Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Republican National Committee -
White House Accounts (1)" of the Benton L. Becker Papers 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. Benton Becker 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box 2 of the Benton Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
8/4/75
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20463
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20463
July 30, 1975
202-382-5162
Honorable James O. Eastland
President Pro Tempore
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with Section 316(c) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 438c, the Federal Elec-
tion Commission transmits herewith a proposed regulation pertaining
to accounts used to support the activities of Federal officeholders.
The proposed regulation serves several purposes, all re-
lated to the Commission's mandate to secure compliance with the
disclosure and contribution and expenditure limitations of the 1971
Act as amended. It requires the establishment of a system of accounts
which differentiates between funds spent under 39 U.S.C. Section
3210, relating to the use of the frank, and funds otherwise con-
tributed or expended to support the activities of Federal office-
holders, other than appropriated funds. It requires full disclosure
of contributions to and expenditures from each account. It affirms
the applicability of the limitations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 608, 610,
611, 613, 614 and 615, to contributions and expenditures of funds
supporting the activities of Federal officeholders, save for funds
designated for use and used under 39 U.S.C. Section 3210, and funds
appropriated by the Congress for legislative activities. The regula-
tion also partially qualifies the uses to which excess campaign funds
may be put.
A unanimous Commission believes that the proposed regula-
tion represents both a fair and a necessary effort to fulfill the
Commission's obligation to cause the fullest possible disclosure of
election-related contributions and expenditures, and to assure ob-
servance of the limitations on contributions and expenditures which
are at the heart of the 1971 Act, as amended.
The Commission includes with this letter three attachments.
Attachment 1 is the text of the proposed regulation, and Attachments
2 and 3 are, respectively, the explanation and justification of the
proposed regulation, as required by the Act.
Sincerely yours,
This B Curte
Thomas B. Curtis
Chairman
TBC:me
Attachments
GERALD ANYURIT FORD
1
PART 113 OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING ACCOUNTS; EXCESS CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS
§ 113.1 Definitions.
§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
§ 113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
§ 113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
§ 113.1 Definitions.
(a) Commission. "Commission" means the Federal Election Commission,
1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 382-5162.
(b) Excess campaign funds. "Excess campaign funds" means the surplus
of campaign receipts, including all contributions, sales and income,
over campaign expenditures.
(c) Franking account. "Franking account" means an account which is
used exclusively for the purpose of receiving and expending funds
pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210. Such funds may not be transferred to
any other account or political committee.
(d) Office account. "Office account" means an account other than a
franking account which is used for the purpose of supporting the
activities of a federal officeholder.
(e) Principal campaign committee. "Principal campaign committee" means
the political committee designated by a candidate as his or her
principal campaign committee pursuant to 2 U.S.C.$432(f)(1).
(f) Legislative activities. "Legislative activities" means those
activities which are paid for solely out of appropriations approved
by either or both houses of Congress, for use by members and members-
elect of Congress. Such appropriations include but are not limited
to those for salaries, constituent services, stationery, travel and
general office expenses.
2
§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
(a) All funds including but not limited to gifts, loans, advances,
credits or deposits of money or any other thing of value which are
received or expended by an incumbent or elected holder of a federal
office for the purpose of supporting his or her activities as a
holder of such office shall be considered contributions or expendi-
tures subject to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 608, 610, 611, 613,
614 and 615.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section the limitations
of 18 U.S.C. § 608 do not apply (1) when a contributor states in
writing that the contribution is to be used exclusively for
expenditures made pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210, provided that such
contributions shall be deposited in a franking account, or (2) when
expenditures are made from funds provided for legislative activities.
§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
Except for funds appropriated for legislative activities, all funds
received by or on behalf of a federal officeholder for the purpose
of supporting his or her activities as a holder of such office shall
be deposited into one of the following accounts:
(a) an account of the officeholder's principal campaign committee,
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b, or
(b) a franking account, or
(c) an office account, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b.
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
(a) All individuals having franking accounts shall file reports
A. FORD LIBRARY
with the Commission on April 10 and October 10 of each year.
(b) The April 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures
3
made from October 1 of the prior year to March 31 of each year.
The October 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures made
from April 1 to September 30 of each year. These reporting
obligations shall be effective prospectively on the effective date
of this regulation (designated Part 113).
(c) Such reports shall include the name, address, occupation and
principal place of business of all persons making contributions
aggregating in excess of $100 during the reporting period. Such
reports shall include the name and address of all persons receiving
expenditures aggregating more than $100 during the reporting period.
(d) Forms will be provided by the Commission to implement this section
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
(a) All individuals having office accounts shall report as if such
account is a political committee, and on forms provided for that
purpose, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $434.
(b) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has
designated a principal campaign committee such individual shall
file the reports required by this section with such principal
campaign committee.
(c) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has not
designated a principal campaign committee such individual shall
file the reports required by this section with the Commission.
§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
FORD
(a) A principal campaign committee may transfer excess campaign
funds to an office account, a franking account, an organization
- 4 -
described in 26 U.S.C.$170(c), or for any other lawful purpose.
(b) Excess campaign funds expended on or before December 31 in an
election year will be considered expenditures for the last election
of that year. Excess campaign funds not expended or transferred by
December 31 of an election year will be considered expenditures for
the next election when they are expended or transferred. Except
for transfers to a franking account, such expenditures, whether
made before or after December 31 of an election year, are subject
to the expenditure limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).
GERALD R FORD LIBRARY
ATTACHMENT 2
EXPLANATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING
ACCOUNT; EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
The following explanation of part 113 will follow the proposed
regulation section by section, omitting only those sections which
are self-explanatory.
$113.1 Definitions.
(b) Excess campaign funds. The terms "contribution" and "expendi-
ture" are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C.
)
§431 et seq. The Commission, in regulations which are to follow this
regulation, will further define these two terms. The term "expenditures
includes, for the purposes of this regulation, goods or services ordere
or received but not yet paid for. The term "receipts" includes all
money or other things of value actually received. For example, if a
principal campaign committee orders and receives $10,000 worth of
bumper stickers but does not pay for them, the $10,000 nonetheless
counts as an expenditure. A pledge to make a $1,000 contribution does
not count for excess campaign funds purposes until actual receipt of
the monies pledged. In other words, excess campaign funds are the
total assets of a campaign less debts and other commitments.
(c) Franking account. A franking account can be used for all uses
enumerated in 39 U.S.C. $3210 including, but not limited GEOR
of a past or current Congress,
(1) mail matter regarding governmental programs, and AMMUNT actions
-2-
(2) newsletters,
(3) press releases,
(4) questionnaires.
Personal and political letters can not be sent under the frank.
Mass mailings can not be sent under the frank less than 28 days
before an election.
Expenditures can be made from a franking account for the prepar-
ation and printing of materials sent under the frank.
(d) Office account. Examples of expenditures which would be
made from an office account are travel expenses, expenditures for
printing non-frankable matter (e.g., newsletters and questionnaires
sent less than 28 days before an election) and telephone expenses
over and above Congressional allowances.
(f) Legislative activities. Activities paid for by donations,
over and above Congressional allowances, are deemed not to be
legislative activities.
$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
All contributions and expenditures from an office account are
treated as political contributions and expenditures. A person can
therefore make only a $1,000 contribution per election to either a
candidate's office account or to his or her principal campaign FORD
committee, or can split the $1,000 between the two accounts. 18
U.S.C. $608(b). Similarly, a candidate and his immediate family
can personally spend only $25,000, if a Member of the House of
-3-
Representatives, or $35,000 if a Senator, for office expenses
and campaign expenditures combined. 18 U.S.C. 608(a).
The above contribution and expenditure limitations do not apply
to contributions "earmarked" for a franking account or expended by
such an account. However, contributions to a franking account
from corporate and union treasuries are prohibited (18 U.S.C. $610),
as are contributions by government contractors (18 U.S.C. §611),
contributions by foreign nationals (18 U.S.C. $613), contributions
in the name of another (18 U.S.C. $614) and cash contributions of
more than $100 (18 U.S.C. $615).
$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
This section provides for the deposit of funds into three segre-
gated accounts: 1) principal campaign committee, 2) office, and 3)
franking. An officeholder is not required to set up any of these
accounts if he or she does not receive contributions or make expendi-
tures over and above Congressional allowances for legislative activitie
Further, even if an officeholder receives contributions to support
his or her activities as a holder of such office, the officeholder
need not establish a principal campaign committee. An officeholder,
not wishing' to establish a campaign organization, can set up an
office account and not designate a principal campaign committee.
Office accounts, inasmuch as they are treated as political
committees, must designate depository pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437(b).
-4-
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
Franking accounts are required to file two six month reports per
year with the Commission on April 10 and October 10. These reports
will include the same type of information that is required on reports
of political committees. The October 10 report will include expendi-
tures for mass mailings made prior to the general election, since a
franking account can not be used for such mailings 28 days before an
election.
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
Office accounts are required to file quarterly reports of receipts
and expenditures in the same manner as political committees. If the
officeholder has designated a principal campaign committee the office
account will file reports with the principal committee. If the
officeholder has not designated a principal campaign committee the
officeholder's office accounts will file reports directly with the
Commission.
$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
If, after a campaign and after meeting all debts and other
obligations, a principal campaign committee has funds left over, the
excess can be given to charity, to an office account, a franking
account or for any other lawful purpose. For example, if a successful
GERAL
-5-
candidate for the House of Representatives raises $100,000 in contri-
butions for the general election and expends only $60,000, he or she
has $40,000 in excess campaign funds. This member-elect of Congress
has until December 31 to expend the $40,000 surplus. Only $10,000
can be expended out of an office account during this period because
of the $70,000 expenditure limit imposed by 18 U.S.C. $608. However,
the remaining $30,000 can be expended by a franking account without
affecting the $70,000 limitation. More than $10,000 can be put in
the office account. However, no more than $10,000 can be expended
before December 31 of the election year. Expenditures by the office
account in January of the next year will count toward the member's
limit for the next election, either a special election or a primary
election.
GERALD A. FORD LIBRATY
ATTACHMENT 3
JUSTIFICATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING
ACCOUNT: EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
This statement will provide justification for the proposed
office account regulation on a section-by-section basis.
$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and
Prohibitions.
Contributions to and expenditures by an office account
are treated as political contributions and expenditures
subject to the limitations and prohibitions on such trans-
actions. There are two exceptions: Matter sent under the
frank and monies appropriated by Congress to fulfill the
functions of a Member of Congress.
The Commission, pursuant to its duty to formulate
general policy with respect to the administration of the
Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (the Act) [See
2 U.S.C. $437à (a) (9) and to its authority under 2 U.S.C.
$437d(d)(8), has determined that expenditures and
contributions over and above the two exceptions should be
treated as political in nature. This determination is
based on recent legislation concerning the frank and the
tax treatment of newsletter accounts.
Congress has determined that the cost of preparing
and printing frankable matter should not be considered a
contribution or an expenditure for the purpose of determining
any limitation on expenditures or contributions. 39 U.S.C. GERALD
$3210(f). The Commission has followed this precedent in
- 2 -
its treatment of frankable matter. Congressman Frenzel,
in supporting the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments
of 1974, stated:
Questions have been raised as to whether or
not congressional newsletters and other similar
publications would be considered expenditures
under the provisions of this bill. The
congressional franking law passed last spring
clearly states that such newsletters and other
similar publications are legitimate expenses
and can be sent under the frank. In general,
I believe the Commission should follow the
following guideline: If any item or publica-
tion can be sent under the frank, it should not
be counted as an expenditure for the purpose
of influencing an election. Hence,
congressional newsletters and other similar
publications need not be credited to the
contribution or expenditures limits of
congressional candidates.
120 Cong. Rec.
H 10333 (Daily Ed., October 10, 1974)
It logically follows at the very least that a newsletter and
other matter not sent under the frank should be considered
political and therefore funds contributed and expended to
support such newsletters and other matter should be subject
to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. $608(c).
Several other laws deal with franked matter which suggest
its use should be non-political. See 39 U.S.C. $3210 (a) (5) (C).
For example, no franked mass mailings are permitted less
than 28 days before an election. Activities such as soliciting
contributions and mass mailings within four weeks ofoan
GERAL
- 3 -
election are clearly political and funds used for these
purposes should clearly be treated as expenditures and
contributions subject to all limitations in the Federal
Election Campaign Act.
Recent tax legislation reflects the intimate relationship
between newsletter funds and campaign funds. The conference
report to the Upholstery Regulator Act states: "Generally
newsletter committees (and separate funds are to be treated
for tax purposes in the same manner as political campaign
committees." H. Rept. 93-1642, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 22.
During the debate on this legislation, several Members further
noted the similarity between these two types of funds:
MR. SCHNEEBELI. Another change of importance
would make individual contributions to candidates
for public office which are used for newsletters
to be eligible for the above-mentioned income tax
credit for deductions.
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker these provisions
place in the law the procedures outlining how
we can use funds we have collected for political
purposes, for newsletter purposes. We think this
avoids the necessity for having a separate news-
letter fund for Members who have a continúing
campaign fund (emphasis added). (Congressional
Record, daily edition December 20, 1974,
page H12597.)
This exchange and the quoted report seem to the Commission
to be a statement of Congressional awareness of the political
and campaign nature of some newsletters.
The Upholstery Regulator Act permits individual tax-
FORD LIBRARY
payers to take a tax deauction or a tax credit for money
- 4 -
given to a newsletter account. 26 U.S.C. §§41 and 218.
These sections of the Internal Revenue Code treat newsletter
fund contributions and political contributions in the same
manner; lumping the two together to allow an aggregate tax
aeduction or credit. Following this precedent, the Commission
will treat funds contributed to support a non-frankable
newsletter as a political contribution and expenditures made
in connection with such newsletter as an expenditure subject
to the limitations of the Act.
The Commission is of the opinion, however, that Congres-
sional appropriations for staff salaries, newsletters, stationery
and travel are for presumptively non-political, legislative
activities and, therefore, not subject to the limitations
and prohibitions of the Act. One may assume that Congress
has provided or will provide sufficient funds for the non-
political functions of the Membership. Accordingly,
additional monies not appropriated by Congress but rather
raised independently by the Members themselves or their
supporters should be viewed as political and not legislative
funds. Congress is, of course, always free to appropriate
any additional funds deemed necessary to enable Members to
carry out their legislative functions. Indeed, the point
was recently emphasized by the Honorable Wayne L. Hays,
when he indicated that such additional money should come from
GERALD R. FORD
-5-
the public treasury and not from contributions to Members
1
or from the Members' own pocket.
$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
This section was drafted to implement 2 U.S.C. 439a.
The provision of separate accounts facilitates reporting so
that different accounts are not commingled. Members of
Congress will have the option of using a principal campaign
committee or an office account to make certain expenditures,
such as for a non-frankable newsletter or questionnaire.
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts and
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts
2 U.S.C. 439a provides that contributions to a federal
officeholder for the purpose of supporting his or her
activities as an officeholder and expenditures thereof "shall
be fully disclosed in accordance with rules promulgated by
the Commission." The Commission determined that office
accounts, since they are treated for most purposes as political
(See Section 113.2, supra), should file in the same manner and
at the same time as political committees. Franking accounts
are required to file less often, twice a year, so as not to
FORD
1. "Bearing the Costs of Government" by the Honorable
wayne L. Hays, Washington Post at A14 (July 19, GERAL 1975).
-6-
be unduly burdensome to legislators. The times for filing
were established so that the franking account reports would
be availaole for public inspection prior to the general
elections.
$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds
This section has been proposed pursuant to the Commission's
rulemaking authority under 2 U.S.C. 439a.
GERALD R. LIBRAT FORD
August 12, 1975
John G. Murphy, Jr.
This letter is our request for a Counsel's opinion on a series
of questions. These arise from anticipated circumstances in the
campaign to elect Mr. Louis Wyman in the Special Senate election in
New Hampshire on September 16, 1975.
President Ford and former Governor Reagan may travel to
New Hampshire. While here, they may hold rallies, press conferences,
and attend public meetings, On these occasions they may appear with
Lou Wyman and endorse his candidacy. Their expenses will not be
paid by the Wyman for Senate Committee which is the principal cam-
paign committee for him.
Our questions are (1) does this constitute a contribution
in kind to the Wyman campaign? If so, (2) how is that contribution
to be computed? (3) Does their travel to and from New Hampshire
count, and (4) what does a candidate do to avoid accepting this
kind of contribution under the law?
We would appreciate your prompt response since decisions
are being made daily which affect the points raised in this letter.
George Young
Campaign Chairman
FORD
MEMORANDUM #31
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20463
AGENDAMITEM
Mar
August 26, 1975
8/28/25
Agando
IIC
DATE:
MEMORANDUM TO: The Commissioners
FROM:
Jack Murphy fun.
&
Attached please find OC 1975-48 for your review
subject to the two-day rule. It will be listed on the
agenda for Thursday, August 28, 1975.
Attachment
FORD LIBRARY A GERALD
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20463
OC 1975-48
Mr. George Young
Wyman-for-Senator Committee
Concord, New Hampshire
Dear Mr. Younq:
This letter is in response to your request dated
August 12, 1975, for an opinion of counsel. In your
request you state that "President Ford and former
Governor Reagan may travel to New Hampshire. While
[there] they may hold rallies, press conferences and
attend public meetings. On these occasions they may
appear with Louis Wyman and endorse his candidacy.
Their expenses will not be paid by the Wyman-for-Senate
Committee which is [the candidate's] principal campaign
committee."
The questions you pose are:
1. Does this constitute a contribution-in-kind to
the Wyman campaign? If so:
2. How is that contribution to be computed?
3. Does their travel to and from New Hampshire count?
4. What does a candidate do to avoid accepting this
kind of contribution under the law?
