Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
575050
label
Trips - Iowa, Cedar Rapids to Attend the 36th Annual Convention of the Iowa Daily Press Association and the Linn County Democrat Central Committee's "September Spectacular"
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
575050
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Trips - Iowa, Cedar Rapids to Attend the 36th Annual Convention of the Iowa Daily Press Association and the Linn County Democrat Central Committee's "September Spectacular"
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Carter Administration)
White House Social Office Central Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
575050
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ef75a1ece1a0121b
ocrText
Memoranda, 5/76
Folder Citation: Collection: Records of the 1976 Campaign Committee to Elect Jimmy Carter;
Series: Noel Sterrett Subject File; Folder: Memoranda, 5/76; Container 88
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Carter-Mondale%20Campaign_1976.pdfi
CARTER FILE
5/1/76
110M
From: Sheldon Toibb
909 25th St. N.W. Apt.B
Washington, D.C. 20037
To: Steve Stark, Issues Coordinator, Atlanta
Bill Daniel, Missouri State Chairman
Rob Firth, Atlanta
Peter Bourne, Washington
Willaam vanden Heuvel, New York State Chairman
Robert Lipschutz, National Finance Chairmany Atlanta
I recently spoke with Bob Hadley in Atlanta who refered me to you in connection
with the Governor's positions on issues of concern to Jewish Democratic voters.
A. The present status of the Governor in the eyes of Jewish voters
Back in February, I sent a memo to Atlanta stating that it would
not be possible to overcome Senator Jackson's inroads among Jewish
voters. I had hoped, however, that the Governor would become a strong
number two with this constituency which could ne increased later as the
Governor's national reputation grew in stature.
This has not happened.
In fact, Udall is now the strong number two to Jackson and the Governor is a very
weak third. The CBS-New York Times poll of April 23, shows that Jewish support
for the Governor has gone from 39% in February to 15% at present. Udall received
a respectable portion of the Jewish vote in the NewYork and Massachusetts primaries.
At the very least, I mentioned pitfalls which should be avoided if the Governor
was not to. fall into thesame position as McGovern in ]972 with Jewish voters in
terms of being suspect on the issues of Israel and Soviet Jewish emigration.
This has not occurred. The Governor has geen under attack for his positions on
these issues which even Udall has managed to avoid.
In addition, there have been some gross distoritions and accusations
of the Governor's record which have largely gone unanswered. As a result, they have
been believed as true. Such misconceptions must be cured if the Governor is to do
better amongJewish voters in Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey and California.
In fact, even carrying 20,000 Jewish voters in Omaha could prove significant in putting
a quick end to a Frank Church candidacy in Nebraska.
My view is that Jewish support for the Governor could grow substantially
very quickly if only more effort were attempted in this area. Jewish voters basically
want a to support a winner, not a martyr, if only that winner would support them.
Now that no more funds will be forthcoming from the Federal Election Commission,
ti is even moe important to be stating more forcefully positions which will attract
financial support from possible Jewish contributors.
2
B. The Specific Problems
]. Overall Trust
Jewish voters like a candidate with a history of support for Jewish issues and
babackground of amicability with Jews in general. They distrust Johnny-come-
latlies on Jewish issues and are suspicious of insincere ploys to attract their
votes and financial support (e.g. McGovern's unsuccessful attemptto attract
Jewish voters in ]972). The Governor has such a record as stated in an article
in the ]/23/76 issue of the Southern Israelite. The main points of his record
are:
]. A trip to Israel as far back as ]973.
2. The ]973 recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt-Israel Humanities Award of the
Israel Bond Organization.
3. Being named as an Honorary Fellow of the American College in Jerusalem in
]973.
4. Making the most significant Jewish appointments that a Governor of Georgia
has ever made.
These items have not been widely disseminated. This article has been reporduced,
but virtually no one in the overall national Jewish population knows of it.
2. Countering Distortions of the Governor's Record
A devastating column by Evans and Novak appeared in mid-March assailing the
general attempt by the Governor and Udall to appeal to the Jewish voters and
accusing the Governor of taking an insincere pro-Israel position. The widely
read article was a distortion, but it was never effectively answered. As a
result, facts from it were taken and put into a column by Eric Fettman in the
New York Jewish Press before the New York primary. Now the assertions in the
article about a supposed Carter statement in Kyoto, Japan supporting the Ford
freeeze on military aid to Israel is being believed as true. What should have
been done and what still should be done is an attack on the Evans and Novak position
that appealingtoJewish voters by stating support for Israel is an illegitimate
campaign stand. Evans and Novak are strongly anti-Israel, despite what they say,
and it should be explained that Jewish Americans as well as other groups have a
right to know where candidates stand on issues important to them. The Governor
should then forcefully state what these positions are, showing that his record has
been unfairly distorted. Finally, when such criticism comes from Jewish groups
or media, such as the New York Jewish Press, a direct effort to clear up the record
of the Governor with such persons or papers should be made so if even if their
support is not gotten, at least the attacks will stop and the Governor would no,
tongerity
3
longer be treated as a possible athema to Jewish voters.
3. The Soviet Jewish Emigration Issue
The March 26th editorial in the New York Jewish Press stated that the Governor
opposed using Jewish emigration as a bargaining point with the Soviet Union.
9S
This is directly contrary to the Governor's own words in answering a question
by the St. Louis Jewish Light in a recent issue. This latter position should
be more widely publicized. Another problem is the appearance of the Governor's
concern. At a recent Soviet Jewry rally before the New York primary Jackson and
Udall were pictured shaking hands with each other. This picture was syndicated nationally
in many dailies. The picutres leaves the implicit impression that the Governor
does not deem this issue to be of importance. This impression must be he negared
in Xwe Jewish circles. The Jackson Amendment to the Foreign Trade Act prohibits
giving the Soviet Union' most favored nation" trade status unless open emigration
occurs. The Russians have vehemently declined to accpet the trade status together
with the amendment's restrictions. Three points should be made in this respect.
