest
privileges has been the opportunity to be one of a handful of indi-
viduals to have served with both Governor Reagan -- as a Member of
the California Legislature and Chairman of the Assembly Agriculture
Committee for six years -- and with President Ford, when he was
Monority Leader in the House, Vice President, and President. Having
had this opportunity, I can, in all sincerity, say that I totally
believe that Ronald Reagan would make the better candidate and the
better President. When we entered public service together in
California, the Democrats had left us a huge deficit. When the
Governor left office, we were in a surplus situation. In just the
past year, our national debt has increased by almost as much as we
incurred in the previous 194 years.
We need strong, decisive leadership in our party, and, more
importantly, the nation needs it. Please give every consideration
to the man who really understands agriculture and administration.
We can win with Ronald Reagan. Your help is needed.
Thanks.
Warmest regards,
Bic Kelh
WILLIAM M. KETCHUM
Member of Congress
NEITHER PAPER NOR PRINTING AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE
Peasa
From the desk of
Nola Haerle
Jim Baker
Peter McPherson
Skip Watts
Attached Reagan mailing sent to all Hawaii
Delegates.
GERALD A. FORD
of
S
MOT.KG
SIN
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
July 13, 1976
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
T. Timothy Ryan, Esquire
The President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob and Tim:
Over the last month we have become increasingly disturbed by the
rumors and press accounts that your committee may be planning a massive
series of credentials challenges at Kansas City based solely on technical
and questionable grounds. I do not know whether these reports are true
or not, but I am concerned by the Virginia situation. In that state
your committee has lodged a protest that I think you know is without
merit and procedurally improper.
I know that you are both good Republicans as well as good lawyers and
are as concerned as we are that we go into the fall campaign with a
united party. While we all know that it is not unethical to lodge purely
technical challenges, many would view it as unfair. Such maneuvering
could easily lead to bitter procedural wrangles, the appearance of chaos
to the public and almost certain defeat for the nominee who wins on
what would be perceived as a "credentials steal. " Neither of our candidates
nor our party nor our country would be helped by this.
I have, together with others, analyzed the manner in which all the
delegates to date have been chosen. Frankly, I can find no basis for
any legitimate challenges. I say this with respect to all the delegates--
Reagan, Ford, and Uncommitted. The delegate selection process, by and
large, seems to have worked rather well. And, this has all occurred under
the searching eye of a watchful press.
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
Citizens for Reagan Senator Paul Laxalt. Chairman Henry M. Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. 20463
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
T. Timothy Ryan, Esquire
July 13, 1976
Page Two
The delegates thus far selected and those who will be selected between
now and the convention seem to us perfectly capable of deciding between
the candidates. Moreover, if they are allowed to do so in a fairly run
convention, we believe the eventual nominee will have little trouble
leading a united party into the fall campaign. That everyone must
perceive the convention as fair is something we can both agree upon.
Because Governor Reagan feels SO strongly about this, he has directed us
to file no credentials challenges to any Republican delegates so far
selected. We ask only that you search your consciences and refrain from
the kind of frivolous tactics that could weaken the value of the Republican
nomination.
In 1952, Vernon W. Thomson, then a delegate to the Republican National
Convention in Chicago, and now Chairman of the Federal Election Commission,
in speaking to the bitter credentials fights of that convention stated:
"Fellow delegates, this is the hour for honesty and
integrity, but it must be practiced by all the
advocates of that philosophy."
I call upon your committee, whatever our other differences, to join us
in an open and forthright approach to this convention. Let's battle it
out for the minds and hearts of the delegates rather than squabbling
over the rightful seats of honest men and women.
Yours truly,
foren a. Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jim Lake
Jan McCoy
July 13, 1976
(202) 452-7606
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
To win in November, our Republican Party must emerge from Kansas
City with its determination and unity intact.
The manner in which we conduct our National Convention must give
the American people confidence that the Republican Party can govern
honestly, decently and effectively over the next four years.
Above all, we Republicans must avoid the kind of divisive pro-
cedural haggling at our Convention which would make it difficult to
unite the Party behind our national ticket, and which would reflect
poorly in the eyes of those Democrats and Independents whose support
we seek.
I have, therefore, asked my campaign staff and delegates supporting
my candidacy not to challenge the credentials of any delegate to the
Republican National Convention. In the interest of Republican Party
unity, I urge Mr. Ford to issue similar instructions to his own campaign
organization and supporters.