Each of these issues is addressed below.
1. Characterization of activities
The cost of the described activities will be a contri-
bution-in-kind subject to the appropriate contribution
limitations in 18 U.S.C. §608(b), if the actual expenses are
assumed bv an individual or by a political committee other
than the national or state Republican party committee.
GERALD P. FORD
- 2 -
Such contribution will also be attributed to the Wyman
campaign expenditure limitation set out in 18 U.S.C. §608 (c).
If, however, either party committee assumes such expenses,
the cost of the trip may be either a contribution-in-kind or
an expenditure by the party under 18 U.S.C. §608 (f). The
Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 established
a separate expenditure limitation for political parties; under
18 U.S.C. $608 (f), the national and the state Republican party
committees are each entitled to spend $20,000 in the Wyman
campaign. If the party and the candidate agree, the cost of
this trip may be treated as an expenditure under 18 U.S.C.
§608 (f), rather than as a contribution-in-kind to, and
expenditure by, the Wyman campaign.
A further question arises because of the political status
of the individuals involved. President Ford is an announced
candidate for the Republican presidential nomination for 1976.
Former Governor Reagan has authorized a political committee
(within the meaning of that term as defined in 18 U.S.C.
$591 (d) and, arguably, may be a candidate for the Republican
presidential nomination. Therefore, the cost of the type of
activities described in this request might well be considered
an expenditure by either presidential candidate and attributable,
in whole or in part, to his expenditure limitation under
18 U.S.C. §608 (c). While there may be some carryover effect
to the presidential campaigns of both individuals, the General
Counsel is of the opinion that these expenses should be attri-
buted solely to the Wyman senatorial campaign. There are
approximately three weeks remaining until the September 16th
special election. The timing of these visits raises the
presumption that these visits are likely to have maximum
effect on the more proximate election rather than on the 1976
presidential election, nominating convention or March 2 New
Hampshire primary election. It must be emphasized that this
analysis pertains only to this particular set of circumstances
and is not to be construed as applicable to other campaign
activity engaged in by presidential candidates.
2. Computation
(a) Services. To the extent that either President Ford
or former Governor Reagan volunteers his unreimbursed time on
behalf of the Wyman candidacy the character of such activity
will be considered "services provided without compensation
by individuals who volunteer a portion
of their GERAL time
IBRARY
- 3 -
on behalf of a candidate"; thus the value of such services
will not be a contribution within the definition of 18
U.S.C. $591 (e).
(b) Travel and living expenses. All travel and living
expenses attributable to the Reagan and Ford visits to New
Hampshire must be computed as part of the amount contributed
by those individuals or their committees to the Wyman candi-
dacy. To the extent that such expenses are unreimbursed, the
five hundred dollar ($500) exemption set out in 18 U.S.C.
§591 (e) (5) (D) is applicable. Any unreimbursed amount in
excess of $500 expended on travel and living expenses by
either President Ford or ex-Governor Reagan will, of course,
constitute contributions to which the limitations of 18 U.S.C.
§608 (b) apply. Any amounts so contributed will, of course,
also be considered expenditures made by or on behalf of the
Wyman candidacy and counting toward the candidate's overall
spending limitation.
The General Counsel recognizes that the foregoing rule,
which attributes all portal to portal (and return) travel
expenses toward the individual's contribution limits may,
in the case of an individual who resides some distance from
the candidate's jurisdiction, restrict that individual's
capacity to volunteer his or her services to that candidate.
Nevertheless, this office believes that such a rule will
promote volunteer participation at the local level which is
certainly a countervailing consideration implicit throughout
the 1974 Amendments. Moreover, the plain language of the
statute requires the conclusion that "unreimbursed travel"
under 18 U.S.C. §591 means any travel in behalf of a
candidate.
Presidential expenditures in connection with such a
visit provide unique problems of attribution. It would be
illogical, and unnecessarily restrictive, to require the
attribution of the actual cost of a presidential campaign
foray. Hence, only the equivalent commercial rates will be
chargeable against an incumbent President's individual contri-
bution limitations and against the candidate's overall expendi-
ture limitation. Expenses for accompanying staff personnel
will be charged against the foregoing limitations only if
such staff personnel serve primarily as advance persons or
other campaign staff members and do not provide support services
to the Office of the President. Additionally, special costs
FORD R. LIBRARY GERALD
ave 4 -
attendant upon Ford's office as President, such as the
Secret Service, police and medical attention, are not to
be included within this amount. These costs are relatively
fixed and are related to Ford's position as President and
not to his political function as head of his party.
Finally, if travel, living or any other non-exempt
expenses incurred by either President Ford or ex-Governor
Reagan during his proposed New Hampshire trip, are reimbursed
by a political party, such reimbursement may be characterized
by that political party as either a contribution to the candi-
date under 18 U.S.C. §608 (b) or as a party expenditure under
18 U.S.C. $608 (f). To the extent that such amounts are
characterized and reported as party expenditures under
18 U.S.C. §608 (f), they will not count toward the candidate's
overall expenditure ceiling.
3. Independent expenditures
The fourth question raised in this request is "[h]ow
to avoid accepting these contributions?" The cost of these
trips would not be considered a contribution to or an expendi-
ture on behalf of the Wyman campaign only if the trips do not
have the effect of influencing the senatorial race in New
Hampshire. If Mr. Wyman does not appear with the individuals
and disavows their visits and if the individuals involved
assume the cost of the trip, the expenses might be considered
an independent expenditure by the individuals limited to $1,000
under 18 U.S.C. $608(e).
Please bear in mind that this letter is to be regarded
as only the opinion of the General Counsel and does not
constitute a policy decision or advisory opinion of the
Commission. Any interpretation or ruling contained herein
is limited to the facts of the request. The Commission has
been made aware of the opinion and has voiced no objection.
Sincerely yours,
John G. Murphy, Jr.
General Counsel
FORD R. GERALO LIBRARY
August 15, 1975
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis, Chairman
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
On August 7, 1975, Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, wrote your office in response to its letter
of July 10, 1975, which raised certain inquiries relative
to a White House office account, newsletter fund, and simi-
lar accounts within the purview of 2 U.S.C. 439a. Mr.
Buchen's communication made reference to expenditures paid
by the Republican National Committee in furtherance of
Party goals for activities performed by the President and
Vice President as titular head of their political party.
Mr. Buchen stated:
"It is our understanding that for a number
of years the two national political com-
mittees have undertaken certain expenditures
in furtherance of party goals for activities
by the President and Vice President as the
titular heads of their political parties.
The Republican National Committee has made
such expenditures during the present and
prior Administrations. I have, therefore,
requested the General Counsel of the
Republican National Committee to respond
GERALD A. FORD LIBRARY
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
August 15, 1975
to you directly with respect to these
expenditures. He has advised that
these expenditures have already been
filed with the Federal Election Com-
mission, the Clerk of the House and
the Secretary of the Senate, in the
Committee's quarterly reports, and
that he will promptly contact the FEC
to discuss the matter further."
This is to advise that the Republican National
Committee is currently undertaking the draftsmanship of a
communication to the Federal Election Commission which docu-
ments would purport to disclose the history and purpose of
the expenditures referred to in Mr. Buchen's correspondence,
offer a rationale for same and generally acquaint the FEC
with the need to recognize the concept that major parties
payments for on-going party expenses in both election and
non-election years are not chargeable to any Federal candidate.
It is anticipated that this project will be com-
pleted and transmitted to your office no later than September
12, 1975. In the interim, should you have any questions or
inquiry regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call upon
me.
Sincerely,
BENTON L. BECKER for the
Republican National Committee
BLB:dsl
GERALD R FORD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975
ARCHIVES
OF
THE UNITED NATIONAL STATES THE
*
1934
PART IV:
FEDERAL
ELECTION
COMMISSION
ADVISORY OPINIONS
GERALD ? Luvygn FORD
36746
NOTICES
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
if the Congressman specifies that he will
officeholder or employee is considered to
accept only $1,000 of the honorarium
[Notice 1975-30; opinions 1975-8, 1975-13]
have accepted an honorarium if he re-
and suggests that a $500.00 donation be
ceives it for his personal use, if he re-
HONORARIUMS AND RELATED BENEFITS
given to either of two specific charities
ceives it with the intent or subsequently
FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND
which are named by that Congressman;
donating the honorarium to charity, if
LEGALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDI-
(3) A Member of Congress is offered a
he directs that the organization offering
DATE RECEIVING TRAVEL EXPENSES
$500.00 honorarium to speak at a con-
the honorarium give the honorarium to a
FROM CORPORATIONS
vention when he already has accepted
charity which he names, or if he suggests
Advisory Opinions
his limit of $15,000 in honoraria during
that the honorarium might be given to a
the calendar year. Congressman Rosten-
charity of the organization's own choos-
The Federal Election Commission an-
kowski asks whether the honorarium is
ing. In addition, a Federal officeholder
nounces the publication today of Ad-
considered accepted if the Congressman
or employee will be presumed by the
visory Opinions 1975-8 and 1975-13. The
agrees to make the speech but declines
Commission to have accepted as an
Commission's opinions are in response
the honorarium, and suggests instead
honorarium, any charitable donation
to questions raised by individuals hold-
that it be given to either of two specific
made by an organization in the name of
ing Federal office, candidates for Federal
charities which are named by that Con-
that Federal officeholder or employee, as-
office and political committees, with re-
gressman.
suming that sometime earlier the office-
spect to whether any specific transaction
Do these transactions constitute ac-
holder or employee had made an appear-
or activity by such individual, candidate,
ceptance of an honorarium, and there-
ance or speech, or written an article, for
or political committee would constitute
fore come within the provisions of 18
a violation of the Federal Election Cam-
the donating person or organization.
U.S.C. § 616?
paign Act of 1971, as amended, of Chap-
The Commission intends to apply its
Section 616 of Title 18, United States
policy on honorariums as follows:
ter 95 or Chapter 96 of Title 26 United
Code, provides that:
(1) If a Congressman declines an en-
States Code, or of Sections 608, 610, 611,
613, 614, 615, 616, or 617 of Title 18
Whoever, while an elected or appointed
tire honorarium and instead requests
United States Code.
officer or employee of any branch of the
that it be given to either of two specific
Federal Government-
charities, the honorarium will be treated
ADVISORY OPINION 1975-8: HONORARIUMS
(1) accepts any honorarium of more than
as accepted by the officeholder. In this
AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF
$1,000 (excluding amounts accepted for ac-
case, a Congressman would be sufficiently
CONGRESS
tual travel and subsistence expenses) for
any appearance, speech, or article; or
attempting to influence an organization's
This advisory opinion is rendered un-
(2) accepts honorariums (not prohibited
choice of recipients as to constitute, for
der 2 U.S.C. 437f in response to requests
by paragraph (1) of this section) aggregat-
purposes of 18 U.S.C. $ 616, the exercise
for advisory opinions submitted by Con-
ing more than $15,000 in any calendar year;
of dominion.
gressman Dan Rostenkowski, Congress-
shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more
(2) If a Congressman wishes to accept
than $5,000.
man Rhodes, and Senators Mike Mans-
part and decline part of a proposed
field and Hugh Scott which were pub-
This section on its face strictly limits
honorarium and suggests that the dif-
lished together as AOR 1975-8 in the
the financial benefits that a Member of
ference in amount be given to either of
July 2, 1975, FEDERAL REGISTER (40 FR
Congress may receive from the accept-
two specific charities, the honorarium
28044). Interested parties were given an
ance of an honorarium. The legislative
will be treated as accepted by the office-
opportunity to submit written comments
history of the section indicates that this
holder. By suggesting how the proposed
relating to the requests.
view accords with the intent of Con-
honorarium should be allocated, a Con-
A. Request of Congressman Dan
gress. This history shows a strong Con-
gressman would exercise sufficient do-
Rostenkowski. Congressman Rostenkow-
gressional concern with limiting the
minion over the honorarium to constitute
ski in his letter of May 8, 1975, asks for
amounts, and thus the benefits, that a
acceptance under 18 U.S.C. § 616.
clarification of Section 616 of Title 18,
Federal official may receive in exchange
(3) If a Congressman declines an en-
United States Code, which provides limi-
for an appearance, speech, or article.
tire honorarium to avoid exceeding the
tations on the acceptance of honorari-
Congress does not evidence in this sec-
aggregate limit on honoraria and then
ums. He generally describes situations in
tion any interest in specifically exempt-
suggests that it be given to either of two
which a Member of Congress prefers not
ing from the limitations, honorariums
specific charities, the Commission would
to accept an honorarium for a speech,
that are accepted and subsequently ap-
conclude that the honorarium has been
and instead suggests to the speech's spon-
plied to a particular purpose, no matter
accepted by the officeholder. For purposes
sor that at least part of the intended
how commendable may be this purpose.
of 18 U.S.C. § 616, the honorarium has
honorarium could be donated to one of
Even the indirect acceptance of an hon-
been accepted by the officeholder through
two bona fide charitable organizations.
orarium for subsequent charitable use
an attempt to exercise sufficient domin-
The donation would not be a prerequisite
can produce benefits for a Member of
ion and control over its use. Therefore,
to or a requirement for making the
Congress. For example, he thereby may
the officeholder would have violated the
speech. Congressman Rostenkowski
become entitled to an income tax deduc-
limits provided in this section.
wishes to know whether the amount of
tion for making a charitable contribu-
The Commission does not wish to dis-
the donation to charity by the other
tion. A Congressman also could receive
courage charitable donations by Federal
party will count towards the honorarium
valuable public exposure by donating to
officeholders or employees, either directly
limits of a Congressman. Specifically, the
charity an honorarium which he pos-
or indirectly, nor charitable donations by
following circumstances are described:
sessed or controlled. Accordingly, to im-
any organization, but it will examine the
(1) A Member of Congress is offered a
plement Congress' intent to limit the
particulars of each donation for any im-
$500.00 honorarium to speak at a con-
benefits which may be received from
proper implications under 18 U.S.C. $ 616.
vention when he already has accepted
honorariums, it is the opinion of the
This section of this opinion assumes
$4,000 in honoraria during the calendar
Commission that the limits imposed by
that the officeholder receiving the hon-
year. Congressman Rostenkowski asks
18 U.S.C. § 616 shall apply to any hon-
orarium is not making an appearance or
whether the honorarium is considered
orarium accepted by a Congressman in
speech before a substantial number of
accepted if the Congressman declines the
exchange for an appearance, speech, or
people who comprise a part of the elec-
entire honorarium and suggests instead
article.
torate with respect to which the office-
that it be given to either of two specific
The question then arises as to what
holder is a Federal candidate. Compare
charities which are named by that Con-
action by a Member of Congress con-
part C of this opinion.
gressman;
stitutes acceptance of an honorarium. An
B. Request of Congressman John J.
(2) A Member of Congress is offered a
honorarium is considered to have been
Rhodes. Congressman Rhodes in his let-
$1,500 honorarium to speak at a conven-
"accepted" under 18 U.S.C. § 616 when
ter of May 6, 1975, requests an advisory
tion when he already has accepted $4,000
there has been active or constructive
opinion as to whether a Member of Con-
gress may request, in lieu of an honorar-
in honoraria during the calendar year.
receipt of the honorarium and the fed-
ium for a speech, that an organization
Congressman Rostenkowski asks wheth-
ral officeholder or employee exercises
make an appropriate donation to a char-
er the honorarium is considered accepted
dominion or control over it. A federal
itable organization. Congressman Rhodes
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 163-THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975
NOTICES
36747
asks whether a Member of Congress, who
distinguishes between an honorarium,
ADVISORY OPINION 1975-13: LEGALITY OF
has already received the full amount of
which is treated as income, and expenses
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RECEIVING
honoraria permitted by the cited statute,
for transportation, accommodations, and
TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM CORPORATIONS
would be in violation of the law if he or
meals which are deductible from income
The Federal Election Commission ren-
she requires or requests that the sponsors
as an ordinary and necessary cost of do-
ders this advisory opinion under 2 U.S.C.
of the Member's appearance donate an
ing business.
§ 437f in response to a request submitted
amount equal to, but in lieu of the hon-
Accordingly, it is the opinion of the
by a candidate. The request was made
orarium, directly to "bona fide charities"
Commission that the actual costs of
public by the Commission and published
named by the Member or the donor.
transportation, accommodations, and
in the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 17, 1975
The principles established in part A
meals are excluded from the limitations
(40 FR 30258). Interested parties were
of this advisory opinion also are appli-
on honorariums provided in 18 U.S.C.
given an opportunity to submit com-
cable to this request. Accordingly, no fur-
§ 616. Thus, Members of Congress who
ments relating to the request.
ther elaboration is necessary.
reach the aggregate limit of $15,000 on
The requesting party seeks an advisory
The opinion presented in part A of this
honorariums received in any calendar
opinion as to whether 18 U.S.C. § 610
advisory opinion may be relied upon as
year may continue to accept speaking
prohibits a Presidential candidate from
controlling the factual situation present-
engagements for which they receive only
receiving travel expenses for a speaking
ed in this request, and if there is good
their own personal actual transportation,
engagement at a Chamber of Commerce,
faith compliance with that part of the
accommodation, and meal expenses.
if the Chamber's general treasury in-
opinion, there will be a presumption of
It is further asked whether an or-
cludes money contributed by corpora-
compliance with the provisions of 18
ganization could provide reimbursement
tions.