1. In principle the amendment is a correct statement of our foreign policy.
But it has not achieved its NKM purpose as Soviet Xw Jewish emigration ahs gone
from more than 30,000 to 10,000 annually since its passage. It should be stated
that the XII amendment alone is not the answer to the problem as more direct
diplomatic negotiations over the matter are needed. The Ford Administration and
Kissinger have totally refused to conduct such negotiations.
2. By criticizingthe Jackson Amendment, the Ford Adminsitration has failed
to give a united front of American policy to the Soviets on this issue. As a
result and in accord with the view of Soviet Jewish activists (e.g. N.Y. Jewish Press-
4/]6), the Soviets have been even more recalcitrant in permitting Soviet Jewish
emigration.
3. Cooperative peace between the Soviet Union and the NK U.S. is not possible
as long as the Soviets stifleJewish emigration because they are violating the
signed Helsinki accordswhich state that both countries will respect basic human
freedom and rights.
4. The Middle East Issue
a.A Palestinian State
The Jewish Press states tath the Governor supports andindependent Palestfnian
state XN on the West Bank of the Jordan River. I do not know how this newspaper
could have reached this conclusion from the Governor's remarks or even from his
major speech on the Middle East. The problem is taht when the governor pseaks
4
extensively on the Middle East and Israel he almost invariably includes mention
******
of the plight of the Palestinians. " In other nonpresidential politicalcontexts
this language is really a code phrase which is interpreted by Jews to connote
the ideas of sanctioning Arab extremism and terrorism, and the overall superiority
of the Palestinian claim of nationhood to the Israeli need of safe and secure
borders and the right to be recognized as a nationby all Palestinian factions.
This language is often quoted out of context to attack the Governor as not being
pro-Israel. The use of such language is unfortunate an and should be limited.
In addition, if and when mentioning a Palestinian state, the Governor should add
that such a state can only be formed through H. the voluntary agreement of Israel
which should not include undue diplomatic pressure by the United States.
b. The United States' Role as Mediator
Criticism should be made of the Kissinger approach of unduly forcing Israel to
H make concessions which it faxxxx feels is not in its best interests. In the
major sppech, the Governor refers to the importance of face to face negotiations
between the parties. It hsould be made clear that such negotiations means that
the role of the United States is to mediate, not to impose a solution or
concessions onto Israel. In St. Louis, the Governor said that he would not force
IN Israel to do something it could not fairly accept in its bests interests. It
should be strongly added that the decision of what is in Israel's bests in the
negotiations is for Israel and not for the United States to decide.
As far as the face to face negotations are concerned, the Governor should
support the Israeli positions that it will not negotaate with the Palestine Liberation
Organizafion which supports the terrorisssactivities with against Israel and the
destruction of the present state of Israel. The recognition of Israel along with
the cessation of terrorists activities should be conditions precedent before any
direct negotiations between Israeland the Palestinianzx representatives might
occur.
C. United States as MIRXXXMXXXXXXX Military Supplier to Israel and the Arab States
During the past two years the Ford Administrationa a. froze aid to Israel for
a period and b. after promising a certain amount in X military aid to Israel for
this year, decided he will veto any bill giving Israel any aid during the transition
quarter between the ]976 and ]977 fiscal years. This amount Israel would receive
if the present Senate bill were passed, which includes the original amount promised,
is $550 million less ($2.2 billion as to $2.75 billion) than the Administration
plans to give Israel this year. On the latter point the stand should be taken
that as President, the Governor would never renege on a promise of foreign aid to
5
Israel as Israel plans its national security according to the original promises.
On the former point, the Governor has already had to explain his Kyoto statement
that he would not have signed a Senatorial letter to President Ford protesting
a freeze of Isaaeli aid. His reply that such a letter would not have been
necessary with strong executive leadership and the original statement have been
widely publicized by Evans and Novak and critized ** by the New York Jewish Press.
This has been damaging. A simple straightforward position should be taken from
now on that aid would not be frozen to Israel if the Governor were Bresident.
The Governor, as he did in St. Louis, should NNE continue to make mention and
emphasize that he would not sell any offensive or defensivemilitary equipment
yo Egypywhich Sadat has requested and which could be used agin against Israel
in time of war. The Udall position ofi Meet the Press is very INK instructive
on this issue. He said the U.S. cannot one one hand give weapons to Israel's
defense while on the ohter hand undermind that defense by giving similar aid
to Egypt. In addition, hesaid Egypt is not not in fear of Israel starting a war
so such defensive equipment, as anti-tank or antiaircraft missiles, is unnezessary.
He also said Egypt needs domestic aid for its people instead of military aid.
Finally, an attack should be made onxkss Kissinger's promise not to request
future military aid to Egypt this year XXXX in order to obtain Senate approval
of the sale of transport planes to Israel, as it leaves open the possibility
that in ****** future years the Ford Administration may request military aid
for Israel which would bernimical to Iarael's interests.
INE
d. The Future Status of Jerusalem
In St. Louis the Governor XXXX said that XN he coulc not foresee Israel conceding
control of the Jewish religious shrines in the Old City of Jerusalem. A proper
understanding of the geography of the area shows that the Governor must take a
position that Israel should retain political control of all of the area Jerusalem
annexed as part of the city after ]967.
I
Before the first ]947-48 Arab Israeli X war, the Jews controlled Mount
Scopus, the original site of the Hebrew University. This EXXM mountain N is on
the side of the city and is not in the Old Coty of Jerusalem. Jordan controlled
this area between ]947 AND and the ]967 war. Since ]967 Israel has rebuilt the
old Hebrew University campus on Mount Scopus and has added there the Harry S.