This year's delegate selection process has worked fairly and well.
The delegates selected so far are a legitimate, representative cross-
section of the Republican Party, and I have complete confidence in their
ability to choose the most able, most electable Republican Presidential
candidate.
###############
Citizens for Reagan Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman Henry M. Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463
ReAGANCAnd (C/R)
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
July 13, 1976
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
T. Timothy Ryan, Esquire
The President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob and Tim:
Over the last month we have become increasingly disturbed by the
rumors and press accounts that your committee may be planning a massive
series of credentials challenges at Kansas City based solely on technical
and questionable grounds. I do not know whether these reports are true
or not, but I am concerned by the Virginia situation. In that state
your committee has lodged a protest that I think you know is without
merit and procedurally improper.
I know that you are both good Republicans as well as good lawyers and
are as concerned as we are that we go into the fall campaign with a
united party. While we all know that it is not unethical to lodge purely
technical challenges, many would view it as unfair. Such maneuvering
could easily lead to bitter procedural wrangles, the appearance of chaos
to the public and almost certain defeat for the nominee who wins on
what would be perceived as a "credentials steal. " Neither of our candidates
nor our party nor our country would be helped by this.
I have, together with others, analyzed the manner in which all the
delegates to date have been chosen. Frankly, I can find no basis for
any legitimate challenges. I say this with respect to all the delegates--
Reagan, Ford, and Uncommitted. The delegate selection process, by and
large, seems to have worked rather well. And, this has all occurred under
the searching eye of a watchful press.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxalt. Chairman Henry M Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission Washington. D.C 20463
Robert P. Visser, Esquire
T. Timothy Ryan, Esquire
July 13, 1976
Page Two
The delegates thus far selected and those who will be selected between
now and the convention seem to us perfectly capable of deciding between
the candidates. Moreover, if they are allowed to do so in a fairly run
convention, we believe the eventual nominee will have little trouble
leading a united party into the fall campaign. That everyone must
perceive the convention as fair is something we can both agree upon.
Because Governor Reagan feels so strongly about this, he has directed us
to file no credentials challenges to any Republican delegates so far
selected. We ask only that you search your consciences and refrain from
the kind of frivolous tactics that could weaken the value of the Republican
nomination.
In 1952, Vernon W. Thomson, then a delegate to the Republican National
Convention in Chicago, and now Chairman of the Federal Election Commission,
in speaking to the bitter credentials fights of that convention stated:
"Fellow delegates, this is the hour for honesty and
integrity, but it must be practiced by all the
advocates of that philosophy."
I call upon your committee, whatever our other differences, to join us
in an open and forthright approach to this convention. Let's battle it
out for the minds and hearts of the delegates rather than squabbling
over the rightful seats of honest men and women.
Yours truly,
Loren a. Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
RR CAndiscy
(c/r)
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
July 16, 1976
Mrs. Obee O'Brien Littin
4614 Wisconsin Ave. , N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Dear Mrs. Littin:
Thank you for informing me of your decision to contest the D. C. National
Convention delegation. As both John P. Sears and I stated earlier this evening,
we both hope you will withdraw your challenge.
We believe that our party is best served by a decision on our committee's
part not to file any credentials challenges. This decision by Governor Reagan
reflects his firm commitment to a fair and united National Convention. Such a
convention will allow the party's nominee the benefit of a unified party in November.
As a result of considering our position and the principles behind it, I again urge
you to withdraw the challenge made by your group. Further, I must add that our
committee will not encourage nor support your group's challenge.
Sincerely yours,
form a.Smith
Loren A. Smith
LAS:kk
cc: Robert P. Visser, Esq.
General Counsel, President Ford Committee
John C. McDonald, Esq.
Chairman, Contest Committee, Republican National Committee
Andrew Parker, Jr.
FORD & LIBRARY 0ERALD
Citizens for Reagan Senator Paul Laxalt. Chairman Henry M. Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission Washington D.C 20463
Citizens for Reagan
For President
Sen. Paul Laxalt
Chairman
John P. Sears
Exec. Vice Ch.
George Cook
H. R. Gross
Louie B. Nunn
Mrs. Stanhope C. Ring
July 14, 1976
Henry Buchanan
Treasurer
Dear Delegate:
I am enclosing copies of a statement released by Governor
Reagan earlier this week in Washington and a letter our General
Counsel sent simultaneously to the President Ford Committee. I
think you may find this interesting.