U.S.C. $616, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437f
for these expenses, even if the organi-
Section 610 prohibits corporations
(b), with respect to the issues raised by
zation is prohibited from making cam-
paign contributions. The language of
from making contributions or expendi-
this request.
tures in connection with Federal elec-
18 U.S.C. $ 616 expressly applies to any
C. Joint Request of Senators Mans-
"elected or appointed officer or em-
tions, and prohibits any person from ac-
field and Scott. Senators Mike Mansfield
and Hugh Scott in their joint letter of
ployee of any branch of the Federal Gov-
cepting or receiving any such contribu-
ernment." A review of the legislative his-
tions or expenditures. As used in section
June 26, 1975, request an advisory opin-
tory of this section (see the Congres-
610, contribution includes "any direct or
ion as to whether travel and subsistence
sional Record, daily edition, August 7,
indirect payment,
to
any
candi-
expenses are included in the limitation
on honorariums. Specifically, they ask
1974, H. 7816; and October 8, 1974, S.
date,
in connection with any elec-
18526) indicates that the intent of Con-
tion to [Federal office]
Thus,
whether a Member of Congress, who has
reached the aggregate limit of $15,000
gress in enacting this section was to
reimbursing the travel expenses of a
limit the amounts of honorariums re-
Presidential candidate from corporate
in a calendar year, may accept a speak-
ceived by Federal officeholders and
funds would be prohibited by 18 U.S.C.
ing engagement, receive no honorarium,
§ 610, since any public appearance of
and still be able to have travel and sub-
employees.
On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. $ 610
such a candidate before an audience,
sistence expenses paid by the sponsor of
which prohibits contributions or expen-
comprised of individuals who could be
the enagement. As a related issue, they
ditures by a national bank. corporation,
influenced to take affirmative action in
ask whether a sponsor of a speaking en-
or labor organization and 18 U.S.C. § 611
support of his candidacy as result of that
gagement may provide travel and subsist-
which prohibits-contributions by govern-
appearance, is connected with an elec-
ence expenses in these circumstances, if
ment contractors, are more broadly ap-
tion.
the sponsor would ordinarily and other-
plicable to contributions or expenditures
The Commission's opinion is that, once
wise be prohibited from making a cam-
made to any candidate in connection
an individual has become a candidate
paign contribution.
with any election to federal office. Thus,
for the Presidency, all speeches made be-
It is provided in 18 U.S.C. § 616 that:
it seems clear that 18 U.S.C. § 616, is not
fore substantial numbers of people are
Whoever, while an elected or appointed
intended to supercede the application of
presumably for the purpose of enhanc-
officer or employee of any branch of the
18 U.S.C. § 610 and § 611 to officeholders
ing his candidacy. (See also Advisory
Federal Government-
once they become candidates. According-
Opinion 1975-8 issued August 14, 1975,
(1) accepts any honorarium of more than
ly, once an individual (including an of-
in which the Commission decided that
$1,000 (excluding amounts accepted for ac-
ficeholder) becomes a candidate for fed-
certain travel and subsistence expenses
tual travel and subsistence expenses) for any
eral office, all speeches made before sub-
paid to officeholders who are also can-
appearance, speech, or article; or shall be
stantial numbers of people, comprising a
didates are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 610 and
fined not less than $1,000 nor more than
$5,000.
part of the electorate with respect to
611). Accordingly, since the requesting
party is a Presidential candidate, he
Thus, this section on its face shows a
which the individual is a federal candi-
would be prohibited from accepting cor-
legislative intent to treat "actual travel
date, are presumably for the purpose of
porate funds to pay his travel expenses
and subsistence expenses" differently
enhancing the candidacy and the candi-
in connection with the speaking engage-
from honorariums. The legislative his-
date is prohibited from accepting ex-
ment. The Commission notes, however,
tory of 18 U.S.C. § 616 confirms that this
pense money for transportation, accom-
that organizations, such as Chambers of
view accords with the intent of Congress.
modations and meals from organizations
Commerce, could properly (within the
(See Congressional Record, daily edition,
limits of 18 U.S.C. § 608) pay the travel
October 8, 1974, S. 18526.) The legislative
covered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 610 and 611. See
Advisory Opinion 1975-13, issued August
expenses of candidates by making such
history shows a clear Congressional in-
tent to exclude money given for actual
14, 1975.
payments from separate segregated ac-
counts containing non-corporate funds.
transportation expenses, accommoda-
This advisory opinion is to be con-
tions, and meals, from any amount given
strued as limited to the facts of the re-
Dated: August 18, 1975.
as an honorarium to an elected or ap-
quest and should not be relied on as hav-
THOMAS B. CURTIS,
pointed officer or employee of the Fed-
ing any precedential significance except
Chairman for the
eral Government. It should be noted
as it relates to those facts at the time of
Federal Election Commission.
that the Internal Revenue Code similarly
its issuance.
[FR Doc.75-22096 Filed 8-20-75;8:45 and
FORD
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 163-THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975
GERALD
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.
POST - August 291975 FRIDAY
Unit Compromises
On Election Fund
1
COMMISSION, From A1
"20 phone calls in 20 states,"
but he also expressed reserva
The 20-state, $100,000 stand-
tions about "netting out" the
ard was written into law last
contributions when the match-
year in order to keep frivolous
ing funds begin.
candidates from receiving
The eommission left unset-
federal funds, but the commis-
tled for at least another week
sion had been deadlocked for
the simmering controversy
Rowland Evans and Robert Novak
The President's Campaign Financing
President Ford intends to campaign
Although Mr. Ford is an announced candidate
gressmen: your avoice is heard in
this year without obeying stringent
Congress victrus hope that this
financial regulations imposed on all
other presidential candidates by the
for President, his lawyers claim he is traveling
will lead to positive results.'
A footnote: The embassy cable does
new election law-an exercise in loops
politically this year as leader of the Republican
not show the response from the con-
hole-seeking which could land him in
political and legal trouble.
Party, not as a candidate."
gressmen. After we reported last
month's exchanges between senators
The President's intentions became
and the Russians which the senators
gaged in fund-raising and directly to The upshot: The White House is spending," he admonished the con-
© 1975. Field Enterprises, Inc.
FORD LIBRARY d GERALD
8/27/75 Post
Robber
Pilferer
Ford Schedules Weekend Travels;
Presse
-ug. 26-
Trips Said Not Part of Campaign
S, one of
is in the
Associated Press
that no other candidate for of-
travel costs when he is on offi-
llar "great
President Ford has tenta-
fice has.
cial duties in his role as head
" from a
tively scheduled out-of-town
The President is required
of the GOP and as a candidate
in in 1963,
trips almost every weekend
to make decisions day in and
for the presidential nomina-
here today
for the rest of the year. White
day out and then live with the
tion in 1976.
in prison
House press secretary Ron
consequences. If one blows up
Nessen said the committe
Nessen said the Republican
in his face, he's got a political
victed of pil-
National Committee will pay
liability on his hands that no
will act with approval of the
S, two
other, nonincumbent candi-
election commission in deter-
1
for
some
of
Initials
Date
Prepared By
Approved By
AA M 19/9/3 9/3
45-804 EYE-EASE
45-904 20/20 BUFF
ATIONAL
Made
Schedule of Payables
as M 8/31/75
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
Vendors, Imp ense Departs,
2
3
Etc. nan white Hance
34614075
3
4
4
5
Winte Home! White Hance
5264869
5
6
Total Puyables antand
39878944
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
White Home Expend tune to Date:
19
20
20
21
Presential
25149786
21
22
22
23
Une treasdential
461724
23
24
Titul Expenditures
25611510
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37,
38
38
39
ORD
39
40
GERALD
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
Initials
Date
Prepared By
AA
Approved By
NT
9/3
45-804 EYE-EASE
45-904 20/20 BUFF
NATIO NAL
Made A.
Fund Diving chairmonis office
Schedule of Expenditures
year to Date Through 9/3/75
1
2
3
4
account
Titl
Expenditing
1
1
2
Salaries
12
6
4
617
2
3
3
4
Payroll Taxes 9 Ins. - Employer
80
4
5
5
6
Prof. Consultants
99
26
6
7
7
8
Travel of Transportation Exp.
728867
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
Telephones Long Dist of Credit cards
84091
12
13
13
14
Meetings a Conferences
57
14
15
15
16
Miscellaneous operating cost
399898
16
17
Total Through july 31
36
36
17
18
Exp emlitures 8/1 - 9/3/75
2134534
18
19
Total through 9/3/75
5797170
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
ORD
40
41
GERALD
IBRARY
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
Initials
Date
Prepared By
Approved By
45-804 EYE-EASE
45-904 20/20 BUFF
NATIONAL
1
2
3
4
1
850
activity I- hundent &
1
2
3
thit 7 amily
2
3
4
851- -
5492174
4
5
852- advancement
55700
33
5
6
853 Receptions
1242405
6
7
854 gifts
5463527
7
8
855 Misc, Expenses
1615031
8
9
19383170
9
10
10
11
860
Activity II - W-H staff
11
12
12
13
861 - - Staff Political Exp,
266278
13
14
862 - Receptions + Special Events
38668
14
15
863 - Office Supplies
-0
-
15
16
864 - Telephone Charges
-
0
-
16
17
865- Telegraph Charges
505467
17
18
866 - Opinion Polls
4938173
18
19
5748586
19
252258
20
20
21
870
Activity III - PR Operations
21
22
22
23
872 Data Processing
5000
23
24
873 Postage
1
0
-
24
25
874 Mailing lists
-
0
-
25
26
875 Film, Photo, Tapes
4250
26
27
876 RNC Services
8780
27
28
18030
28
29
29
30
880
Activity IV - Vice Pres.
30
31
31
32
881 Travel & Transp.
181278
32
33
882 Advancemen
197913
33
34
883 Misc. Exp,
12867
34
35
884 gifts
69666
35
36
885 Reumbursements
<100000>
36
37
361724
37
38
25511510
38
39
39
FORD
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Curtis:
This is in response to your letter of July 10, 1975, inquiring
whether President Ford maintains an office account, newsletter
fund or similar account within the purview of 2 U.S. C. 439a.
I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. However, it
was necessary to review in detail our present practices in order
to respond fully to your question. No such accounts are main-
tained by or on behalf of the President to defray "any ordinary
and necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with his
duties as a holder of Federal office
11
As an accommodation to the White House press corps which travels
with the President on all trips, regardless of the nature of the trip,
the White House travel office does maintain a so-called press travel
account. This account receives payments from the White House
press corps for its share of the costs of travelling on Air Force One,
the press charter plane which follows the President's plane, and any
ground transportation necessary for the press to accompany the
President at virtually all times while away from Washington.
Due to the unique nature of the President's schedule; e.g., confidential
departure times, use of military bases, possibilities for sudden
schedule changes, etc., the White House travel office makes the
necessary arrangements for these transportation costs and bills the
media accordingly. Receipts are maintained in an account used
only for this purpose. Disbursements from this account are
generally made into the Treasury of the United States for travel
on government planes, to the airlines from whom planes have been
chartered, and to the appropriate companies for ground transporta-
tion expenses. While this account is not used for support of a holder
of Federal office, we would be pleased to make its records available
for inspection by members of your staff.
Titular
-2-
It is our understanding that for a number of years the two national
political committees have undertaken certain expenditures in
furtherance of party goals for activities by the President and Vice
National President Committee as the heads has of made their such political expenditures parties. during The Republican the present adprior
Administration. I have, therefore, requested the General Counsel
of the Republican National Committee to respond to you directly
with respect to these expenditures. He has advised that these
expenditures have already been filed with the Federal Election
Commission in the Committee's quarterly reports and that he will
promptly contact the FEC to discuss the matter further.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Thomas B. Curtis
Chairman
Federal Election Commission
Washington, D.C. 20463
clair. of House
Senal See of Sen
Draft
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 3, 1975
Dear Mr. Curtis:
This is in response to Notice 1975-38 (F. R. 40202) in which
the Federal Election Commission has sought comments concern-
ing a request from the campaign manager for Mr. Louis Wyman
for an opinion of the FEC General Counsel on several questions
relating to possible travel by "President Ford and former
Governor Reagan" to New Hampshire for the purpose of endorsing
Mr. Wyman in the September 16, 1975, special Senatorial election.
The General Counsel has proposed for Commission review an
opinion responding to this request which states, in part, as follows:
"Presidential expenditures in connection
with such a visit provide unique problems of
attribution. It would be illogical, and un-
necessarily restrictive, to require the attribution
of the actual cost of a presidential campaign
foray. Hence, only the equivalent commercial
rates will be chargeable against an incumbent
President's individual contribution limitations
and against the candidate's overall expenditure
limitation. Expenses for accompanying staff
personnel will be charged against the foregoing
limitations only if such staff personnel serve
primarily as advance persons or other campaign
staff members and do not provide support services
to the Office of the President. Additionally, special
costs attendant upon Ford's office as President,
such as the Secret Service, police and medical
attention, are not to be included within this
amount. These costs are relatively fixed and
are related to Ford's position as President and
not to his political function as head of his
party. 11
FORD A. LIBRARY OERALD
-2 -
In the form of comment on this one provision, we wish to bring
to your attention the manner in whi ch we intend to apportion
the various costs incurred to operate government-owned aircraft
on which the President and accompanying government personnel
travel to and from localities where the President appears for
other than official purposes. As the General Counsel's proposed
opinion indicates, expenditures for such travel by the President
present problems that are unique to his Federal office, in that
the President must continue to perform in his official capacity
at the same time he undertakes political activities.
For this reason, whenever the President travels, regardless of
the purpose of the particular trip, he is accompanied by a number
of persons who are present to support him in his official role.
For example, certain members of the White House staff, military
aides, medical aides, Secret Service and communications personnel
are present not for any political purpose, but solely to provide the
President with support which in many cases they are required by
law to perform. The Secret Service, in particular, is required
by P.L. 90-331 to provide protection to "major Presidential and
Vice Presidential" candidates at the direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury and on the basis of consultation with an advisory
committee of bipartisan congressional membership.
(1) Costs of Operating Government-Owned Aircraft
on Political Trips
When the President travels on a trip which entails
only political stops, the cost of operating the Government-owned
aircraft that are used to transport the President can be readily
determined from the enclosed hourly rate schedule, used by the
Department of Defense to recover its costs from other government
agencies that use military aircraft. In our view, the costs of
transporting any persons aboard the aircraft who are traveling for
political purposes should be borne by the appropriate political
committee. On the other hand, the costs of transporting those
persons who are traveling for the purpose of supporting the Office
of the President should not be attributed to a political committee.
For the purpose of the President's future travels, we will identify
those individuals who could be considered to be present for a
-3-
political purpose. We plan to treat as political travelers the
President and First Family, political committee officials
certain White House and other officials, e.g., Cabinet officers
who may perform some political activities and any other persons
whose activities could be viewed as political. Although White
House officials are present for official support activities, and
generally spend a substantial majority, if not all, of their time
on official business, we intend to consider the following categories
of officials to be political for the purpose of such travel: White
House officials who may advise on political matters (e.g., Donald
Rumsfeld, Robert Hartmann, John Marsh, Ron Nessen, Richard
Cheney, etc.), speechwriters, advancemen, and a White House
photographer.
The remainder of the White House personnel is present for the
purpose of supporting the President in his official capacity, e.g.,
a civilian aide or personal secretary, along with non-White House
support personnel, e.g., the Secret Service, military aides,
medical and communications personnel, etc. They are not present
for any political purpose, and the costs of their travel should not
be attributed to a political committee. In this regard, it is our
understanding that in 1972 the Secret Service paid up to the cost
of comparable first-class airfare for its agents traveling on board
chartered aircraft of non-incumbent Presidential candidates.
Therefore, on future Presidential travel the appropriate political
committee will be charged by DOD for its pro rata share of the
hourly costs of using government-owned aircraft, based on the
percentage of the persons on board who are present mainly or in
part for a political purpose.
(2) Costs of Operating Government-Owned Aircraft
on Mixed Official-Political Trips
In most cases, it is not possible to schedule the
President's travel in a manner that will allow trips to be solely
official or solely political. We believe that the best formula for
apportioning the transportation costs on mixed official-political
purpose trips is one which may be referred to as the "round trip
airfare formula. " Under this formula, the political stops are
-4-
isolated from the official stops in order to establish the political
trip that would have been made if the President did not have the
responsibilities of his office. For this purpose, where a particular
stop includes both official and political events, it will be treated as
a political stop. A stop will be regarded as official when that is
its main purpose, even though the President may meet, incidental
to the official event, with political figures in an informal and
unpublicized meeting, e.g., a private breakfast with a local
political figure or greeting a small group of local politicians.
Once the political stops of such a trip have been determined, DOD
calculates the cost of that "political" trip and charges the appro-
priate political committee for its share, as described above, of
the costs of the trip, based on the round trip flying time between
the initial point of departure, generally, Washington, D. C., and
the political stops made. An example might help to clarify this
approach. Suppose the President makes a trip from Washington
to San Francisco for official purposes, then to Los Angeles for
political purposes, and returns to Washington via St. Louis where
a stop is made for official purposes. Under this formula, the
appropriate political committee is charged for its pro rata share
of the hourly costs of a trip from Washington to Los Angeles and
return to Washington, even though there was no direct Washington
to Los Angeles leg of the flight.
(3) Other Travel Costs
In order to assure that all costs related to the political
portion of a trip are treated as political costs, the appropriate
political committee will be charged the expenses for each political
stop of any member of the Presidential party who is present
mainly or in part for a political purpose, as determined above.
Thus, political funds will pay the expenses of the President and
these other officials, but not the expenses of those persons who
are present to support the President entirely in his official capacity.
Such items as communications arrangements, motorcades,
automobile rentals, and other miscellaneous items are readily
identifiable as to their purpose, and are to be paid by the appro-
priate political committee when they are for political purposes.