Truman School for International Peace. The Mount Scopus campus is also the site
where ]000 Americans study and dorm annually on the American Friends of Hebrew
Unviersity one year program. To think *** that Israel would abandon any amount
of control over this site and area leading up to it from the & center of Jerusalem
is unthinkable.
6
2. Since ]967 a new residential ring has been biilt around the new city of
Jerusalem on lands held by Jordan pre-]967, e.g. Ramat Eshkol and Sanhedria.
Such lands in this reisdential periphery would never be given up by Israel. As
a result, the Governor should clearly advocate the Israeli keeping of all of
Jerusalem as exists presently. There is no room for any possibility of
cession or internationalizing in this area.
The most that can possibly be explored is Araband Christian control of their
own shrines in the Old City of Jenusalem. Giving away any political control in
the old city would never be accepted by Israel. The religious and national
security reasons to the rest of Jerusalem run too deep, e.g. the bombings
in downtwon of new Jerusalem. Besides, any United Naxx Nations or international
control is unacceptible in view of the U.N.'s anti-Jewish posutre, e.g. the Zionism
as Racism resolution. Any stand by the Governor less than this could permanently
hinder the XXXX ascertainment of Jewish support BW even after the nomination as
McGovern discovered in ]972.
5. Final Remarks
Even assuming that at worst the Governor only X gets negligible Jewish support
between now and the Convention, he will need around 90% of the Jewish vote for
ag a good result in the highly populous Northern industrial XSS states and California
and Florida in November. The whole point x right now is atleast to prevent from
being rumored an anathema to Jewish concerns like McGovern was labelled in ]972.
Once a negative impression is conveyed , a highly positive MNXEXEX one can never
take root. That is why the ground work must be laid now. In St. Louis, on my
recommendation, the Governor met with the Editor of the St. Louis Jewish Light,
According to Bill Daniel, Missouri state chairman, the Editor was very impressed.
a half-hour with similar ** editors in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore,
Washington, Omaha, Detroit, Memphis Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus O. could
prove very beneficial. The short interviews themselves demonstrate the concern
about which Jews so deeply care. Udall and Jackson met withthe editors of the
New York Jewish Press. The Governor did not. Perhaps such a MRRKI
would have cleared up the misconceptions and V avoided the criticism which eventually
resulted. Secondly, in each primary state, mailings of the Governor's
statements and record, e.g. Southern Israelite article the major Middle East
,
speech, etc. should be sent to each Rabbi in care of his synagogue or temple.
The names andaddresse are easily available in every Yellow Pages. These items
should also be posted at key places like Jewish Community Centers and kosher meat
markets. Thirdly, key speaking engagements should be arranged, e.g. the Hebrew
Union College in Cinninnati for the Ohio xxxxx primary. This college is the major
Reform Jewish Rabbinical Seminary in the United States. Near the end of June
7
after the primaries is the annual conventionof the Rabbinical Council of America
convention in the Catskill Mountain region in New York. A speech to this national
Orthodox Rabbinical assembly could help gain undecided Jewish delegates at the
Convention NK two to three weeks later in New York and would certainly help for
November.
To date, through my efforts in the Jewish area on behalfof the Governor
since Jahuary, I have seen a substantial deficiency in organization and strategy for
obtaining Jewish support coming out of Atlanta. Every Jewish person I talk to
doesn't know and wants to know how firm the Governor's convictions are before
any final conclusions are reached. This more than Jackson has hurt the Governor
as Udall's respectable support among Jews shows. More potential is there htan
meets the eye.
Fourthly, ads clearly stating the Governor's record and
positions along with a pccture from the 1973 trip to Israel should
be placed in metropolitan Jewish newspapers in primary states
a month before the primary in question. A substitute picture
could bethe one in the Southern Israelite in which the Governor is
receiving an award from the Israel Bonds Organization.
Finally, as I said in January, I would like to do whatever I can
for the Governor in this area. I feel that many of my warnings in
my first memorandum have not been heeded. My background includes a
degree in political science (political theory, inernational relations
add labor economics) from Yeshiva University in New York, the major
Orthodox Jewish university inthe United States. I spent my junior
year studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel and am
very familiar withthat country. My cousin the Executive VicePresident
of a major Organization in New Yorkworking to get Jews outof the Soviet
Union. I have many contacts with the Rabbinical Council of A erica,
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the major
Jewish universities and seminaries around the country.
8
I have other Jewish contacts from the Humphrey campaign in 1972, in
including some in Ohio. I have a law degree from Washington University
in St. Louis and am presently completing and advanced master of laws
in labor law at Georgetown University in Washington, D. C. I feel
I can do a lot more in this area than I have been afforded an opportunity
to do. For one thing, I can attempt to arrange meetings with major
Jewish
American Jewish leaders from/federations, universities, seminaries,
I could also speak to interested Jewish group
the Jewish print media and the rabbinate./ I sar eagerly await your
reponsex response as to what further I can do in this or any other
aspect of this campaign.
Hay 3. 1076
To: Stu Eisenstadt
From: Dennis Bresina
CLUB
Subj: Coordinating Task Force Information Seeds and Issue Development in
Washington
There follows a short Read prepared by someone who worked on issues in
the JPK campaign, Tt is quoted only to be auggestive of the type of situations
which are developing as a consequence of the Task Forces and the heightened
increase in interest by professionals to help the Carter Campaign.
ISSUE DEVELOPMENT TM THE 3FX CAMPAIGN
Experience based on observation of the JFK speechwriting staff in 1960
La that 1t had a dual nature. The organization was not top to botton, but
side by side. One side WAS the campaign following speechwriting and argumentation,
The other aide was issue development. Architeld Cox headed issue development.
Issue development always served two roles. The first was political recruit-
ment of knowledgeable persons and experts, not just expects, The idea Has to
recruit active, concerned people who were willing to write issue papers and for-
ward them to Cox who would keep than is his files. Cox spent a good deal of
time on lisison, recruitment, and writing thank you letters to contributors.