Prior to announcing his candidacy last November, Governor
Reagan told those of us who would be working in his campaign that
he would only run if by doing so he could aive us a better chance
of retaining Republican control of the White House this fall. He
told us that he wasn't interested in running a divisive campaign
or engaging in the kinds of tactics that could weaken the value
of the Republican nomination. I think you will agree that we
have tried to run the kind of campaign he wanted.
It is our hope that the convention will be run with this
same thing in mind. Whoever is nominated must be able to win
in the fall and you can be sure that we will do all we can to see
that he will.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
JohnBlears
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
1835 K St., N.W., 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202/223-8560
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from
the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
Citizens for Reagan
For President
n. Paul Laxalt
Chairman
hn P. Sears
Exec. Vice Ch.
orge Cook
R. Gross
uie B. Nunn
S. Stanhope C. Ring
July 14, 1976
nry Buchanan
reasurer
Dear Delegate:
I am enclosing copies of a statement released by Governor
Reagan earlier this week in Washington and a letter our General
Counsel sent simultaneously to the President Ford Committee. I
think you may find this interesting.
Prior to announcing his candidacy last November, Governor
Reagan told those of us who would be working in his campaign that
he would only run if by doing SO he could give us a better chance
of retaining Republican control of the White House this fall. He
told us that he wasn't interested in running a divisive campaign
or engaging in the kinds of tactics that could weaken the value
of the Republican nomination. I think you will agree that we
have tried to run the kind of campaign he wanted.
It is our hope that the convention will be run with this
same thing in mind. Whoever is nominated must be able to win
in the fall and you can be sure that we will do all we can to see
that he will.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
JohnBlears
1835 K St., N.W., 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202/223-8560
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from
the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
RR
CArding
(cp)
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
July 16, 1976
Robert P. Visser, Esq.
General Counsel
T. Timothy Ryan, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Bob and Tim:
Thank you for your prompt response to Governor Reagan's
declaration that our campaign plans no challenges to the
credentials of any delegate. to the Republican National
Convention. Your letter asks that we join you "in a total
agreement not to challenge the credentials of delegates to
the Convention. " I felt that our letter made our position
very clear.
I should perhaps reemphasize it: We will not challenge the
credentials of any delegate thus far selected to the Republican
National Convention. There are only three states where
delegates so far have not been selected: Utah, Arkansas,
and Connecticut. These will be selected by the end of this
weekend. From what facts we have on these states' upcoming
conventions, I see no basis at this time for any challenge.
You raise the question of our committee's Ohio litigation.
This, of course, is not a credent als challenge, and we will
not make it such. All that our committee is doing is through
a judicial recount attempting to decide who really won the
Ohio 12th Congressional District's three delegates. Since
there were serious questions of possible vote fraud in that
district, it is only proper that the courts settle the issue.
After they have done this, and the delegates are certified,
we have no intention of raising a credentials challenge.
You ask our committee in the last paragraph of your
letter to join you in supporting a new national convention
to require all delegates to vote as bound by state law. The
rule FORD LIBRARA
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxall Chairman Henry M Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission Washington, D.C. 20463
Robert P. Visser, Esq.
Page two
T. Timothy Ryan, Esq.
proposed rule text strikes me as extremely ambiguous and
internally inconsistent. Since we just saw it yesterday for
the first time, it will take some study before I can formulate
a response to that part of your request.
Let me close on this note. Our correspondence on this
matter was initiated by Governor Reagan's desire that the
integrity of this convention be our example to America that
Republicans can govern effectively and decently. As the hand
of Providence has blessed America because we have been a just
nation, so our Republican Party can only achieve the confidence
and trust of the American people by being a just party. I
hope you will help us make this coming convention, of which the
Credentials Committee is but one aspect, a shining example of
our party's commitment to justice and fundamental fairness.
Sincerely,
Loren a. Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
LAS/sv
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
July 16, 1976
Mrs. Estelle Stacy Carrier
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Dear Mrs. Carrier:
Our committee intends to file no notices of any delegate
contests with your office as of tonight's deadline. However,
pursuant to an agreement between myself and our committee's
Special Counsel Roger Allen Moore, the Ford Committee's Mr.