-
Where an item, such as the cost of a bus for a motorcade involves
a mixed purpose, e.g., transporting the members of the Presidential
party who are considered to be present for a political purpose, and
also those serving the President in his official capacity, the appro-
priate political committee will bear the full cost of that item.
In every case where a candidate for Federal office is an incumbent,
either in an office to which he seeks re-election or in another
office, his campaign activities may become intermingled with
his offic ial activities, and similar problems will arise in ascertain-
ing which costs he incurs are campaign-related. The proposals
herein made provide a reasonable method for resolving such
problems.
(4) Services of Government Personnel
For the purpose of identifying the costs of travel to be
borne by the appropriate political committee, we understand that
it is not necessary to apportion the salaries of those members of
the personal staffs of incumbent candidates for Federal office
within either the Executive or Legislative Branches who, in
addition to their official duties, also participate in some limited
political activities. For example, employees "paid from the
appropriation for the office of the President "are exempted by
5 U.S. C. 7324(d)(1) from the general prohibition contained in
5 U.S.C. 7324(a)(2) against Executive Branch employees participat-
ing in "political management or in political campaigns. " This
section effectively places the White House staff in a position
comparable to that of the personal staffs of members of Congress.
No precise dividing line now exists, nor is one likely to be drawn,
which clearly indicates when such employees are performing
official duties and when those duties are political. So long as
these employees expend a substantial majority (an average in excess of
forty hours per week) of their time on official duties, there is
no need to attribute any portion of the salaries of such employees
to a political committee.
The reason for this letter is to bring to the Commission's attention
the means by which we intend to attribute to a political committee
the costs of the President's travel for purposes of support of the
GERALD A FOND LIBRARY
-6-
Republican Party, support of specific candidates, or support of
his own candidacy. To the extent this treatment may be different
from that proposed by the General Counsel, we do not imply that
a change need be made in the proposed opinion of such counsel.
Rather we believe that the proposed opinion is consistent with the
requirements of the applicable law and that if a more liberal
attribution of expenses is made to a political committee such is
within a candidate's discretion.
We intend to now implement with respect to future travel by the
President, this treatment for attribution of such travel costs.
We would appreciate very much any comments or suggestions
the Commission may think are appropriate to make with respect
to our treatment of the President's travel costs.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Chairman
Federal Election Commission
Washington, D.C. 20463
MEMORANDUM FOR: Members of the Media
FROM:
Mary Louise Smith, Chairman RNC
SUBJECT:
Presidential and Vice Presidential expenditures paid by RNC
DATE:
September 3, 1975
There have been a number of inquiries from members of the media concerning
Presidential and Vice Presidential expenditures paid by the Republican National
Committee and their amounts.
Historically, the two national political parties have paid certain
expenditures in furtherance of party goals for activities of the President
and Vice President as titular heads of their political parties.
The Republican National Committee has made such expenditures during the
present and prior administrations. As you are probably aware, our counsel is
now drafting a communication to the Federal Election Commission which will
document precedence for such expenditures, illustrate their purpose, offer
a rationale for them, and generally acquaint the FEC with the need to
recognize the concept that both major parties payments for on-going party
expenses and party building in both election and non-election years are not
chargeable to any Federal candidate.
Attached you will find a list of expenditures of this kind paid for by
the Republican National Committee in 1975. You will also find a list of 1975
bills on hand which have been approved for payment. Note that there is a 60-90
day lag on incoming bills after the expenses have been incurred. These expenses
are comparable to other non-election year payments for party building expenses
incurred by other Administrations so far as we can document.
###
GERALD A. FORD LIBRARY
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
PRESS RELEASE
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/797-5900
Robert S. Strauss, Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, September 5, 1975
STRAUSS CRITICIZES RNC FUNDING
OF FORD CAMPAIGN TRAVELS
The new federal elections law is admittedly complex, and requires
very careful interpretation despite the immediacy of its application and
the signficant political consequences inherent in it. The Federal
Elections Commission is working hard to come up with fair rulings as
questions arise ---- many of those questions brought by us. But despite
my sympathy for the task of the commissioners, as Chairman of the
Democratic Party I must nevertheless question ruling when we feel they
have erred ------ as I believe they did yesterday in their ruling on the
assignment of expenditures in the New Hampshire senatorial campaign.
The letter from our counsel, stating our position, is available, and
I will comment further on New Hampshire later. But there is a much
broader question pending, not only before the commission, but really
before the nation -- and that is the way in which President Ford's
political expenses are being paid.
I say this is a question before the nation because it was a national
outcry against the most scandalous political fundraising and spending abuse
in our nation's history that brought about the new law. The new law
sets careful and specific limits on the amounts, which may be raised and
spent by candidates for nomination or election for federal office, and
by committees, such as the DNC or RNC, operating on their behalf.
The Republican National Committee is paying for the current political
travels of President Ford, stating publicly that he is traveling as the
leader of their party, performing party work. They point out ----- specifically
in a statement yesterday by the Republican Party Chairman ------ that this
is a practice which has been followed by national committees on behalf of
Agree
previous presidents. I fully agree. This was the past practice. But
that is precisely the point ----- that practice is past, it was found to be **
unacceptable, and falls before the new law, as it should. They ignore
the new law and we have seen what happens when the law is ignored.
A multi-candidate committee is limited to the expenditure of $5,000
on behalf of any candidate for nomination for federal office, including
the presidency. The Republican National Committee is such a committee,
and President Ford is such a candidate. There can be no question about
the nature of the President's travels: every newscast, every newspaper
article, puts a trip such as he is making now in perspective. The
stories say "President Ford, on the campaign trail", "President Ford
trying to nail down the Republican nomination", or President Ford, trying
to WOO away potential Reagan supporters". He is campaigning for his
party's nomination almost every day. There is no question about that.
GERALD FORD
Page 2
The spending of an admitted $300,000 plus dollars by the RNC to advance
the nomination of President Ford ---- and the probable spending of much
more than that by this time - greatly exceeds the modest $5,000 limit
placed by the law.
As for the decision on New Hampshire, our position is clear, but
let me cite one line from it. "Where he (the President) is acting in
a political capacity, and is himself a candidate, I believe that there
should be a presumption that his activities are political and a further
presumption that any expenditures incurred by him or on his behalf are
properly charged to his own candidacy, with the burden of rebutting these
presumtions placed upon the President." In other words, the public,
wanting to reform political spending, doesn't want loopholes. The
public knows that the President has duties to preform as President, but
there are also political activities, either on his own behalf or on
behalf of others. The lines can be drawn. If anyone wants an opinion
other than that of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee as
to whether or not President Ford is travelling politicaly to further
his chances for the Republican nomination I would refer them to Ronald
Reagan, to his campaign staff, Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire or any
other Reagan supporters.
But some things are unreasonable. Some things suchas saying
that President Ford is campaigning today in California not as a
candidate, but as aparty leader. Suppose I as Chairman of the
Democratic Party, should name one of our presidential candidates,
or four of them, or all of them, as party leaders and sent them
around the country at DNC expense, without limit, and without
allocating charges against their spending limits? It would be
an abusrdity. And that is what we are being presented with by
the Republican Party, an absurdity.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Republican
National
Committee.
Mary Louise Smith
Chairman
September 10, 1975
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
GERALD A. FORD LIBRARY
484-6500.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 10, 1975
15
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican Party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
GERALD LEGARY FORD
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 10, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the president's partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party.
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself.
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society.
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. " 2
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
1/
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
2
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United FORD
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 10, 1975
15,
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (1) ]m a " state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1)], and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C., 431 (d) 1.
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan acitvity conducted on
an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a seccific office within
a specific geographical area. State and National party
organizations engage in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for expenditures by a National or State political party
for these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that
National and State parties may contribute to individuals
candidates for office but does not impose a maximum monetary
budget for the conduct of ongoing party business.
Political campaign committees accept contributions
and make expenditures that are identifiable with that comm-
ittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular
office. National political parties, conversely, are charged
with the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-
nition of party identity and ideology, without reference to
an individual candidate or election. A large measure of this
function is performed by the President, Vice President and
their aides on behalf of their National and State parties.
f
When these party functions are performed and costs result
from same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the
for e lection, to Federal office.. "(18use 608),
National or State political parties, should and does assume
the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
GERALD A. FORD LIBRARY
3210)
is
Honorable
only Thomas for dats q8 before. B. theary Curtis of late or Primary general Member wahich is election public a such or condition USC office. ber-elect (32
Page 5
September 10, 1975
(3905c.
15,
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use of
franked mail privileges after a declaration of candidacy
[2 U.S.C. 439(b)]. The legislative body that enacted the
Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator
ofcorduction
from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-
going business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-
ing privileges oven when seeking reelection To postu-
even after an announcement of
late a different rule for an incumbent President seeking
reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an
incumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine
ongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly
unfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-
condidnet.
gested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen
to fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and
dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Partisan political activity is a recognized
and Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's
ordinary business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seg.) is to prohibit partisan political
activities by employees of the Executive Branch of the
President, himself.
Federal government. That prohibition excludes employees
of the Office of the President This statutory exclusion
is a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan
nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-
sarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-
ical role of the President of the United States as head
of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in
fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical
alternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that
payment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary
of the acts, i.e., the President's National Political
party.
A FORD LIBRARY
GERALD
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
the the the The Na Partico aided have The Not wto the the further but ofthe rath ben & further
September 10, 1975
A
J
In 1975, the Republican National Committee allocated
the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to support
the activities of the President, the Vice President and their
aides when engaged in the role as head of the National party.
This budgetary allotment is consistent with past years budgets,
without regard to whether the year in question was an election
against
or nonelection year. On September 1, 1975, the Republican
National Committee had paid and/or received bills totaling
Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual
allotment. The Republican National Committee has filed
quarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures with
the Federal Election Commission since the establishment of
that agency. The Republican National Committee believes that
it is the proper body to assume these expenditures, just as
presumably the Democratic National Committee believed it
was the proper body to pay the expenses incurred by Democratic
Presidents engaged in their National party affairs during the
years 1960 through 1968.
When the President, Vice President and their
aides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their
National or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes
the cost of their travel and transportation, advance men
expense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of
receptions incidental to those activities. In addition,
the Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred
for films and photographs taken during such Presidential
travel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presidential
gifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm bracelets pic-
turing the Presidential or Vice Presidential Presidential seal.
The Republican National Committee does not
assume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice
Presidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential
or Vice Presidential candidacy or Vtravel associated with
the candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,
primarily
the candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,
in accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election
Campaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.
of cost,
does not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-
dential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of
the United States, having no political overtones. That
exception is the expenditures incurred by advance men
during Presidential official travel. These charges are
incurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by
POX
X'
That exception relates to certain expenditures
incurred by advancemer advancement in the
Course of official travel by the President. These
expenditures, which in most cases are for
persons not the government &,
are assumed by the TWC because the
Chap Execotive's appearances, regardless of / their
purpose, forthers party interest.
FORD LIBRARY 074400
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 7
September 10, 1975
the Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-
ment business. Although the National Committee is not,
per se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel,
it assumes the advance men cost on official trips in the
belief that such an expenditure from the United States
Treasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures
incurred during the Presidential official travel are borne
by the White House budget.
from approprented funds.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
Government funds and the latter imposes an equitable dis-
advantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting
these past expenditures are available for inspection by
the F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-
ciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-
mission may think appropriate to make with respect to our
treatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-
dent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in
party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
GERALD R. FORD LIBERTY
presidential condidates, or four of them, or all of
them, as party leaders and sent them anound
the country at INC expense, without limit, and
without allocating charges against their spending
? It is both wrong and unjust to insist
the state status of of
that to political condition $ an
Review automaticly denies to the
candiday shall Forb party - National
Political Q the Issuices of its gath
syskesman.
GERALD R SECURITY FORD
fund reising went for his ste or Natural
Party should not deplete his Ten Million Hollow
(10,000,000) presential primary effort. The
role performed by
gaily a suck individuals, is ,dentical to that garty role
assumed by the
of a Presedent
acting as party spokenmen of gaily functions
Neither their measure incurres the expendidures associated
with that role in furtherence of their
for momination for election, or for election, to
Federal office " (18 use 608) Janocratic National
Common.Hee Chairmon 8 Srauss' September: 5, 1975,
press release postalates # this very question. Labling
as
it above absord, he H, "Suppose I as Chairman
FORD
of the Democratic Paty, should name one of are
obligation
The $ to asseeme a party role for
one's mational golitical party is not restricted
to the Present of the United states. Senators and
Congressmen and frequently Called are upon to
it
function as spokesmen for, to aid are fundraising
went to as
to represent
their own Political RS Paty Such a
Membersol Congrass
who are also
party role S is often undertaken announcement by a Companical
party leaders after he or she has and
their
for condidancy you re-election to the position
they presently 1098 AS and/or
after
anmouncing their
a 2229 condiday to the
Office of President of the U.P.S. states. Examples
of soch Instances are begind degion The costs
a
included
L
is an annouced
candident for the Presidency when attending a
FORD
LIERARY
state Party the
Document source description
This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- af156cf853d42663
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1126652
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1126652",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (1)",
"description": "This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652",
"collections": [
"Benton L. Becker Papers",
"General Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Republican National Committee (U.S.)",
"Federal Election Commission. Office of the Staff Directory. Office of the Commission Secretary. 1975-ca. 2005",
"Campaign funds",
"Presidential trips"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1126652",
"label": "Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (1)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1126652",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (1)",
"description": "This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652",
"collections": [
"Benton L. Becker Papers",
"General Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Republican National Committee (U.S.)",
"Federal Election Commission. Office of the Staff Directory. Office of the Commission Secretary. 1975-ca. 2005",
"Campaign funds",
"Presidential trips"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1126652",
"naId": 1126652,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1977-02-28",
"month": 2,
"year": 1977
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-07-01",
"month": 7,
"year": 1975
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/1126652.pdf",