This effort won the hearts and state of thousands of active people. It also
kept the people away from the apeechwriters.
The speechwriters perused the files for substantiated ideas and plans that
had catchy phrases of area appeal or bloo support. The original contributor would
sometimes be called by Cox for sore information, or permission to quote directly.
What care of this was credibility on the approach to handling the issues. The
contributors told all of their friends, The press was impressed. The press was
willing to string along with a fundamentally sound issue development operations.
The Washington Bureau of the New York Times and Washington Post reporters
were shown the effort and case to taleive sare deeply in the candidate.
A very key link Name nade to the DUC newspaper library. This library is
the major asset of the DNC (auther's view, not mine). Up to 150 newspapers
are processed depending on the budget. (This effort, at least prior to the
upcoming convention, has been substantially curtailed for 1976).
Frior to the nomination, the JVV. staff got Butler, the Chariman, to ap-
prove the library staff digging out materials upon request. After the nosination,
floor space was sought that could hold both the apeechwriting/iasue group and the
library files and staff in one very large 2008. The JPK people brought over
20 file cabinets of solicited papers. The library staff was directed to process
the papers tased on guidance from the Cas issue group. Very eften direct phone
lines were kept open from the travelling speech team to the research floor.
This would be true for major speeches, and before and during the debates,
As it is costly to hire a staff to do research on issues, the idea of
a small group doing political recruitment of experts and experienced profession-
als, train picking then and then doing research is the way to get (1) ideas
churned into speeches, (2) reference documents stacked up in & hurry, and
(3) at a low cost.
Because of this well managed effort, JFK and Johnson never had gaffes
such as NoGovern's $1000 or Reagan's $90 Million cut.
This REMO within at asso goes beyond the situations at hand. However,
the following are recommended for your consideration:
1. Development of a vastly expanded resource center in the Washington office.
One that 18 well-organized and comprehensive if it 16 to serve the Task Forces.
2. Further accelerated development of at ayatem of utilizing the expertise
of professionals who volunteer their time and expertise.
3. Discussions with prior campaign officials to determine more exactly
how Humphrey, LBI, and McGovern set up their issues and speechwriting organ-
izations once it was apparent they had the votes for the convention.
The most immediate problems are the first two. They are being handled in
a case by case basis but advice from the Atlanta office would be most welcome.
GC: Dick Creecy
AG. POLICY (GEN.)
SCHNITTKER ASSOCIATES
1339 WISCONSIN AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
(202) 333-7650 TELEX: 440361 CABLE: SCHNITCON
May 3, 1976
Mr. Steve Stark
Carter for President
P.O. Box 1976
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Dear Steve:
I enclose a summary of an agricultural statement prepared by
several Congressional staff members and farm organization representa-
tives in Washington at the request of the Democratic National Committee.
It was prepared for use of the Chairman to submit to the Platform
Committee, pursuant to requirements of the Democratic party procedures
for this year.
This is expected to become public about the time of the Platform
Committee hearing in Washington May 17-19.
It is a fairly good statement, a little short on small farmers
and food questions, and perhaps short on rural development and rural
communities, but otherwise reasonably balanced.
Also enclosed is a copy of a statement just issued by the "Farm
Coalition," which met in Washington last week. It is very bland,
but deceptive. The people behind it, listed on the third page,
represent a lot of power in a number of commodity sectors.
I will be meeting with Dick Creecy of the Washington office tomorrow,
to talk about these issues in the context of formation of an advisory
group.
Yours sincerely,
John
John A. Schnittker
Dn DnC-4/25/76
SUMMARY
AGRICULTURE
As a nation and people, we have been blessed
with rich resources of land, water and climate.
Through the wisdom of our forebears, the supporting
structure of research, education, transportation and
technology has been established.
This structure, when utilized to preserve and
promote family ownership and operation of our farms
and ranches -- the cornerstone of Democratic Party
policy for more than a half century and the base of
America's agricultural efficiency -- has served the
nation well.
America's farm families have demonstrated their
ability and eagerness to produce food in sufficient
quantity to feed their fellow citizens and share with
hungry people around the world. Yet, this invaluable
national asset has neither been prudently developed
nor intelligently used.
The eight-year record of the Nixon-Ford Admini-
stration is a record of lost opportunities, failure to
meet challenges of agricultural statesmanship and of
crass favoritism to the agri-business community.
Republican administrations have:
--Allowed unconscionable profiteering on food
by business interests while letting prices to
farmers fall;
--Mishandled our abundance in export markets;
--Failed to stop unscrupulous shipping practices
by grain traders;
--Caused wide fluctuations in prices to producers,
inflated domestic food prices to consumers and
damaged relations with foreign buyers through
vacillation and inconsistency in trade policy actions;
Summary: Agriculture
2.
--Rotated executives from giant agri-business
firms into key policy-making positions in USDA
and back again to parent companies;
--Urged farmers to go all out in food productions,
then imposed politically motivated embargo and
trade restrictions after farmers responded with
bountiful crops;
-Collaborated with the private grain trade to
manipulate markets resulting in depressed farm
prices and inflated prices to consumers;
--Proclaimed dedication to "free market" principles,
but in practice interfered with free flow of farm
products to market;
--Tried to masquerade policy failures by attempting
to play farmers and consumers against each other.
In summary, Republican agricultural policy has
spelled high food prices, low farm prices and a bonanza
for commodity speculators and multi-national corporations.
With this situation crying out for change, development
of new agricultural policies and corrective measures must
be of the highest priority with the Democratic Party and a
new Democratic administration.