Visser and Mr. Ryan, and your counsel Bill Cramer, we are
herein filing our view of the situation in Ohio's 12th Congressional
District.
We believe that pursuant to the rules of the 1972 Republican
National Convention, no delegates have yet been selected under
state law in Ohio's 12th District. The election in that district
is the subject of a judicial proceeding as to which candidate
won the delegates. After such proceeding, as we view it, the
credentials of the winning delegates will be certified by the
proper state authority to your office. From the date of the
state's certification any party will then have two days to file
a contest notice. At the present time, we have no contemplation
of filing such a credential's challenge.
Loren Sincerely, a. Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
LAS/sv
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman Henry M Buchanan, Treasurer
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. 20463
7/30/76
EJ
William Swain Lee
Ronald Reagan
Guess who got what
'Convert' Lee:
William
Old Reagan
Lee
Contributor
By PAT ORDOVENSKY
Lee made another donation last
Washington Bureau
October and, on Nov. 25, passed
WASHINGTON - William
along the $50 he said came from
Swain Lee, the Sussex County
the "Sussex County Democrat."
Republican delegate who made
Seven additional gifts are record-
headlines last week by announcing
ed in his name this year with the
he had "switched" to Ronald
last, for $25, on April 6.
Reagan, has been giving money to
Lee, a Georgetown lawyer and
Reagan's campaign for almost a
Sussex County Republican chair-
year.
man, was chosen last month at the
No contradiction, he says.
party's state convention to be an
Records of the Citizens for Rea-
uncommitted delegate to the GOP
gan Committee, on file at the
National Convention.
Federal Elections Commission
After meeting Reagan at a re-
here, show 10 contributions total-
cent dinner in New Jersey, he said
ing $250 have been made in Lee's
he was "leaning" toward the for-
mer California governor.
name.
Lee last night said about half of
His "commitment" was an-
them were made by his wife, using
nounced last week by John Sears,
a joint checking account, and
Reagan's national campaign
another was a cash contribution
director, at a news conference in
he forwarded for "a Sussex Coun-
the Mayflower Hotel here.
ty Democrat who didn't want his
Lee last night said he sees "no
name on the list."
contradiction" between his early
His first donation was $10 last
gifts to Reagan and his status as
&
FORD
Aug. 5, more than three months
an uncommitted delegate.
before the Californian officially
"I have a strong personal loyal-
declared his candidacy and barely
ty to Gov. Reagan," he said. "I've
GERALD
contributed to every campaign
LIBRARY
two weeks after the Reagan com-
mittee began gearing up to raise a
Gov. Reagan has ever run."
campaign treasury.
But he said he has been telling
On the same day another Dela-
Delaware Republicans that, so
warean, Ellice McDonald of Mont-
long is it appeared Ford could win
chanin, gave $1,000 to help launch
the Reagan effort.
See GOP's - Page 3, Col. 3
Reagan Candidary
Republican
National
Committee.
October 27, 1976
To:
Jim Baker
Bob Visser
Started
From:
Jim Juliana
Subject:
California - Reagan Write-In
It is reported that a substantial effort has already been
made for a write-in Reagan vote in California. The pro-
Reagan group in Southern California has initiated the effort.
It is starting to gain momentum.
It has been pointed out that Reagan has never been pro-
President Ford. He has been pro-GOP platform.
For your information.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.
THE WASHINGTON POST
Monday, November 8. 1976
B11
Jack Anderson and Les Whitten
Reaganizing the Republican Party
Ronald Reagan's great moment, as
ing President Ford at the Republican
ton-Park Hotel about the moral decay
he came close to displacing an incum-
convention, the aide said.
of the Democratic Congress.
bent President before a wildly cheer-
A third Reagan lieutenant, while not
But in the hospitality suites upstairs,
ing Republican convention last Au-
ruling out a final shot at the White
visiting Republican bigwigs freely par-
gust, won't be his last hurrah. The dar-
House by the now 65-year-old Reagan,
took of the same moral decay. We sent
ling of the conservatives is quietly
suggested that Reagan supporters
our reporter Howard Rosenberg to
n
t
a
e
S
)
1
1
)
S
S
e
)
1
$
mam namoom 01 D Shera-
vokeu.
DROPOUTS
By Howard Post
F
RD
GERALD
LIBRARY
of