"mediaId": "af156cf853d42663",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Republican National Committee -\nWhite House Accounts (1)\" of the Benton L. Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Benton Becker donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 2 of the Benton Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n8/4/75\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, DC 20463\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20463\nJuly 30, 1975\n202-382-5162\nHonorable James O. Eastland\nPresident Pro Tempore\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D. C. 20510\nDear Mr. President:\nIn accordance with Section 316(c) of the Federal Election\nCampaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 438c, the Federal Elec-\ntion Commission transmits herewith a proposed regulation pertaining\nto accounts used to support the activities of Federal officeholders.\nThe proposed regulation serves several purposes, all re-\nlated to the Commission's mandate to secure compliance with the\ndisclosure and contribution and expenditure limitations of the 1971\nAct as amended. It requires the establishment of a system of accounts\nwhich differentiates between funds spent under 39 U.S.C. Section\n3210, relating to the use of the frank, and funds otherwise con-\ntributed or expended to support the activities of Federal office-\nholders, other than appropriated funds. It requires full disclosure\nof contributions to and expenditures from each account. It affirms\nthe applicability of the limitations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 608, 610,\n611, 613, 614 and 615, to contributions and expenditures of funds\nsupporting the activities of Federal officeholders, save for funds\ndesignated for use and used under 39 U.S.C. Section 3210, and funds\nappropriated by the Congress for legislative activities. The regula-\ntion also partially qualifies the uses to which excess campaign funds\nmay be put.\nA unanimous Commission believes that the proposed regula-\ntion represents both a fair and a necessary effort to fulfill the\nCommission's obligation to cause the fullest possible disclosure of\nelection-related contributions and expenditures, and to assure ob-\nservance of the limitations on contributions and expenditures which\nare at the heart of the 1971 Act, as amended.\nThe Commission includes with this letter three attachments.\nAttachment 1 is the text of the proposed regulation, and Attachments\n2 and 3 are, respectively, the explanation and justification of the\nproposed regulation, as required by the Act.\nSincerely yours,\nThis B Curte\nThomas B. Curtis\nChairman\nTBC:me\nAttachments\nGERALD ANYURIT FORD\n1\nPART 113 OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING ACCOUNTS; EXCESS CAMPAIGN\nCONTRIBUTIONS\n§ 113.1 Definitions.\n§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\n§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\n§ 113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\n§ 113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\n§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\n§ 113.1 Definitions.\n(a) Commission. \"Commission\" means the Federal Election Commission,\n1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 382-5162.\n(b) Excess campaign funds. \"Excess campaign funds\" means the surplus\nof campaign receipts, including all contributions, sales and income,\nover campaign expenditures.\n(c) Franking account. \"Franking account\" means an account which is\nused exclusively for the purpose of receiving and expending funds\npursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210. Such funds may not be transferred to\nany other account or political committee.\n(d) Office account. \"Office account\" means an account other than a\nfranking account which is used for the purpose of supporting the\nactivities of a federal officeholder.\n(e) Principal campaign committee. \"Principal campaign committee\" means\nthe political committee designated by a candidate as his or her\nprincipal campaign committee pursuant to 2 U.S.C.$432(f)(1).\n(f) Legislative activities. \"Legislative activities\" means those\nactivities which are paid for solely out of appropriations approved\nby either or both houses of Congress, for use by members and members-\nelect of Congress. Such appropriations include but are not limited\nto those for salaries, constituent services, stationery, travel and\ngeneral office expenses.\n2\n§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\n(a) All funds including but not limited to gifts, loans, advances,\ncredits or deposits of money or any other thing of value which are\nreceived or expended by an incumbent or elected holder of a federal\noffice for the purpose of supporting his or her activities as a\nholder of such office shall be considered contributions or expendi-\ntures subject to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 608, 610, 611, 613,\n614 and 615.\n(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section the limitations\nof 18 U.S.C. § 608 do not apply (1) when a contributor states in\nwriting that the contribution is to be used exclusively for\nexpenditures made pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210, provided that such\ncontributions shall be deposited in a franking account, or (2) when\nexpenditures are made from funds provided for legislative activities.\n§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nExcept for funds appropriated for legislative activities, all funds\nreceived by or on behalf of a federal officeholder for the purpose\nof supporting his or her activities as a holder of such office shall\nbe deposited into one of the following accounts:\n(a) an account of the officeholder's principal campaign committee,\npursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b, or\n(b) a franking account, or\n(c) an office account, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b.\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\n(a) All individuals having franking accounts shall file reports\nA. FORD LIBRARY\nwith the Commission on April 10 and October 10 of each year.\n(b) The April 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures\n3\nmade from October 1 of the prior year to March 31 of each year.\nThe October 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures made\nfrom April 1 to September 30 of each year. These reporting\nobligations shall be effective prospectively on the effective date\nof this regulation (designated Part 113).\n(c) Such reports shall include the name, address, occupation and\nprincipal place of business of all persons making contributions\naggregating in excess of $100 during the reporting period. Such\nreports shall include the name and address of all persons receiving\nexpenditures aggregating more than $100 during the reporting period.\n(d) Forms will be provided by the Commission to implement this section\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\n(a) All individuals having office accounts shall report as if such\naccount is a political committee, and on forms provided for that\npurpose, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $434.\n(b) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has\ndesignated a principal campaign committee such individual shall\nfile the reports required by this section with such principal\ncampaign committee.\n(c) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has not\ndesignated a principal campaign committee such individual shall\nfile the reports required by this section with the Commission.\n§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\nFORD\n(a) A principal campaign committee may transfer excess campaign\nfunds to an office account, a franking account, an organization\n- 4 -\ndescribed in 26 U.S.C.$170(c), or for any other lawful purpose.\n(b) Excess campaign funds expended on or before December 31 in an\nelection year will be considered expenditures for the last election\nof that year. Excess campaign funds not expended or transferred by\nDecember 31 of an election year will be considered expenditures for\nthe next election when they are expended or transferred. Except\nfor transfers to a franking account, such expenditures, whether\nmade before or after December 31 of an election year, are subject\nto the expenditure limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).\nGERALD R FORD LIBRARY\nATTACHMENT 2\nEXPLANATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING\nACCOUNT; EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS\nThe following explanation of part 113 will follow the proposed\nregulation section by section, omitting only those sections which\nare self-explanatory.\n$113.1 Definitions.\n(b) Excess campaign funds. The terms \"contribution\" and \"expendi-\nture\" are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C.\n)\n§431 et seq. The Commission, in regulations which are to follow this\nregulation, will further define these two terms. The term \"expenditures\nincludes, for the purposes of this regulation, goods or services ordere\nor received but not yet paid for. The term \"receipts\" includes all\nmoney or other things of value actually received. For example, if a\nprincipal campaign committee orders and receives $10,000 worth of\nbumper stickers but does not pay for them, the $10,000 nonetheless\ncounts as an expenditure. A pledge to make a $1,000 contribution does\nnot count for excess campaign funds purposes until actual receipt of\nthe monies pledged. In other words, excess campaign funds are the\ntotal assets of a campaign less debts and other commitments.\n(c) Franking account. A franking account can be used for all uses\nenumerated in 39 U.S.C. $3210 including, but not limited GEOR\nof a past or current Congress,\n(1) mail matter regarding governmental programs, and AMMUNT actions\n-2-\n(2) newsletters,\n(3) press releases,\n(4) questionnaires.\nPersonal and political letters can not be sent under the frank.\nMass mailings can not be sent under the frank less than 28 days\nbefore an election.\nExpenditures can be made from a franking account for the prepar-\nation and printing of materials sent under the frank.\n(d) Office account. Examples of expenditures which would be\nmade from an office account are travel expenses, expenditures for\nprinting non-frankable matter (e.g., newsletters and questionnaires\nsent less than 28 days before an election) and telephone expenses\nover and above Congressional allowances.\n(f) Legislative activities. Activities paid for by donations,\nover and above Congressional allowances, are deemed not to be\nlegislative activities.\n$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\nAll contributions and expenditures from an office account are\ntreated as political contributions and expenditures. A person can\ntherefore make only a $1,000 contribution per election to either a\ncandidate's office account or to his or her principal campaign FORD\ncommittee, or can split the $1,000 between the two accounts. 18\nU.S.C. $608(b). Similarly, a candidate and his immediate family\ncan personally spend only $25,000, if a Member of the House of\n-3-\nRepresentatives, or $35,000 if a Senator, for office expenses\nand campaign expenditures combined. 18 U.S.C. 608(a).\nThe above contribution and expenditure limitations do not apply\nto contributions \"earmarked\" for a franking account or expended by\nsuch an account. However, contributions to a franking account\nfrom corporate and union treasuries are prohibited (18 U.S.C. $610),\nas are contributions by government contractors (18 U.S.C. §611),\ncontributions by foreign nationals (18 U.S.C. $613), contributions\nin the name of another (18 U.S.C. $614) and cash contributions of\nmore than $100 (18 U.S.C. $615).\n$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nThis section provides for the deposit of funds into three segre-\ngated accounts: 1) principal campaign committee, 2) office, and 3)\nfranking. An officeholder is not required to set up any of these\naccounts if he or she does not receive contributions or make expendi-\ntures over and above Congressional allowances for legislative activitie\nFurther, even if an officeholder receives contributions to support\nhis or her activities as a holder of such office, the officeholder\nneed not establish a principal campaign committee. An officeholder,\nnot wishing' to establish a campaign organization, can set up an\noffice account and not designate a principal campaign committee.\nOffice accounts, inasmuch as they are treated as political\ncommittees, must designate depository pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437(b).\n-4-\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\nFranking accounts are required to file two six month reports per\nyear with the Commission on April 10 and October 10. These reports\nwill include the same type of information that is required on reports\nof political committees. The October 10 report will include expendi-\ntures for mass mailings made prior to the general election, since a\nfranking account can not be used for such mailings 28 days before an\nelection.\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\nOffice accounts are required to file quarterly reports of receipts\nand expenditures in the same manner as political committees. If the\nofficeholder has designated a principal campaign committee the office\naccount will file reports with the principal committee. If the\nofficeholder has not designated a principal campaign committee the\nofficeholder's office accounts will file reports directly with the\nCommission.\n$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\nIf, after a campaign and after meeting all debts and other\nobligations, a principal campaign committee has funds left over, the\nexcess can be given to charity, to an office account, a franking\naccount or for any other lawful purpose. For example, if a successful\nGERAL\n-5-\ncandidate for the House of Representatives raises $100,000 in contri-\nbutions for the general election and expends only $60,000, he or she\nhas $40,000 in excess campaign funds. This member-elect of Congress\nhas until December 31 to expend the $40,000 surplus. Only $10,000\ncan be expended out of an office account during this period because\nof the $70,000 expenditure limit imposed by 18 U.S.C. $608. However,\nthe remaining $30,000 can be expended by a franking account without\naffecting the $70,000 limitation. More than $10,000 can be put in\nthe office account. However, no more than $10,000 can be expended\nbefore December 31 of the election year. Expenditures by the office\naccount in January of the next year will count toward the member's\nlimit for the next election, either a special election or a primary\nelection.\nGERALD A. FORD LIBRATY\nATTACHMENT 3\nJUSTIFICATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING\nACCOUNT: EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS\nThis statement will provide justification for the proposed\noffice account regulation on a section-by-section basis.\n$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and\nProhibitions.\nContributions to and expenditures by an office account\nare treated as political contributions and expenditures\nsubject to the limitations and prohibitions on such trans-\nactions. There are two exceptions: Matter sent under the\nfrank and monies appropriated by Congress to fulfill the\nfunctions of a Member of Congress.\nThe Commission, pursuant to its duty to formulate\ngeneral policy with respect to the administration of the\nFederal Election Campaign Act, as amended (the Act) [See\n2 U.S.C. $437à (a) (9) and to its authority under 2 U.S.C.\n$437d(d)(8), has determined that expenditures and\ncontributions over and above the two exceptions should be\ntreated as political in nature. This determination is\nbased on recent legislation concerning the frank and the\ntax treatment of newsletter accounts.\nCongress has determined that the cost of preparing\nand printing frankable matter should not be considered a\ncontribution or an expenditure for the purpose of determining\nany limitation on expenditures or contributions. 39 U.S.C. GERALD\n$3210(f). The Commission has followed this precedent in\n- 2 -\nits treatment of frankable matter. Congressman Frenzel,\nin supporting the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments\nof 1974, stated:\nQuestions have been raised as to whether or\nnot congressional newsletters and other similar\npublications would be considered expenditures\nunder the provisions of this bill. The\ncongressional franking law passed last spring\nclearly states that such newsletters and other\nsimilar publications are legitimate expenses\nand can be sent under the frank. In general,\nI believe the Commission should follow the\nfollowing guideline: If any item or publica-\ntion can be sent under the frank, it should not\nbe counted as an expenditure for the purpose\nof influencing an election. Hence,\ncongressional newsletters and other similar\npublications need not be credited to the\ncontribution or expenditures limits of\ncongressional candidates.\n120 Cong. Rec.\nH 10333 (Daily Ed., October 10, 1974)\nIt logically follows at the very least that a newsletter and\nother matter not sent under the frank should be considered\npolitical and therefore funds contributed and expended to\nsupport such newsletters and other matter should be subject\nto the limitations of 18 U.S.C. $608(c).\nSeveral other laws deal with franked matter which suggest\nits use should be non-political. See 39 U.S.C. $3210 (a) (5) (C).\nFor example, no franked mass mailings are permitted less\nthan 28 days before an election. Activities such as soliciting\ncontributions and mass mailings within four weeks ofoan\nGERAL\n- 3 -\nelection are clearly political and funds used for these\npurposes should clearly be treated as expenditures and\ncontributions subject to all limitations in the Federal\nElection Campaign Act.\nRecent tax legislation reflects the intimate relationship\nbetween newsletter funds and campaign funds. The conference\nreport to the Upholstery Regulator Act states: \"Generally\nnewsletter committees (and separate funds are to be treated\nfor tax purposes in the same manner as political campaign\ncommittees.\" H. Rept. 93-1642, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 22.\nDuring the debate on this legislation, several Members further\nnoted the similarity between these two types of funds:\nMR. SCHNEEBELI. Another change of importance\nwould make individual contributions to candidates\nfor public office which are used for newsletters\nto be eligible for the above-mentioned income tax\ncredit for deductions.\nMr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker these provisions\nplace in the law the procedures outlining how\nwe can use funds we have collected for political\npurposes, for newsletter purposes. We think this\navoids the necessity for having a separate news-\nletter fund for Members who have a continúing\ncampaign fund (emphasis added). (Congressional\nRecord, daily edition December 20, 1974,\npage H12597.)\nThis exchange and the quoted report seem to the Commission\nto be a statement of Congressional awareness of the political\nand campaign nature of some newsletters.\nThe Upholstery Regulator Act permits individual tax-\nFORD LIBRARY\npayers to take a tax deauction or a tax credit for money\n- 4 -\ngiven to a newsletter account. 26 U.S.C. §§41 and 218.\nThese sections of the Internal Revenue Code treat newsletter\nfund contributions and political contributions in the same\nmanner; lumping the two together to allow an aggregate tax\naeduction or credit. Following this precedent, the Commission\nwill treat funds contributed to support a non-frankable\nnewsletter as a political contribution and expenditures made\nin connection with such newsletter as an expenditure subject\nto the limitations of the Act.\nThe Commission is of the opinion, however, that Congres-\nsional appropriations for staff salaries, newsletters, stationery\nand travel are for presumptively non-political, legislative\nactivities and, therefore, not subject to the limitations\nand prohibitions of the Act. One may assume that Congress\nhas provided or will provide sufficient funds for the non-\npolitical functions of the Membership. Accordingly,\nadditional monies not appropriated by Congress but rather\nraised independently by the Members themselves or their\nsupporters should be viewed as political and not legislative\nfunds. Congress is, of course, always free to appropriate\nany additional funds deemed necessary to enable Members to\ncarry out their legislative functions. Indeed, the point\nwas recently emphasized by the Honorable Wayne L. Hays,\nwhen he indicated that such additional money should come from\nGERALD R. FORD\n-5-\nthe public treasury and not from contributions to Members\n1\nor from the Members' own pocket.\n$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nThis section was drafted to implement 2 U.S.C. 439a.\nThe provision of separate accounts facilitates reporting so\nthat different accounts are not commingled. Members of\nCongress will have the option of using a principal campaign\ncommittee or an office account to make certain expenditures,\nsuch as for a non-frankable newsletter or questionnaire.\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts and\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts\n2 U.S.C. 439a provides that contributions to a federal\nofficeholder for the purpose of supporting his or her\nactivities as an officeholder and expenditures thereof \"shall\nbe fully disclosed in accordance with rules promulgated by\nthe Commission.\" The Commission determined that office\naccounts, since they are treated for most purposes as political\n(See Section 113.2, supra), should file in the same manner and\nat the same time as political committees. Franking accounts\nare required to file less often, twice a year, so as not to\nFORD\n1. \"Bearing the Costs of Government\" by the Honorable\nwayne L. Hays, Washington Post at A14 (July 19, GERAL 1975).\n-6-\nbe unduly burdensome to legislators. The times for filing\nwere established so that the franking account reports would\nbe availaole for public inspection prior to the general\nelections.\n$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds\nThis section has been proposed pursuant to the Commission's\nrulemaking authority under 2 U.S.C. 439a.\nGERALD R. LIBRAT FORD\nAugust 12, 1975\nJohn G. Murphy, Jr.\nThis letter is our request for a Counsel's opinion on a series\nof questions. These arise from anticipated circumstances in the\ncampaign to elect Mr. Louis Wyman in the Special Senate election in\nNew Hampshire on September 16, 1975.