Uppermost among these new initiatives is the
establishment of a national food policy, clear to both
producer and consumer, which should:
1. Provide an adequate food supply and reasonable
price stability to American consumers;
2. Assure fair returns to farmers with minimum
price protection based on costs of production for major
and basic agricultural commodities - the grains, cotton,
dairy products, rice, peanuts and tobacco;
3. Provide adequate programs to assure healthful
foods for needy and indigent Americans of all ages;
Summary: Agriculture
3.
4. Fully develop the export market potential to
the benefit of producers and our national economy, with
no vacillation in policies once they have been agreed
upon and announced;
5. Use our food production capacity to meet
international commitments and aid the needy and hungry
throughout the world;
6. Safeguard against shortage or disaster by using
techniques as appropriate to each commodity such as price
supports, payments, acreage targets and goals, market
orders, international agreements, maximum development of
export markets and adequate carryover of stocks on or near
the farms;
7. Require farmer and rancher input in policy
determination at the highest level;
8. Reverse Nixon-Ford Administration efforts to
bring disrepute to agricultural programs;
9. Negotiate to establish patterns of international
cooperation to assure supplies to importers and markets to
exporters at prices that are stable and fair to both
producers and consumers.
To meet America's food and fiber needs and strengthen
the time-honored institution of family farming, the
Democratic Party in its agricultural policies must also:
1. Reaffirm its support for the Capper-Volstead
Act, which permits farmers to organize and bargain
collectively;
2. Curb the influence of non-conglomerates which,
through the elimination of competition in the marketplace,
pose a growing threat to farmers;
3. Reinstate a sound, locally-administered soil
conservation program;
Summary: Agriculture
4.
4. Install a reasonable food reserve program
maintained principally by farmers with rules for acquiring,
holding and release of stocks well known to all and fair
to both producer and consumer;
5. Provide for adequate cred t tailored to the
needs of young farmers;
6. Eliminate tax shelter farming and revise
inheritance tax provision so that young farmers may
retain an inherited farm if they wish to, rather than
having to sell all or part of it to settle estate.
SUMMARY
RURAL LIFE AND DEVELO MENT
To improve the quality of life in rural America,
where many people live at subsistence levels, the
Democratic Party must reassert its traditional concern
for the basic life support programs so badly needed by
thousands of rural communities -- programs which the
Nixon-Ford Administration have slashed, downgraded and
attacked in various ways.
Democratic programs must include:
1. Fully adequate levels of insured and guarant
loans for the rural electrification and rural telephone
programs;
2. Decent rural housing;
3. Adequate educational opportunities commensur
with today's needs;
4. Adequate health facilities and professional
personnel to operate them;
5. Critically needed community facilities such
i
water supply and sewage disposal systems now lacking in
thousands of communities;
6. Jobs with a level of income for self-sufficit
7. Financial and technical assistance to enable
families to earn adequate incomes and to participate in
community life.
The Democratic Party should pledge itself to full
implement the Rural Development Act of 1972, which has
been blunted in every way possible by the Nixon-Ford
Administration.
News Release
FARM COALITION WANTS FIELD HEARINGS ON AG POLICY
Washington, D. C., April 30, 1976 -- Ten field hearings to give farmers a chance
to present their views on long-range agricultural policies should begin in late
May or early June, the National Farm Coalition told the leadership of the House
and Senate Agriculture Committees this week.
Fred V. Heinkel, Coalition Chairman, told the Congressmen the Coalition,
which represents more than one million farmers through their general, commodity,
and cooperative producer-organizations, feels such action is needed now due to
the simultaneous expiration of almost all commodity legislation at the end of
the 1977 crop year and the time element of the new May 15 deadline for Committee
action under the Budget Act.
The Congressional leaders concurred with the need to move ahead on consid-
eration of long-range farm legislation and expressed interest in the idea of
holding field hearings.
The Coalition, in its two-day Washington meeting, also adopted positions
on other important agricultural issues.
Unanimous approval was given to establishing a National Food Marketing
Commission to analyze and appraise the U.S. food marketing system along the
lines proposed in legislation sponsored by Representative Joseph Vigorito and
Senator Hubert Humphrey. In addition, the Coalition voted to oppose any legis-
lation giving further authority over farm cooperatives and collective bargaining
under the Capper-Volstead Act to the Federal Trade Commission or the Department
of Justice. Coalition members feel farmers' activities under Capper-Volstead
are being unfairly attacked.
On farm exports, the Coalition decided to support amendments to prohibit the
Federal Government from restricting foreign sales through "voluntary" restraints
and to give producers prior notification and the opportunity to comment before
restraints are imposed.
- 2 -
One issue considered critical to Midwest farmers is the need to replace
the deteriorating Lock and Dam No. 26 on the Mississippi River at Alton,
Illinois. A lock breakdown could seriously hinder the movement of grain, and
the Coalition voted to support immediate Congressional authorization to con-
struct one 1200-foot lock and dam with a 12-foot depth. Also recommended was
authorization to construct an additional lock of similar size as needed in the
future.
Additional positions adopted included:
To urge Congress to modernize and update estate tax provisions needed to
preserve the family-type of agriculture and small business in the United States;
To recommend the Secretary of Agriculture make a quarterly adjustment to
maintain the dairy price support level at 80 percent of parity as of July 1,
1976;
To call upon the Administration to administer our international trade
programs, including Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Counter-
vailing Duty Act, and the Export Administration Act in a manner which prevents
damage to the income of American farmers and domestic markets;
To support legislation, comparable to the Senate-passed Food Stamp Reform
Act, to provide adequate diets for the needy and elderly of our country.
END
ATTENDANCE
NATIONAL FARM COALITION MEETING
Quality Inn/Washington, D. C.
April 26-27, 1976
Name
Address
Organization
Ed Krielow
Jennings, Louisiana
National Rice Growers Assn.
Robert Handschin
St. Paul, Minnesota
Farmers Union Grain Terminal Assn.
Ray Wax
Newman, Illinois
National Assn. of Farmer-Elected
Committeemen
Robert L. Melbern
Gatesville, Texas
National Assn. of Farmer-Elected
Committeemen
Hubert W. Baker
Mr. Zion, Illinois
Soybean Growers of America
Cleo A. Duzan
Oakland, Illinois
United Grain Farmers of America
Gerald Cain
Jonesboro, Illinois
United Grain Farmers of America
Ed Marsh
Washington, D. C.
National Wool Growers Assn.
L. C. Carpenter
Columbia, Missouri
Midcontinent Farmers Assn.
Russell C. Schools
Capron, Virginia
Virginia Peanut Growers Assn.
Neal R. Bjornson
Washington, D. C.
National Milk Producers Federation
Melvin Sprecher
Sauk City, Wisconsin
Land O'Lakes, Inc.
Richard H. Magnuson
St. Faul, Minnesota
Land 0 'Lakes, Inc.
Jerry Rees
Washington, D. C.
National Assn. of Wheat Growers
Bob Frederick
Washington, D. C.
The National Grange
Carl Schwensen
Washington, D. C.
National Assn. of Wheat Growers
Willis Rowell
Edgewood, Iowa
National Farmers Organization
Charles L. Frazier
Washington, D. C.
National Farmers Organization
Hilton Bracey
Portageville, Missouri
Midcontinent Farmers Assn.
Walter W. Goeppinger
Boone, Iowa
National Corn Crowers Assn.
Shirley Greene
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Virginia Corn Growers Assn.
Alvah F. Troyer
La Fontaine, Indiana
Soybean Growers of America
Fred Heinkel
Columbia, Missouri
Midcontinent Farmers Assn.
E. A. Jaenke
Washington, D. C.
Secretary, National Farm Coalition
452-8018
Jimmy Carter
Presidential Campaign
For America's third century, why not our best?
May 4, 1976
To Stu Eizenstadt
From To Doug Huron
Re: Legality of Racial Discrimination by Private Schools
The Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) directly prohibits racial
discrimination in public schools by both the Federal and State governments, as well
as their instrumentalities. There is no explicit constitutional ban on such
discrimination by private schools. There are, however, laws, regulations, and
court decisions which effectively prohibit such discrimination, but the Federal
government has a limited role in enforcing these laws.
I. TERMINATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in any
Federally assisted activity. If a private school receives any Federal assis-
tance, it may not discriminate. In fact, most private elementary and secon-
dary schools receive little or no federal aid, and Title VI to date has
had no impact on their admissions polic ies There is question whether
racially discriminatory private schools may utilize such services as book-
mobiles provided under Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion Act.) On the college level the impact has been somewhat greater, as
courts have ruled that VA educational benefits may not be granted to veterans
attending such racially exclusionary institutions as Bob Jones University.
Like the Federal government, the states may not provide direct or indirect
aid to segregated private schools. In the farthest reaching case, Norwood
V. Harrison, 413 US 455 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that a state could
not even supply textbooks to students attending racially discriminatory
private schools.
Neither Title VI nor the Supreme Court's decision in Norwood affirmatively
requires nondiscriminatory policies by private schools. A private school
can discriminate, but if it does it is not eligible for Federal or State
assistance.
II. IRS REGULATIONS
Regulations issued by IRS exclude discriminatory private schools from tax
exempt status. Similarily contributions made to such schools are not tax
deductible. (Interestingly, the IRS regulations apply only to schools
and not to other charitable institutions, e.g. orphanages or hospitals.
There is no logical basis for the distinction, and IRS will probably ex-
P.O. Box 7667 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404/897-7100
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
pand its regulations in the future.) The IRS regulations simply represent
a particular application of the general point already discussed: The Federal
government may not give assistance to private segregated schools. Tax
exempt status is a form of assistance, and it may not be provided.
IRS enforces its regulations by requiring statements of assurance of non-
discrimination from private schools. The agency has not engaged in any
systematic effort to determine whether such statements are accurate.
As is the case with direct Federal and State aid, the IRS regulations in
themselves do not prohibit racial discrimination by private schools. As
far as the IRS is concerned, if a private school can get along without tax
exempt status, it can continus to discriminate.
III. FEDERAL LAW DIRECTLY PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BY PRIVATE SCHOOLS
In Jones V. Mayer, 392 US 409, the Supreme Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. 1982,
a reconstruction statute which had lain dormant for a century, prohibits
private racial discrimination in the sale and rental of real and personal
property. The statute in question in Jones has a Stwin U.S.Ch 1981:which guarat-
tees to "all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts
as is enjoyed by white citizens. " Since Jones lower Federal courts have
consistently read 1981 as barring private contractual discrimination,
particularly in the context of employment contracts.
Now in Runyon V. McCrary the Supreme Court must decide whether 1981 applies
to the contractual relationship between a student (or his parents) and a
private school. If so, then the statute directly prohibits private schools
from excluding prospective students on a racial basis. (See my memo of
April 24 on Forthcoming Supreme Court Decisions.)
The Solicitor General, hardly a radical, has urged the Court to read 1981
as banning racial discrimination by private schools, and I believe the Court
will so rule. Such a decision would apply whether or not a school has re-
ceived any Federal or State assistance. That is, there would be no way
for a school to "opt out" from coverage of the law.
It should be remembered, however, that the Federal government (i.e. the
Justice Department) has no independent statutory authority to enforce 1981.
At present, suit may be brought only by individuals who feel aggrieved, not
by the government. This will remain true regardless of The Supreme Court's
decision in Runyon. (Newspaper stories stating that the government was
awarded damages by the lower Federal court in Runyon are simply erroneous,
CONCLUSION
Governor Carter may accurately state that:
1) The law prohibits Federal or State assistance - - including the
granting of tax exempt status - - to segregated private schools, and
that the Federal government has a responsibility to see that no
such assistance is extended;
2) depending on a forthcoming Supreme Court decision (Runyon V.