\nPresident Ford and former Governor Reagan may travel to\nNew Hampshire. While here, they may hold rallies, press conferences,\nand attend public meetings, On these occasions they may appear with\nLou Wyman and endorse his candidacy. Their expenses will not be\npaid by the Wyman for Senate Committee which is the principal cam-\npaign committee for him.\nOur questions are (1) does this constitute a contribution\nin kind to the Wyman campaign? If so, (2) how is that contribution\nto be computed? (3) Does their travel to and from New Hampshire\ncount, and (4) what does a candidate do to avoid accepting this\nkind of contribution under the law?\nWe would appreciate your prompt response since decisions\nare being made daily which affect the points raised in this letter.\nGeorge Young\nCampaign Chairman\nFORD\nMEMORANDUM #31\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, DC 20463\nAGENDAMITEM\nMar\nAugust 26, 1975\n8/28/25\nAgando\nIIC\nDATE:\nMEMORANDUM TO: The Commissioners\nFROM:\nJack Murphy fun.\n&\nAttached please find OC 1975-48 for your review\nsubject to the two-day rule. It will be listed on the\nagenda for Thursday, August 28, 1975.\nAttachment\nFORD LIBRARY A GERALD\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, DC 20463\nOC 1975-48\nMr. George Young\nWyman-for-Senator Committee\nConcord, New Hampshire\nDear Mr. Younq:\nThis letter is in response to your request dated\nAugust 12, 1975, for an opinion of counsel. In your\nrequest you state that \"President Ford and former\nGovernor Reagan may travel to New Hampshire. While\n[there] they may hold rallies, press conferences and\nattend public meetings. On these occasions they may\nappear with Louis Wyman and endorse his candidacy.\nTheir expenses will not be paid by the Wyman-for-Senate\nCommittee which is [the candidate's] principal campaign\ncommittee.\"\nThe questions you pose are:\n1. Does this constitute a contribution-in-kind to\nthe Wyman campaign? If so:\n2. How is that contribution to be computed?\n3. Does their travel to and from New Hampshire count?\n4. What does a candidate do to avoid accepting this\nkind of contribution under the law?\nEach of these issues is addressed below.\n1. Characterization of activities\nThe cost of the described activities will be a contri-\nbution-in-kind subject to the appropriate contribution\nlimitations in 18 U.S.C. §608(b), if the actual expenses are\nassumed bv an individual or by a political committee other\nthan the national or state Republican party committee.\nGERALD P. FORD\n- 2 -\nSuch contribution will also be attributed to the Wyman\ncampaign expenditure limitation set out in 18 U.S.C. §608 (c).\nIf, however, either party committee assumes such expenses,\nthe cost of the trip may be either a contribution-in-kind or\nan expenditure by the party under 18 U.S.C. §608 (f). The\nFederal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 established\na separate expenditure limitation for political parties; under\n18 U.S.C. $608 (f), the national and the state Republican party\ncommittees are each entitled to spend $20,000 in the Wyman\ncampaign. If the party and the candidate agree, the cost of\nthis trip may be treated as an expenditure under 18 U.S.C.\n§608 (f), rather than as a contribution-in-kind to, and\nexpenditure by, the Wyman campaign.\nA further question arises because of the political status\nof the individuals involved. President Ford is an announced\ncandidate for the Republican presidential nomination for 1976.\nFormer Governor Reagan has authorized a political committee\n(within the meaning of that term as defined in 18 U.S.C.\n$591 (d) and, arguably, may be a candidate for the Republican\npresidential nomination. Therefore, the cost of the type of\nactivities described in this request might well be considered\nan expenditure by either presidential candidate and attributable,\nin whole or in part, to his expenditure limitation under\n18 U.S.C. §608 (c). While there may be some carryover effect\nto the presidential campaigns of both individuals, the General\nCounsel is of the opinion that these expenses should be attri-\nbuted solely to the Wyman senatorial campaign. There are\napproximately three weeks remaining until the September 16th\nspecial election. The timing of these visits raises the\npresumption that these visits are likely to have maximum\neffect on the more proximate election rather than on the 1976\npresidential election, nominating convention or March 2 New\nHampshire primary election. It must be emphasized that this\nanalysis pertains only to this particular set of circumstances\nand is not to be construed as applicable to other campaign\nactivity engaged in by presidential candidates.\n2. Computation\n(a) Services. To the extent that either President Ford\nor former Governor Reagan volunteers his unreimbursed time on\nbehalf of the Wyman candidacy the character of such activity\nwill be considered \"services provided without compensation\nby individuals who volunteer a portion\nof their GERAL time\nIBRARY\n- 3 -\non behalf of a candidate\"; thus the value of such services\nwill not be a contribution within the definition of 18\nU.S.C. $591 (e).\n(b) Travel and living expenses. All travel and living\nexpenses attributable to the Reagan and Ford visits to New\nHampshire must be computed as part of the amount contributed\nby those individuals or their committees to the Wyman candi-\ndacy. To the extent that such expenses are unreimbursed, the\nfive hundred dollar ($500) exemption set out in 18 U.S.C.\n§591 (e) (5) (D) is applicable. Any unreimbursed amount in\nexcess of $500 expended on travel and living expenses by\neither President Ford or ex-Governor Reagan will, of course,\nconstitute contributions to which the limitations of 18 U.S.C.\n§608 (b) apply. Any amounts so contributed will, of course,\nalso be considered expenditures made by or on behalf of the\nWyman candidacy and counting toward the candidate's overall\nspending limitation.\nThe General Counsel recognizes that the foregoing rule,\nwhich attributes all portal to portal (and return) travel\nexpenses toward the individual's contribution limits may,\nin the case of an individual who resides some distance from\nthe candidate's jurisdiction, restrict that individual's\ncapacity to volunteer his or her services to that candidate.\nNevertheless, this office believes that such a rule will\npromote volunteer participation at the local level which is\ncertainly a countervailing consideration implicit throughout\nthe 1974 Amendments. Moreover, the plain language of the\nstatute requires the conclusion that \"unreimbursed travel\"\nunder 18 U.S.C. §591 means any travel in behalf of a\ncandidate.\nPresidential expenditures in connection with such a\nvisit provide unique problems of attribution. It would be\nillogical, and unnecessarily restrictive, to require the\nattribution of the actual cost of a presidential campaign\nforay. Hence, only the equivalent commercial rates will be\nchargeable against an incumbent President's individual contri-\nbution limitations and against the candidate's overall expendi-\nture limitation. Expenses for accompanying staff personnel\nwill be charged against the foregoing limitations only if\nsuch staff personnel serve primarily as advance persons or\nother campaign staff members and do not provide support services\nto the Office of the President. Additionally, special costs\nFORD R. LIBRARY GERALD\nave 4 -\nattendant upon Ford's office as President, such as the\nSecret Service, police and medical attention, are not to\nbe included within this amount. These costs are relatively\nfixed and are related to Ford's position as President and\nnot to his political function as head of his party.\nFinally, if travel, living or any other non-exempt\nexpenses incurred by either President Ford or ex-Governor\nReagan during his proposed New Hampshire trip, are reimbursed\nby a political party, such reimbursement may be characterized\nby that political party as either a contribution to the candi-\ndate under 18 U.S.C. §608 (b) or as a party expenditure under\n18 U.S.C. $608 (f). To the extent that such amounts are\ncharacterized and reported as party expenditures under\n18 U.S.C. §608 (f), they will not count toward the candidate's\noverall expenditure ceiling.\n3. Independent expenditures\nThe fourth question raised in this request is \"[h]ow\nto avoid accepting these contributions?\" The cost of these\ntrips would not be considered a contribution to or an expendi-\nture on behalf of the Wyman campaign only if the trips do not\nhave the effect of influencing the senatorial race in New\nHampshire. If Mr. Wyman does not appear with the individuals\nand disavows their visits and if the individuals involved\nassume the cost of the trip, the expenses might be considered\nan independent expenditure by the individuals limited to $1,000\nunder 18 U.S.C. $608(e).\nPlease bear in mind that this letter is to be regarded\nas only the opinion of the General Counsel and does not\nconstitute a policy decision or advisory opinion of the\nCommission. Any interpretation or ruling contained herein\nis limited to the facts of the request. The Commission has\nbeen made aware of the opinion and has voiced no objection.\nSincerely yours,\nJohn G. Murphy, Jr.\nGeneral Counsel\nFORD R. GERALO LIBRARY\nAugust 15, 1975\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis, Chairman\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nOn August 7, 1975, Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, wrote your office in response to its letter\nof July 10, 1975, which raised certain inquiries relative\nto a White House office account, newsletter fund, and simi-\nlar accounts within the purview of 2 U.S.C. 439a. Mr.\nBuchen's communication made reference to expenditures paid\nby the Republican National Committee in furtherance of\nParty goals for activities performed by the President and\nVice President as titular head of their political party.\nMr. Buchen stated:\n\"It is our understanding that for a number\nof years the two national political com-\nmittees have undertaken certain expenditures\nin furtherance of party goals for activities\nby the President and Vice President as the\ntitular heads of their political parties.\nThe Republican National Committee has made\nsuch expenditures during the present and\nprior Administrations. I have, therefore,\nrequested the General Counsel of the\nRepublican National Committee to respond\nGERALD A. FORD LIBRARY\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nAugust 15, 1975\nto you directly with respect to these\nexpenditures. He has advised that\nthese expenditures have already been\nfiled with the Federal Election Com-\nmission, the Clerk of the House and\nthe Secretary of the Senate, in the\nCommittee's quarterly reports, and\nthat he will promptly contact the FEC\nto discuss the matter further.\"\nThis is to advise that the Republican National\nCommittee is currently undertaking the draftsmanship of a\ncommunication to the Federal Election Commission which docu-\nments would purport to disclose the history and purpose of\nthe expenditures referred to in Mr. Buchen's correspondence,\noffer a rationale for same and generally acquaint the FEC\nwith the need to recognize the concept that major parties\npayments for on-going party expenses in both election and\nnon-election years are not chargeable to any Federal candidate.\nIt is anticipated that this project will be com-\npleted and transmitted to your office no later than September\n12, 1975. In the interim, should you have any questions or\ninquiry regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call upon\nme.\nSincerely,\nBENTON L. BECKER for the\nRepublican National Committee\nBLB:dsl\nGERALD R FORD\nTHURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975\nARCHIVES\nOF\nTHE UNITED NATIONAL STATES THE\n*\n1934\nPART IV:\nFEDERAL\nELECTION\nCOMMISSION\nADVISORY OPINIONS\nGERALD ? Luvygn FORD\n36746\nNOTICES\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\nif the Congressman specifies that he will\nofficeholder or employee is considered to\naccept only $1,000 of the honorarium\n[Notice 1975-30; opinions 1975-8, 1975-13]\nhave accepted an honorarium if he re-\nand suggests that a $500.00 donation be\nceives it for his personal use, if he re-\nHONORARIUMS AND RELATED BENEFITS\ngiven to either of two specific charities\nceives it with the intent or subsequently\nFOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND\nwhich are named by that Congressman;\ndonating the honorarium to charity, if\nLEGALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDI-\n(3) A Member of Congress is offered a\nhe directs that the organization offering\nDATE RECEIVING TRAVEL EXPENSES\n$500.00 honorarium to speak at a con-\nthe honorarium give the honorarium to a\nFROM CORPORATIONS\nvention when he already has accepted\ncharity which he names, or if he suggests\nAdvisory Opinions\nhis limit of $15,000 in honoraria during\nthat the honorarium might be given to a\nthe calendar year. Congressman Rosten-\ncharity of the organization's own choos-\nThe Federal Election Commission an-\nkowski asks whether the honorarium is\ning. In addition, a Federal officeholder\nnounces the publication today of Ad-\nconsidered accepted if the Congressman\nor employee will be presumed by the\nvisory Opinions 1975-8 and 1975-13. The\nagrees to make the speech but declines\nCommission to have accepted as an\nCommission's opinions are in response\nthe honorarium, and suggests instead\nhonorarium, any charitable donation\nto questions raised by individuals hold-\nthat it be given to either of two specific\nmade by an organization in the name of\ning Federal office, candidates for Federal\ncharities which are named by that Con-\nthat Federal officeholder or employee, as-\noffice and political committees, with re-\ngressman.\nsuming that sometime earlier the office-\nspect to whether any specific transaction\nDo these transactions constitute ac-\nholder or employee had made an appear-\nor activity by such individual, candidate,\nceptance of an honorarium, and there-\nance or speech, or written an article, for\nor political committee would constitute\nfore come within the provisions of 18\na violation of the Federal Election Cam-\nthe donating person or organization.\nU.S.C. § 616?\npaign Act of 1971, as amended, of Chap-\nThe Commission intends to apply its\nSection 616 of Title 18, United States\npolicy on honorariums as follows:\nter 95 or Chapter 96 of Title 26 United\nCode, provides that:\n(1) If a Congressman declines an en-\nStates Code, or of Sections 608, 610, 611,\n613, 614, 615, 616, or 617 of Title 18\nWhoever, while an elected or appointed\ntire honorarium and instead requests\nUnited States Code.\nofficer or employee of any branch of the\nthat it be given to either of two specific\nFederal Government-\ncharities, the honorarium will be treated\nADVISORY OPINION 1975-8: HONORARIUMS\n(1) accepts any honorarium of more than\nas accepted by the officeholder. In this\nAND RELATED BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF\n$1,000 (excluding amounts accepted for ac-\ncase, a Congressman would be sufficiently\nCONGRESS\ntual travel and subsistence expenses) for\nany appearance, speech, or article; or\nattempting to influence an organization's\nThis advisory opinion is rendered un-\n(2) accepts honorariums (not prohibited\nchoice of recipients as to constitute, for\nder 2 U.S.C. 437f in response to requests\nby paragraph (1) of this section) aggregat-\npurposes of 18 U.S.C. $ 616, the exercise\nfor advisory opinions submitted by Con-\ning more than $15,000 in any calendar year;\nof dominion.\ngressman Dan Rostenkowski, Congress-\nshall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more\n(2) If a Congressman wishes to accept\nthan $5,000.\nman Rhodes, and Senators Mike Mans-\npart and decline part of a proposed\nfield and Hugh Scott which were pub-\nThis section on its face strictly limits\nhonorarium and suggests that the dif-\nlished together as AOR 1975-8 in the\nthe financial benefits that a Member of\nference in amount be given to either of\nJuly 2, 1975, FEDERAL REGISTER (40 FR\nCongress may receive from the accept-\ntwo specific charities, the honorarium\n28044). Interested parties were given an\nance of an honorarium. The legislative\nwill be treated as accepted by the office-\nopportunity to submit written comments\nhistory of the section indicates that this\nholder. By suggesting how the proposed\nrelating to the requests.\nview accords with the intent of Con-\nhonorarium should be allocated, a Con-\nA. Request of Congressman Dan\ngress. This history shows a strong Con-\ngressman would exercise sufficient do-\nRostenkowski. Congressman Rostenkow-\ngressional concern with limiting the\nminion over the honorarium to constitute\nski in his letter of May 8, 1975, asks for\namounts, and thus the benefits, that a\nacceptance under 18 U.S.C. § 616.\nclarification of Section 616 of Title 18,\nFederal official may receive in exchange\n(3) If a Congressman declines an en-\nUnited States Code, which provides limi-\nfor an appearance, speech, or article.\ntire honorarium to avoid exceeding the\ntations on the acceptance of honorari-\nCongress does not evidence in this sec-\naggregate limit on honoraria and then\nums. He generally describes situations in\ntion any interest in specifically exempt-\nsuggests that it be given to either of two\nwhich a Member of Congress prefers not\ning from the limitations, honorariums\nspecific charities, the Commission would\nto accept an honorarium for a speech,\nthat are accepted and subsequently ap-\nconclude that the honorarium has been\nand instead suggests to the speech's spon-\nplied to a particular purpose, no matter\naccepted by the officeholder. For purposes\nsor that at least part of the intended\nhow commendable may be this purpose.\nof 18 U.S.C. § 616, the honorarium has\nhonorarium could be donated to one of\nEven the indirect acceptance of an hon-\nbeen accepted by the officeholder through\ntwo bona fide charitable organizations.\norarium for subsequent charitable use\nan attempt to exercise sufficient domin-\nThe donation would not be a prerequisite\ncan produce benefits for a Member of\nion and control over its use. Therefore,\nto or a requirement for making the\nCongress. For example, he thereby may\nthe officeholder would have violated the\nspeech. Congressman Rostenkowski\nbecome entitled to an income tax deduc-\nlimits provided in this section.\nwishes to know whether the amount of\ntion for making a charitable contribu-\nThe Commission does not wish to dis-\nthe donation to charity by the other\ntion. A Congressman also could receive\ncourage charitable donations by Federal\nparty will count towards the honorarium\nvaluable public exposure by donating to\nofficeholders or employees, either directly\nlimits of a Congressman. Specifically, the\ncharity an honorarium which he pos-\nor indirectly, nor charitable donations by\nfollowing circumstances are described:\nsessed or controlled. Accordingly, to im-\nany organization, but it will examine the\n(1) A Member of Congress is offered a\nplement Congress' intent to limit the\nparticulars of each donation for any im-\n$500.00 honorarium to speak at a con-\nbenefits which may be received from\nproper implications under 18 U.S.C. $ 616.\nvention when he already has accepted\nhonorariums, it is the opinion of the\nThis section of this opinion assumes\n$4,000 in honoraria during the calendar\nCommission that the limits imposed by\nthat the officeholder receiving the hon-\nyear. Congressman Rostenkowski asks\n18 U.S.C. § 616 shall apply to any hon-\norarium is not making an appearance or\nwhether the honorarium is considered\norarium accepted by a Congressman in\nspeech before a substantial number of\naccepted if the Congressman declines the\nexchange for an appearance, speech, or\npeople who comprise a part of the elec-\nentire honorarium and suggests instead\narticle.\ntorate with respect to which the office-\nthat it be given to either of two specific\nThe question then arises as to what\nholder is a Federal candidate. Compare\ncharities which are named by that Con-\naction by a Member of Congress con-\npart C of this opinion.\ngressman;\nstitutes acceptance of an honorarium. An\nB. Request of Congressman John J.\n(2) A Member of Congress is offered a\nhonorarium is considered to have been\nRhodes. Congressman Rhodes in his let-\n$1,500 honorarium to speak at a conven-\n\"accepted\" under 18 U.S.C. § 616 when\nter of May 6, 1975, requests an advisory\ntion when he already has accepted $4,000\nthere has been active or constructive\nopinion as to whether a Member of Con-\ngress may request, in lieu of an honorar-\nin honoraria during the calendar year.\nreceipt of the honorarium and the fed-\nium for a speech, that an organization\nCongressman Rostenkowski asks wheth-\nral officeholder or employee exercises\nmake an appropriate donation to a char-\ner the honorarium is considered accepted\ndominion or control over it. A federal\nitable organization. Congressman Rhodes\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 163-THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975\nNOTICES\n36747\nasks whether a Member of Congress, who\ndistinguishes between an honorarium,\nADVISORY OPINION 1975-13: LEGALITY OF\nhas already received the full amount of\nwhich is treated as income, and expenses\nPRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RECEIVING\nhonoraria permitted by the cited statute,\nfor transportation, accommodations, and\nTRAVEL EXPENSES FROM CORPORATIONS\nwould be in violation of the law if he or\nmeals which are deductible from income\nThe Federal Election Commission ren-\nshe requires or requests that the sponsors\nas an ordinary and necessary cost of do-\nders this advisory opinion under 2 U.S.C.\nof the Member's appearance donate an\ning business.\n§ 437f in response to a request submitted\namount equal to, but in lieu of the hon-\nAccordingly, it is the opinion of the\nby a candidate. The request was made\norarium, directly to \"bona fide charities\"\nCommission that the actual costs of\npublic by the Commission and published\nnamed by the Member or the donor.