McCrary), Federal law may directly prohibit discrimination by
private schools, but the Federal government has no role in enforcing
-2-
the law in question (42 U.S.C. 1981). Enforcement is left to private
individuals.
In view of such considerations as the limited resources of the Federal
government, the present enforcement scheme - - in which the government
focuses on public school discrimination and simply sees that private segregated
schools do not receive Federal assistance, while private individuals but
not the government sue private segregated schools receiving no assistance - -
probably makes sense and should be continued.
(Note: I obtained most of the information in this memo from former colle-
agues at the Civil Rights Division of Justice.)
C.C. Morris Dees
IN HOUSE WOMENS
Jimmy Carter
Presidential Campaign
For America's third century, why not our best?
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Dublin Keyserling
From:
Mary E. King thele
Subject:
Women's Speech
Date:
May 6, 1976
Suggested areas to be addressed or mentioned in the speech
on women's issues:
I. Richness and diversity of contributions of American women
II. International Women's Decade
A. United Nations
1. World Plan of Action
B. Non-governmental
1. U.S. National Women's Agenda
III. ERA
IV. Economic Issues
A. Employment and unemployment
B. Significance of women in labor force to the economy
and their families
C. Social Security
D. Income tax
E. Child Care (major mention in children's speech)
2000 P. ST. N.W. SUITE 415 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 202/659-9610
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchose from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
-2-
V. Women as Leaders and in Politics
A. Review of progress
B. Campaign
VI. Women in Business
A. SBA
B. Credit (enforcement of ECOA)
VII. Health Issues
A. Rape
B. Family Planning
C. Primary Care
VIII. Education
IX. Enforcement of laws and executive orders forbidding
sex discrimination
A. EEOC
B. OFCCP
C. HEW
X. Other Issues
A. Women Offenders
XI. Carter Program
A. Task Force
B. Appointments
C. Rosalynn Carter's interest in day care
XII. Women in the future of our nation
A. Quality of Carter leadership
A number of individuals have offered help on particular sections,
e.g., Marge Gates on rape, Janice Mendenhall on enforcement, Catherine
East, Edith van Horn of the UAW, and there are others who should be
asked to review the first draft.
TO:
Steve Stark
PROM: Richard Rosen
DATE: May 11, 1976
Dear Steve,
These are the likely issues for the West Coast concerning
energy and environmental policy. If you need additional
information, please let me know.
California and Oregon have many overlapping concerns,
but there are some differences between the two states. Oregon
is likely to exhibit a more hostile attitude towards growth in
general, and energy development in particular. Most of these
issues are quite divisive and unlikely to attract some voters
without alienating others. Therefore, positions need only be
enunciated if direct questions are raised:
(1) The entire issue of power plant expansion is tied to the
impact of power plants on park and recreational areas
(with particular reference to the impact on air which is
presently clean and permits high visibility). The building
of unnecessary power plants should be deplored, and the
construction of required new plants should be done in a
sensible fashion to protect park and recreation amenities.
(2) Certain new energy technologies can be supported, partic-
ularly geothermal and refuse to energy programs, provided
that these projects are economically sensible and environ-
mentally sound.
(3) Encourage increased mining of coal (particularly deep
mined rather than strip), but emphasis should be placed
on exporting coal, rather than burning It as fuel on the
West Coast.
(4) Encourage construction of deepwater port to accept tankers
with liquid natural gas and generally support gas as an
Steve Stark
Page Two
May 11, 1976
environmentally clean fuel, Doal gasification can also
be encouraged under (2).
(5) Support efficiency program for automobiles to lessen
pollution, while avoiding the issue of control over
driving and parking of automobiles, particularly in
Los Angeles.
Issues to be avoided:
(1) Avoid the issue of expension of hydro power. The impact
on the riverways is too controversial,
(2) Avoid the pesticide issue.
The California Nuclear Referendum is the issue likely to
be raised most. Present stand on avoidance of reliance on
nuclear power, without supporting moratorium, and while
encouraging stricter controls, seems quite adequate.
Next week I will forward you something in more detail on
national energy and environmental problems. I'm sorry I
couldn't get over to the Law School to see you last week.
Best regards,
Richard H. Rosen,
Richard Rosen
last-munite added
B
unpertant proon
BETTY BERZON 8560 Hollywood Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90069 (213) 654-2420
May 7, 1976
Charles Hill Graham
Jimmy Carter Presidential Campaign
Northern California Office
115 Sansome Street #700
San Francisco, California 94104
Dear Charlie:
I received your material on Jimmy Carter today. I've read it all and
you've convinced me. As I told you on the phone my main concern was with
Carter's deep involvement with Christianity. Richard Reeves' article did
indeed make a difference to me. He is a journalist I highly respect.
I've met him and he has the utmost credibility for me.
So, I'm saying yes, I will endorse Jimmy Carter's candidacy. I will
also try to be helpful in any way that I can as other time commitments
permit.
I understand Carter will be in Los Angeles on May 20 and 21 and I would
like very much to meet him if that can be arranged.
It would be helpful to me to know the content of the three public state-
ments he's made on gay rights if that information is available.
I will be thinking about other women you might add to your list. I will
talk to a few I have in mind as soon as possible.
Incidentally, I am not a Ph.D. and these initials should not be used
with my name. I do have an M.S. degree and you can use those initials
with my name if that means anything to you.
Thanks for sending the material.
Sincerely,
Betty Berzon
:kk
IN HOUSE AGRICULTURE
1607 28th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
May 6, 1976
Mr. Steve Stark
1795 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA
30309
Dear Steve:
Enclosed hereto is a detailed position paper and a summary in connection
with tobacco as requested by you in the agricultural committee meeting
last Saturday.
I will not be able to attend your meeting in Dallas next Friday but
Mr. Frank R. Ellis will stand in for me.