\ntransportation, accommodations, and\nin the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 17, 1975\nThe principles established in part A\nmeals are excluded from the limitations\n(40 FR 30258). Interested parties were\nof this advisory opinion also are appli-\non honorariums provided in 18 U.S.C.\ngiven an opportunity to submit com-\ncable to this request. Accordingly, no fur-\n§ 616. Thus, Members of Congress who\nments relating to the request.\nther elaboration is necessary.\nreach the aggregate limit of $15,000 on\nThe requesting party seeks an advisory\nThe opinion presented in part A of this\nhonorariums received in any calendar\nopinion as to whether 18 U.S.C. § 610\nadvisory opinion may be relied upon as\nyear may continue to accept speaking\nprohibits a Presidential candidate from\ncontrolling the factual situation present-\nengagements for which they receive only\nreceiving travel expenses for a speaking\ned in this request, and if there is good\ntheir own personal actual transportation,\nengagement at a Chamber of Commerce,\nfaith compliance with that part of the\naccommodation, and meal expenses.\nif the Chamber's general treasury in-\nopinion, there will be a presumption of\nIt is further asked whether an or-\ncludes money contributed by corpora-\ncompliance with the provisions of 18\nganization could provide reimbursement\ntions.\nU.S.C. $616, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437f\nfor these expenses, even if the organi-\nSection 610 prohibits corporations\n(b), with respect to the issues raised by\nzation is prohibited from making cam-\npaign contributions. The language of\nfrom making contributions or expendi-\nthis request.\ntures in connection with Federal elec-\n18 U.S.C. $ 616 expressly applies to any\nC. Joint Request of Senators Mans-\n\"elected or appointed officer or em-\ntions, and prohibits any person from ac-\nfield and Scott. Senators Mike Mansfield\nand Hugh Scott in their joint letter of\nployee of any branch of the Federal Gov-\ncepting or receiving any such contribu-\nernment.\" A review of the legislative his-\ntions or expenditures. As used in section\nJune 26, 1975, request an advisory opin-\ntory of this section (see the Congres-\n610, contribution includes \"any direct or\nion as to whether travel and subsistence\nsional Record, daily edition, August 7,\nindirect payment,\nto\nany\ncandi-\nexpenses are included in the limitation\non honorariums. Specifically, they ask\n1974, H. 7816; and October 8, 1974, S.\ndate,\nin connection with any elec-\n18526) indicates that the intent of Con-\ntion to [Federal office]\nThus,\nwhether a Member of Congress, who has\nreached the aggregate limit of $15,000\ngress in enacting this section was to\nreimbursing the travel expenses of a\nlimit the amounts of honorariums re-\nPresidential candidate from corporate\nin a calendar year, may accept a speak-\nceived by Federal officeholders and\nfunds would be prohibited by 18 U.S.C.\ning engagement, receive no honorarium,\n§ 610, since any public appearance of\nand still be able to have travel and sub-\nemployees.\nOn the other hand, 18 U.S.C. $ 610\nsuch a candidate before an audience,\nsistence expenses paid by the sponsor of\nwhich prohibits contributions or expen-\ncomprised of individuals who could be\nthe enagement. As a related issue, they\nditures by a national bank. corporation,\ninfluenced to take affirmative action in\nask whether a sponsor of a speaking en-\nor labor organization and 18 U.S.C. § 611\nsupport of his candidacy as result of that\ngagement may provide travel and subsist-\nwhich prohibits-contributions by govern-\nappearance, is connected with an elec-\nence expenses in these circumstances, if\nment contractors, are more broadly ap-\ntion.\nthe sponsor would ordinarily and other-\nplicable to contributions or expenditures\nThe Commission's opinion is that, once\nwise be prohibited from making a cam-\nmade to any candidate in connection\nan individual has become a candidate\npaign contribution.\nwith any election to federal office. Thus,\nfor the Presidency, all speeches made be-\nIt is provided in 18 U.S.C. § 616 that:\nit seems clear that 18 U.S.C. § 616, is not\nfore substantial numbers of people are\nWhoever, while an elected or appointed\nintended to supercede the application of\npresumably for the purpose of enhanc-\nofficer or employee of any branch of the\n18 U.S.C. § 610 and § 611 to officeholders\ning his candidacy. (See also Advisory\nFederal Government-\nonce they become candidates. According-\nOpinion 1975-8 issued August 14, 1975,\n(1) accepts any honorarium of more than\nly, once an individual (including an of-\nin which the Commission decided that\n$1,000 (excluding amounts accepted for ac-\nficeholder) becomes a candidate for fed-\ncertain travel and subsistence expenses\ntual travel and subsistence expenses) for any\neral office, all speeches made before sub-\npaid to officeholders who are also can-\nappearance, speech, or article; or shall be\nstantial numbers of people, comprising a\ndidates are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 610 and\nfined not less than $1,000 nor more than\n$5,000.\npart of the electorate with respect to\n611). Accordingly, since the requesting\nparty is a Presidential candidate, he\nThus, this section on its face shows a\nwhich the individual is a federal candi-\nwould be prohibited from accepting cor-\nlegislative intent to treat \"actual travel\ndate, are presumably for the purpose of\nporate funds to pay his travel expenses\nand subsistence expenses\" differently\nenhancing the candidacy and the candi-\nin connection with the speaking engage-\nfrom honorariums. The legislative his-\ndate is prohibited from accepting ex-\nment. The Commission notes, however,\ntory of 18 U.S.C. § 616 confirms that this\npense money for transportation, accom-\nthat organizations, such as Chambers of\nview accords with the intent of Congress.\nmodations and meals from organizations\nCommerce, could properly (within the\n(See Congressional Record, daily edition,\nlimits of 18 U.S.C. § 608) pay the travel\nOctober 8, 1974, S. 18526.) The legislative\ncovered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 610 and 611. See\nAdvisory Opinion 1975-13, issued August\nexpenses of candidates by making such\nhistory shows a clear Congressional in-\ntent to exclude money given for actual\n14, 1975.\npayments from separate segregated ac-\ncounts containing non-corporate funds.\ntransportation expenses, accommoda-\nThis advisory opinion is to be con-\ntions, and meals, from any amount given\nstrued as limited to the facts of the re-\nDated: August 18, 1975.\nas an honorarium to an elected or ap-\nquest and should not be relied on as hav-\nTHOMAS B. CURTIS,\npointed officer or employee of the Fed-\ning any precedential significance except\nChairman for the\neral Government. It should be noted\nas it relates to those facts at the time of\nFederal Election Commission.\nthat the Internal Revenue Code similarly\nits issuance.\n[FR Doc.75-22096 Filed 8-20-75;8:45 and\nFORD\nFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 163-THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975\nGERALD\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nPOST - August 291975 FRIDAY\nUnit Compromises\nOn Election Fund\n1\nCOMMISSION, From A1\n\"20 phone calls in 20 states,\"\nbut he also expressed reserva\nThe 20-state, $100,000 stand-\ntions about \"netting out\" the\nard was written into law last\ncontributions when the match-\nyear in order to keep frivolous\ning funds begin.\ncandidates from receiving\nThe eommission left unset-\nfederal funds, but the commis-\ntled for at least another week\nsion had been deadlocked for\nthe simmering controversy\nRowland Evans and Robert Novak\nThe President's Campaign Financing\nPresident Ford intends to campaign\nAlthough Mr. Ford is an announced candidate\ngressmen: your avoice is heard in\nthis year without obeying stringent\nCongress victrus hope that this\nfinancial regulations imposed on all\nother presidential candidates by the\nfor President, his lawyers claim he is traveling\nwill lead to positive results.'\nA footnote: The embassy cable does\nnew election law-an exercise in loops\npolitically this year as leader of the Republican\nnot show the response from the con-\nhole-seeking which could land him in\npolitical and legal trouble.\nParty, not as a candidate.\"\ngressmen. After we reported last\nmonth's exchanges between senators\nThe President's intentions became\nand the Russians which the senators\ngaged in fund-raising and directly to The upshot: The White House is spending,\" he admonished the con-\n© 1975. Field Enterprises, Inc.\nFORD LIBRARY d GERALD\n8/27/75 Post\nRobber\nPilferer\nFord Schedules Weekend Travels;\nPresse\n-ug. 26-\nTrips Said Not Part of Campaign\nS, one of\nis in the\nAssociated Press\nthat no other candidate for of-\ntravel costs when he is on offi-\nllar \"great\nPresident Ford has tenta-\nfice has.\ncial duties in his role as head\n\" from a\ntively scheduled out-of-town\nThe President is required\nof the GOP and as a candidate\nin in 1963,\ntrips almost every weekend\nto make decisions day in and\nfor the presidential nomina-\nhere today\nfor the rest of the year. White\nday out and then live with the\ntion in 1976.\nin prison\nHouse press secretary Ron\nconsequences. If one blows up\nNessen said the committe\nNessen said the Republican\nin his face, he's got a political\nvicted of pil-\nNational Committee will pay\nliability on his hands that no\nwill act with approval of the\nS, two\nother, nonincumbent candi-\nelection commission in deter-\n1\nfor\nsome\nof\nInitials\nDate\nPrepared By\nApproved By\nAA M 19/9/3 9/3\n45-804 EYE-EASE\n45-904 20/20 BUFF\nATIONAL\nMade\nSchedule of Payables\nas M 8/31/75\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n1\n2\nVendors, Imp ense Departs,\n2\n3\nEtc. nan white Hance\n34614075\n3\n4\n4\n5\nWinte Home! White Hance\n5264869\n5\n6\nTotal Puyables antand\n39878944\n6\n7\n7\n8\n8\n9\n9\n10\n10\n11\n11\n12\n12\n13\n13\n14\n14\n15\n15\n16\n16\n17\n17\n18\n18\n19\nWhite Home Expend tune to Date:\n19\n20\n20\n21\nPresential\n25149786\n21\n22\n22\n23\nUne treasdential\n461724\n23\n24\nTitul Expenditures\n25611510\n24\n25\n25\n26\n26\n27\n27\n28\n28\n29\n29\n30\n30\n31\n31\n32\n32\n33\n33\n34\n34\n35\n35\n36\n36\n37\n37,\n38\n38\n39\nORD\n39\n40\nGERALD\n40\n41\n41\n42\n42\n43\n43\n44\n44\nInitials\nDate\nPrepared By\nAA\nApproved By\nNT\n9/3\n45-804 EYE-EASE\n45-904 20/20 BUFF\nNATIO NAL\nMade A.\nFund Diving chairmonis office\nSchedule of Expenditures\nyear to Date Through 9/3/75\n1\n2\n3\n4\naccount\nTitl\nExpenditing\n1\n1\n2\nSalaries\n12\n6\n4\n617\n2\n3\n3\n4\nPayroll Taxes 9 Ins. - Employer\n80\n4\n5\n5\n6\nProf. Consultants\n99\n26\n6\n7\n7\n8\nTravel of Transportation Exp.\n728867\n8\n9\n9\n10\n10\n11\n11\n12\nTelephones Long Dist of Credit cards\n84091\n12\n13\n13\n14\nMeetings a Conferences\n57\n14\n15\n15\n16\nMiscellaneous operating cost\n399898\n16\n17\nTotal Through july 31\n36\n36\n17\n18\nExp emlitures 8/1 - 9/3/75\n2134534\n18\n19\nTotal through 9/3/75\n5797170\n19\n20\n20\n21\n21\n22\n22\n23\n23\n24\n24\n25\n25\n26\n26\n27\n27\n28\n28\n29\n29\n30\n30\n31\n31\n32\n32\n33\n33\n34\n34\n35\n35\n36\n36\n37\n37\n38\n38\n39\n39\n40\nORD\n40\n41\nGERALD\nIBRARY\n41\n42\n42\n43\n43\n44\n44\nInitials\nDate\nPrepared By\nApproved By\n45-804 EYE-EASE\n45-904 20/20 BUFF\nNATIONAL\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n850\nactivity I- hundent &\n1\n2\n3\nthit 7 amily\n2\n3\n4\n851- -\n5492174\n4\n5\n852- advancement\n55700\n33\n5\n6\n853 Receptions\n1242405\n6\n7\n854 gifts\n5463527\n7\n8\n855 Misc, Expenses\n1615031\n8\n9\n19383170\n9\n10\n10\n11\n860\nActivity II - W-H staff\n11\n12\n12\n13\n861 - - Staff Political Exp,\n266278\n13\n14\n862 - Receptions + Special Events\n38668\n14\n15\n863 - Office Supplies\n-0\n-\n15\n16\n864 - Telephone Charges\n-\n0\n-\n16\n17\n865- Telegraph Charges\n505467\n17\n18\n866 - Opinion Polls\n4938173\n18\n19\n5748586\n19\n252258\n20\n20\n21\n870\nActivity III - PR Operations\n21\n22\n22\n23\n872 Data Processing\n5000\n23\n24\n873 Postage\n1\n0\n-\n24\n25\n874 Mailing lists\n-\n0\n-\n25\n26\n875 Film, Photo, Tapes\n4250\n26\n27\n876 RNC Services\n8780\n27\n28\n18030\n28\n29\n29\n30\n880\nActivity IV - Vice Pres.\n30\n31\n31\n32\n881 Travel & Transp.\n181278\n32\n33\n882 Advancemen\n197913\n33\n34\n883 Misc. Exp,\n12867\n34\n35\n884 gifts\n69666\n35\n36\n885 Reumbursements\n<100000>\n36\n37\n361724\n37\n38\n25511510\n38\n39\n39\nFORD\n40\n40\n41\n41\n42\n42\n43\n43\n44\n44\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDear Mr. Curtis:\nThis is in response to your letter of July 10, 1975, inquiring\nwhether President Ford maintains an office account, newsletter\nfund or similar account within the purview of 2 U.S. C. 439a.\nI regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. However, it\nwas necessary to review in detail our present practices in order\nto respond fully to your question. No such accounts are main-\ntained by or on behalf of the President to defray \"any ordinary\nand necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with his\nduties as a holder of Federal office\n11\nAs an accommodation to the White House press corps which travels\nwith the President on all trips, regardless of the nature of the trip,\nthe White House travel office does maintain a so-called press travel\naccount. This account receives payments from the White House\npress corps for its share of the costs of travelling on Air Force One,\nthe press charter plane which follows the President's plane, and any\nground transportation necessary for the press to accompany the\nPresident at virtually all times while away from Washington.\nDue to the unique nature of the President's schedule; e.g., confidential\ndeparture times, use of military bases, possibilities for sudden\nschedule changes, etc., the White House travel office makes the\nnecessary arrangements for these transportation costs and bills the\nmedia accordingly. Receipts are maintained in an account used\nonly for this purpose. Disbursements from this account are\ngenerally made into the Treasury of the United States for travel\non government planes, to the airlines from whom planes have been\nchartered, and to the appropriate companies for ground transporta-\ntion expenses. While this account is not used for support of a holder\nof Federal office, we would be pleased to make its records available\nfor inspection by members of your staff.\nTitular\n-2-\nIt is our understanding that for a number of years the two national\npolitical committees have undertaken certain expenditures in\nfurtherance of party goals for activities by the President and Vice\nNational President Committee as the heads has of made their such political expenditures parties. during The Republican the present adprior\nAdministration. I have, therefore, requested the General Counsel\nof the Republican National Committee to respond to you directly\nwith respect to these expenditures. He has advised that these\nexpenditures have already been filed with the Federal Election\nCommission in the Committee's quarterly reports and that he will\npromptly contact the FEC to discuss the matter further.\nIf you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact me.\nSincerely,\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Thomas B. Curtis\nChairman\nFederal Election Commission\nWashington, D.C. 20463\nclair. of House\nSenal See of Sen\nDraft\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 3, 1975\nDear Mr. Curtis:\nThis is in response to Notice 1975-38 (F. R. 40202) in which\nthe Federal Election Commission has sought comments concern-\ning a request from the campaign manager for Mr. Louis Wyman\nfor an opinion of the FEC General Counsel on several questions\nrelating to possible travel by \"President Ford and former\nGovernor Reagan\" to New Hampshire for the purpose of endorsing\nMr. Wyman in the September 16, 1975, special Senatorial election.\nThe General Counsel has proposed for Commission review an\nopinion responding to this request which states, in part, as follows:\n\"Presidential expenditures in connection\nwith such a visit provide unique problems of\nattribution. It would be illogical, and un-\nnecessarily restrictive, to require the attribution\nof the actual cost of a presidential campaign\nforay. Hence, only the equivalent commercial\nrates will be chargeable against an incumbent\nPresident's individual contribution limitations\nand against the candidate's overall expenditure\nlimitation. Expenses for accompanying staff\npersonnel will be charged against the foregoing\nlimitations only if such staff personnel serve\nprimarily as advance persons or other campaign\nstaff members and do not provide support services\nto the Office of the President. Additionally, special\ncosts attendant upon Ford's office as President,\nsuch as the Secret Service, police and medical\nattention, are not to be included within this\namount. These costs are relatively fixed and\nare related to Ford's position as President and\nnot to his political function as head of his\nparty. 11\nFORD A. LIBRARY OERALD\n-2 -\nIn the form of comment on this one provision, we wish to bring\nto your attention the manner in whi ch we intend to apportion\nthe various costs incurred to operate government-owned aircraft\non which the President and accompanying government personnel\ntravel to and from localities where the President appears for\nother than official purposes. As the General Counsel's proposed\nopinion indicates, expenditures for such travel by the President\npresent problems that are unique to his Federal office, in that\nthe President must continue to perform in his official capacity\nat the same time he undertakes political activities.\nFor this reason, whenever the President travels, regardless of\nthe purpose of the particular trip, he is accompanied by a number\nof persons who are present to support him in his official role.\nFor example, certain members of the White House staff, military\naides, medical aides, Secret Service and communications personnel\nare present not for any political purpose, but solely to provide the\nPresident with support which in many cases they are required by\nlaw to perform. The Secret Service, in particular, is required\nby P.L. 90-331 to provide protection to \"major Presidential and\nVice Presidential\" candidates at the direction of the Secretary of\nthe Treasury and on the basis of consultation with an advisory\ncommittee of bipartisan congressional membership.\n(1) Costs of Operating Government-Owned Aircraft\non Political Trips\nWhen the President travels on a trip which entails\nonly political stops, the cost of operating the Government-owned\naircraft that are used to transport the President can be readily\ndetermined from the enclosed hourly rate schedule, used by the\nDepartment of Defense to recover its costs from other government\nagencies that use military aircraft. In our view, the costs of\ntransporting any persons aboard the aircraft who are traveling for\npolitical purposes should be borne by the appropriate political\ncommittee. On the other hand, the costs of transporting those\npersons who are traveling for the purpose of supporting the Office\nof the President should not be attributed to a political committee.\nFor the purpose of the President's future travels, we will identify\nthose individuals who could be considered to be present for a\n-3-\npolitical purpose. We plan to treat as political travelers the\nPresident and First Family, political committee officials\ncertain White House and other officials, e.g., Cabinet officers\nwho may perform some political activities and any other persons\nwhose activities could be viewed as political. Although White\nHouse officials are present for official support activities, and\ngenerally spend a substantial majority, if not all, of their time\non official business, we intend to consider the following categories\nof officials to be political for the purpose of such travel: White\nHouse officials who may advise on political matters (e.g., Donald\nRumsfeld, Robert Hartmann, John Marsh, Ron Nessen, Richard\nCheney, etc.), speechwriters, advancemen, and a White House\nphotographer.\nThe remainder of the White House personnel is present for the\npurpose of supporting the President in his official capacity, e.g.,\na civilian aide or personal secretary, along with non-White House\nsupport personnel, e.g., the Secret Service, military aides,\nmedical and communications personnel, etc. They are not present\nfor any political purpose, and the costs of their travel should not\nbe attributed to a political committee. In this regard, it is our\nunderstanding that in 1972 the Secret Service paid up to the cost\nof comparable first-class airfare for its agents traveling on board\nchartered aircraft of non-incumbent Presidential candidates.\nTherefore, on future Presidential travel the appropriate political\ncommittee will be charged by DOD for its pro rata share of the\nhourly costs of using government-owned aircraft, based on the\npercentage of the persons on board who are present mainly or in\npart for a political purpose.\n(2) Costs of Operating Government-Owned Aircraft\non Mixed Official-Political Trips\nIn most cases, it is not possible to schedule the\nPresident's travel in a manner that will allow trips to be solely\nofficial or solely political. We believe that the best formula for\napportioning the transportation costs on mixed official-political\npurpose trips is one which may be referred to as the \"round trip\nairfare formula. \" Under this formula, the political stops are\n-4-\nisolated from the official stops in order to establish the political\ntrip that would have been made if the President did not have the\nresponsibilities of his office. For this purpose, where a particular\nstop includes both official and political events, it will be treated as\na political stop. A stop will be regarded as official when that is\nits main purpose, even though the President may meet, incidental\nto the official event, with political figures in an informal and\nunpublicized meeting, e.g., a private breakfast with a local\npolitical figure or greeting a small group of local politicians.\nOnce the political stops of such a trip have been determined, DOD\ncalculates the cost of that \"political\" trip and charges the appro-\npriate political committee for its share, as described above, of\nthe costs of the trip, based on the round trip flying time between\nthe initial point of departure, generally, Washington, D. C., and\nthe political stops made. An example might help to clarify this\napproach. Suppose the President makes a trip from Washington\nto San Francisco for official purposes, then to Los Angeles for\npolitical purposes, and returns to Washington via St. Louis where\na stop is made for official purposes. Under this formula, the\nappropriate political committee is charged for its pro rata share\nof the hourly costs of a trip from Washington to Los Angeles and\nreturn to Washington, even though there was no direct Washington\nto Los Angeles leg of the flight.\n(3) Other Travel Costs\nIn order to assure that all costs related to the political\nportion of a trip are treated as political costs, the appropriate\npolitical committee will be charged the expenses for each political\nstop of any member of the Presidential party who is present\nmainly or in part for a political purpose, as determined above.\nThus, political funds will pay the expenses of the President and\nthese other officials, but not the expenses of those persons who\nare present to support the President entirely in his official capacity.\nSuch items as communications arrangements, motorcades,\nautomobile rentals, and other miscellaneous items are readily\nidentifiable as to their purpose, and are to be paid by the appro-\npriate political committee when they are for political purposes.\n-\nWhere an item, such as the cost of a bus for a motorcade involves\na mixed purpose, e.g., transporting the members of the Presidential\nparty who are considered to be present for a political purpose, and\nalso those serving the President in his official capacity, the appro-\npriate political committee will bear the full cost of that item.\nIn every case where a candidate for Federal office is an incumbent,\neither in an office to which he seeks re-election or in another\noffice, his campaign activities may become intermingled with\nhis offic ial activities, and similar problems will arise in ascertain-\ning which costs he incurs are campaign-related. The proposals\nherein made provide a reasonable method for resolving such\nproblems.\n(4) Services of Government Personnel\nFor the purpose of identifying the costs of travel to be\nborne by the appropriate political committee, we understand that\nit is not necessary to apportion the salaries of those members of\nthe personal staffs of incumbent candidates for Federal office\nwithin either the Executive or Legislative Branches who, in\naddition to their official duties, also participate in some limited\npolitical activities. For example, employees \"paid from the\nappropriation for the office of the President \"are exempted by\n5 U.S. C. 7324(d)(1) from the general prohibition contained in\n5 U.S.C. 7324(a)(2) against Executive Branch employees participat-\ning in \"political management or in political campaigns. \" This\nsection effectively places the White House staff in a position\ncomparable to that of the personal staffs of members of Congress.\nNo precise dividing line now exists, nor is one likely to be drawn,\nwhich clearly indicates when such employees are performing\nofficial duties and when those duties are political. So long as\nthese employees expend a substantial majority (an average in excess of\nforty hours per week) of their time on official duties, there is\nno need to attribute any portion of the salaries of such employees\nto a political committee.\nThe reason for this letter is to bring to the Commission's attention\nthe means by which we intend to attribute to a political committee\nthe costs of the President's travel for purposes of support of the\nGERALD A FOND LIBRARY\n-6-\nRepublican Party, support of specific candidates, or support of\nhis own candidacy. To the extent this treatment may be different\nfrom that proposed by the General Counsel, we do not imply that\na change need be made in the proposed opinion of such counsel.\nRather we believe that the proposed opinion is consistent with the\nrequirements of the applicable law and that if a more liberal\nattribution of expenses is made to a political committee such is\nwithin a candidate's discretion.\nWe intend to now implement with respect to future travel by the\nPresident, this treatment for attribution of such travel costs.\nWe would appreciate very much any comments or suggestions\nthe Commission may think are appropriate to make with respect\nto our treatment of the President's travel costs.\nSincerely,\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe Honorable Thomas B. Curtis\nChairman\nFederal Election Commission\nWashington, D.C. 20463\nMEMORANDUM FOR: Members of the Media\nFROM:\nMary Louise Smith, Chairman RNC\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential and Vice Presidential expenditures paid by RNC\nDATE:\nSeptember 3, 1975\nThere have been a number of inquiries from members of the media concerning\nPresidential and Vice Presidential expenditures paid by the Republican National\nCommittee and their amounts.\nHistorically, the two national political parties have paid certain\nexpenditures in furtherance of party goals for activities of the President\nand Vice President as titular heads of their political parties.\nThe Republican National Committee has made such expenditures during the\npresent and prior administrations. As you are probably aware, our counsel is\nnow drafting a communication to the Federal Election Commission which will\ndocument precedence for such expenditures, illustrate their purpose, offer\na rationale for them, and generally acquaint the FEC with the need to\nrecognize the concept that both major parties payments for on-going party\nexpenses and party building in both election and non-election years are not\nchargeable to any Federal candidate.\nAttached you will find a list of expenditures of this kind paid for by\nthe Republican National Committee in 1975. You will also find a list of 1975\nbills on hand which have been approved for payment. Note that there is a 60-90\nday lag on incoming bills after the expenses have been incurred. These expenses\nare comparable to other non-election year payments for party building expenses\nincurred by other Administrations so far as we can document.\n###\nGERALD A. FORD LIBRARY\nDEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE\nPRESS RELEASE\n1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/797-5900\nRobert S. Strauss, Chairman\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:\nFriday, September 5, 1975\nSTRAUSS CRITICIZES RNC FUNDING\nOF FORD CAMPAIGN TRAVELS\nThe new federal elections law is admittedly complex, and requires\nvery careful interpretation despite the immediacy of its application and\nthe signficant political consequences inherent in it. The Federal\nElections Commission is working hard to come up with fair rulings as\nquestions arise ---- many of those questions brought by us. But despite\nmy sympathy for the task of the commissioners, as Chairman of the\nDemocratic Party I must nevertheless question ruling when we feel they\nhave erred ------ as I believe they did yesterday in their ruling on the\nassignment of expenditures in the New Hampshire senatorial campaign.\nThe letter from our counsel, stating our position, is available, and\nI will comment further on New Hampshire later. But there is a much\nbroader question pending, not only before the commission, but really\nbefore the nation -- and that is the way in which President Ford's\npolitical expenses are being paid.\nI say this is a question before the nation because it was a national\noutcry against the most scandalous political fundraising and spending abuse\nin our nation's history that brought about the new law. The new law\nsets careful and specific limits on the amounts, which may be raised and\nspent by candidates for nomination or election for federal office, and\nby committees, such as the DNC or RNC, operating on their behalf.\nThe Republican National Committee is paying for the current political\ntravels of President Ford, stating publicly that he is traveling as the\nleader of their party, performing party work. They point out ----- specifically\nin a statement yesterday by the Republican Party Chairman ------ that this\nis a practice which has been followed by national committees on behalf of\nAgree\nprevious presidents. I fully agree. This was the past practice. But\nthat is precisely the point ----- that practice is past, it was found to be **\nunacceptable, and falls before the new law, as it should. They ignore\nthe new law and we have seen what happens when the law is ignored.\nA multi-candidate committee is limited to the expenditure of $5,000\non behalf of any candidate for nomination for federal office, including\nthe presidency. The Republican National Committee is such a committee,\nand President Ford is such a candidate. There can be no question about\nthe nature of the President's travels: every newscast, every newspaper\narticle, puts a trip such as he is making now in perspective. The\nstories say \"President Ford, on the campaign trail\", \"President Ford\ntrying to nail down the Republican nomination\", or President Ford, trying\nto WOO away potential Reagan supporters\". He is campaigning for his\nparty's nomination almost every day. There is no question about that.\nGERALD FORD\nPage 2\nThe spending of an admitted $300,000 plus dollars by the RNC to advance\nthe nomination of President Ford ---- and the probable spending of much\nmore than that by this time - greatly exceeds the modest $5,000 limit\nplaced by the law.\nAs for the decision on New Hampshire, our position is clear, but\nlet me cite one line from it. \"Where he (the President) is acting in\na political capacity, and is himself a candidate, I believe that there\nshould be a presumption that his activities are political and a further\npresumption that any expenditures incurred by him or on his behalf are\nproperly charged to his own candidacy, with the burden of rebutting these\npresumtions placed upon the President.\" In other words, the public,\nwanting to reform political spending, doesn't want loopholes. The\npublic knows that the President has duties to preform as President, but\nthere are also political activities, either on his own behalf or on\nbehalf of others. The lines can be drawn. If anyone wants an opinion\nother than that of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee as\nto whether or not President Ford is travelling politicaly to further\nhis chances for the Republican nomination I would refer them to Ronald\nReagan, to his campaign staff, Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire or any\nother Reagan supporters.\nBut some things are unreasonable. Some things suchas saying\nthat President Ford is campaigning today in California not as a\ncandidate, but as aparty leader. Suppose I as Chairman of the\nDemocratic Party, should name one of our presidential candidates,\nor four of them, or all of them, as party leaders and sent them\naround the country at DNC expense, without limit, and without\nallocating charges against their spending limits? It would be\nan abusrdity. And that is what we are being presented with by\nthe Republican Party, an absurdity.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee.\nMary Louise Smith\nChairman\nSeptember 10, 1975\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nGERALD A. FORD LIBRARY\n484-6500.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 10, 1975\n15\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican Party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nGERALD LEGARY FORD\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the president's partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party.\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself.\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety.\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \" 2\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\n1/\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\n2\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United FORD\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 10, 1975\n15,\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (1) ]m a \" state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1)], and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C., 431 (d) 1.\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan acitvity conducted on\nan ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a seccific office within\na specific geographical area. State and National party\norganizations engage in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for expenditures by a National or State political party\nfor these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that\nNational and State parties may contribute to individuals\ncandidates for office but does not impose a maximum monetary\nbudget for the conduct of ongoing party business.\nPolitical campaign committees accept contributions\nand make expenditures that are identifiable with that comm-\nittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular\noffice. National political parties, conversely, are charged\nwith the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-\nnition of party identity and ideology, without reference to\nan individual candidate or election. A large measure of this\nfunction is performed by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides on behalf of their National and State parties.\nf\nWhen these party functions are performed and costs result\nfrom same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the\nfor e lection, to Federal office.. \"(18use 608),\nNational or State political parties, should and does assume\nthe cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nGERALD A. FORD LIBRARY\n3210)\nis\nHonorable\nonly Thomas for dats q8 before. B. theary Curtis of late or Primary general Member wahich is election public a such or condition USC office. ber-elect (32\nPage 5\nSeptember 10, 1975\n(3905c.\n15,\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use of\nfranked mail privileges after a declaration of candidacy\n[2 U.S.C. 439(b)]. The legislative body that enacted the\nFederal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator\nofcorduction\nfrom continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-\ngoing business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-\ning privileges oven when seeking reelection To postu-\neven after an announcement of\nlate a different rule for an incumbent President seeking\nreelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an\nincumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine\nongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly\nunfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-\ncondidnet.\ngested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen\nto fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and\ndealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized\nand Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's\nordinary business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act\n(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seg.) is to prohibit partisan political\nactivities by employees of the Executive Branch of the\nPresident, himself.\nFederal government. That prohibition excludes employees\nof the Office of the President This statutory exclusion\nis a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan\nnature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-\nsarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-\nical role of the President of the United States as head\nof his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in\nfulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical\nalternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that\npayment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary\nof the acts, i.e., the President's National Political\nparty.\nA FORD LIBRARY\nGERALD\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nthe the the The Na Partico aided have The Not wto the the further but ofthe rath ben & further\nSeptember 10, 1975\nA\nJ\nIn 1975, the Republican National Committee allocated\nthe sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to support\nthe activities of the President, the Vice President and their\naides when engaged in the role as head of the National party.\nThis budgetary allotment is consistent with past years budgets,\nwithout regard to whether the year in question was an election\nagainst\nor nonelection year. On September 1, 1975, the Republican\nNational Committee had paid and/or received bills totaling\nThree Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual\nallotment. The Republican National Committee has filed\nquarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures with\nthe Federal Election Commission since the establishment of\nthat agency. The Republican National Committee believes that\nit is the proper body to assume these expenditures, just as\npresumably the Democratic National Committee believed it\nwas the proper body to pay the expenses incurred by Democratic\nPresidents engaged in their National party affairs during the\nyears 1960 through 1968.\nWhen the President, Vice President and their\naides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their\nNational or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes\nthe cost of their travel and transportation, advance men\nexpense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of\nreceptions incidental to those activities. In addition,\nthe Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred\nfor films and photographs taken during such Presidential\ntravel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presidential\ngifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm bracelets pic-\nturing the Presidential or Vice Presidential Presidential seal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not\nassume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice\nPresidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential\nor Vice Presidential candidacy or Vtravel associated with\nthe candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,\nprimarily\nthe candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,\nin accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election\nCampaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.\nof cost,\ndoes not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-\ndential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of\nthe United States, having no political overtones. That\nexception is the expenditures incurred by advance men\nduring Presidential official travel. These charges are\nincurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by\nPOX\nX'\nThat exception relates to certain expenditures\nincurred by advancemer advancement in the\nCourse of official travel by the President. These\nexpenditures, which in most cases are for\npersons not the government &,\nare assumed by the TWC because the\nChap Execotive's appearances, regardless of / their\npurpose, forthers party interest.\nFORD LIBRARY 074400\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 7\nSeptember 10, 1975\nthe Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-\nment business. Although the National Committee is not,\nper se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel,\nit assumes the advance men cost on official trips in the\nbelief that such an expenditure from the United States\nTreasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures\nincurred during the Presidential official travel are borne\nby the White House budget.\nfrom approprented funds.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an equitable dis-\nadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting\nthese past expenditures are available for inspection by\nthe F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-\nciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-\nmission may think appropriate to make with respect to our\ntreatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-\ndent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in\nparty promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\nGERALD R. FORD LIBERTY\npresidential condidates, or four of them, or all of\nthem, as party leaders and sent them anound\nthe country at INC expense, without limit, and\nwithout allocating charges against their spending\n? It is both wrong and unjust to insist\nthe state status of of\nthat to political condition $ an\nReview automaticly denies to the\ncandiday shall Forb party - National\nPolitical Q the Issuices of its gath\nsyskesman.\nGERALD R SECURITY FORD\nfund reising went for his ste or Natural\nParty should not deplete his Ten Million Hollow\n(10,000,000) presential primary effort. The\nrole performed by\ngaily a suck individuals, is ,dentical to that garty role\nassumed by the\nof a Presedent\nacting as party spokenmen of gaily functions\nNeither their measure incurres the expendidures associated\nwith that role in furtherence of their\nfor momination for election, or for election, to\nFederal office \" (18 use 608) Janocratic National\nCommon.Hee Chairmon 8 Srauss' September: 5, 1975,\npress release postalates # this very question. Labling\nas\nit above absord, he H, \"Suppose I as Chairman\nFORD\nof the Democratic Paty, should name one of are\nobligation\nThe $ to asseeme a party role for\none's mational golitical party is not restricted\nto the Present of the United states. Senators and\nCongressmen and frequently Called are upon to\nit\nfunction as spokesmen for, to aid are fundraising\nwent to as\nto represent\ntheir own Political RS Paty Such a\nMembersol Congrass\nwho are also\nparty role S is often undertaken announcement by a Companical\nparty leaders after he or she has and\ntheir\nfor condidancy you re-election to the position\nthey presently 1098 AS and/or\nafter\nanmouncing their\na 2229 condiday to the\nOffice of President of the U.P.S. states. Examples\nof soch Instances are begind degion The costs\na\nincluded\nL\nis an annouced\ncandident for the Presidency when attending a\nFORD\nLIERARY\nstate Party the"
}