Best wishes, I am
Sai SMITH BAGLEY
Sincerely
CC: Bobby Smith
P.O. Box 593
Winder, GA 30680
TOBACCO ISSUES
Summary: Tobacco is produced by 600,000 farm families in 23 states, most of
it on small family-sized farms. The present tobacco program is based on effective
production controls and Federal price supports at levels set by law based on returning
to the growers at least the cost of production. Under the program which has evolved
over the past more than forty years, growers must approve continuation of the program
by at least two-thirds majority every three years. In fact, they consistently vote
for continuation of the program by more than 95%. It is proposed that the position
be "That so long as the growers continue to support the tobacco program as they have
in the past, keeping production in line with demand, with minimal or no losses to
the federal treasury, I shall support its continuation." It should be added that
there are unique reasons for the existence of the tobacco program and the federal
price supports, namely, no one has yet found a way to assure a free market when you
have 600,000 small sellers and only 6 major buyers.
"As to the cigarette and health controversy, I believe the approach taken to
date by the government of advising people of the facts in so far as they are known,
and allowing individuals to make their own free choice, is a sound approach in a
democratic society. I do think we should take due cognizance of the fact that cigarette
taxes produce $6 billion per year at the Federal, State and local levels in tax revenue,
$2 billion for the tobacco farmers and $1 billion per year net surplus to our balance
of trade."
Finally, you should know (although you might not want to say publicly) that
despite the widespread belief that smoking is a health hazard, definite evidence
is lacking.
Recent research concerning environmental factors (asbestos, food additives,
vinyl chloride, DES, etc.) is leading to a reassessment of the role of smoking in
the causation of disease. In private many scientists will admit to the need for
some objective scientific research. Industrial unions are becoming sensitive to
the diversionary tactic of generating a tobacco smokescreen to cover up environ-
mental and occupational factors.
Tobacco - A Controversial Subject
Not since the days of the Volstead Act - Prohibition - and then the
repeal of the 18th Amendment has a product approached a level of controversy
equal to the ongoing attack against tobacco and tobacco products, principally
cigarettes.
There are three elements involved in this raging debate:
1. The position taken by self-appointed spokesmen for the medical
profession, various health organizations such as the American Cancer
Society and that group of laymen or "causists" who are determined to
structure life to fit their pattern of how it should be.
2. Then there is the position taken by the tobacco industry, namely
that it believes that no one knows whether cigarette smoking causes disease,
much less how it might cause it.
3. And lastly there is that 40-45 percent of the U.S. population over
18 years of age that continue to smoke despite the alleged health hazard.
Over the past twelve years, or since issuance of the first U.S. Surgeon
General's Report on Smoking and Health, it has appeared at times that the
medical profession might really be unified in the conclusion that smoking
was guilty of the indictments charged. Yet, as the years have progressed,
medical voices, highly respected in the profession, are now being heard to
question the validity of these charges. Until today we have doctors in America
and abroad that are engaged in heated debate on the subject. That a controversy
continues is obvious. The bravery of these questioning doctors cannot be
overemphasized when it is placed alongside the super-powerful "peer review"
system that prevails. Today the gigantic, sprawling, floundering U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare wields great power in the
medical world. With its financial grants and contracts for research,
its funds for construction of medical facilities such as schools, hospitals,
and health centers and its power to support or extinguish the hopes and dreams
of scientists across the breadth of the land, there is little wonder that voices
in protest have been so muffled over the past decade.
With a country so divided on a subject, the best answer is "Freedom of
Choice. "
In the absence of resolution of the medical dispute we should not ignore
the economics of the matter.
To those who are not students of the subject, the economics of the
tobacco industry are astonishing:
Farm Land
Tobacco growing was America's first industry. Its production and sale
to the mother country assured the economic health--in fact, the very continued
existence- of Jamestown, the first permanent colony in what is now the United
States. Tobacco supported loans for necessary supplies in the war for inde-
pendence. The need for river transportation for tobacco from the newly settled
lands in the midwest hastened the Louisiana purchase.
U.S. tobacco production has expanded from the few hundred pounds John Rolfe
grew and shipped to England in 1612 to the present level of two billion pounds
per year, bringing $2 billion to 600,000 farm families. These families are
dependent on tobacco for all or a good part of their livelihood.
Tobacco is produced in 23 of the 50 states. It has been designated by
the Congress as a basic agricultural commodity and in 13 states ia a major
farm crop. It springs from a seed so tiny that a teaspoonful will plant
about 1.5 acres.
-2-
The U.S. is the largest producer and exporter of tobacco in the world.
One third of the U.S. crop is exported, in leaf and manufactured products,
most going to the European Community, although Japan is America's biggest
individual tobacco customer. In 1974 the difference between exports and
imports represented a positive net contribution of nearly $1 billion to
the U.S. balance of payments.
About 96% of the nation's farm tobacco is sold at auctions in 175
markets in 12 states. The other 4%, largely cigar leaf, is sold directly
from the farms or by farmers' cooperatives.
In 1974, there were 865 auction warehouses operating at the markets
in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Maryland,
Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri.
Manufacturing and Retail Level
Cigarettes are manufactured by six companies in the United States.
Total sales are running over 600 billion cigarettes yearly, at an over-the-
counter cost of $14 billion. The unit sales increase is between 1 and 3
percent yearly, which is about the same as the worldwide sales picture.
The U.S. and Canada have the highest per-capita consumption rate in
the world, followed approximately by Australia, Switzerland--where there
has been a smuggling problem into Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom.
The U.S. per-capita figure has risen from 64 packs per person (over 18 years)
annually in the 1920s to the current 207 packs. An estimated 40-45 percent
of the American population over 18 smokes cigarettes.
-3-
Cigarettes are one of the most highly taxed consumer products in the
U.S. They have added $105 billion to the treasuries of the federal government
and states and municipalities since the first cigarette tax in 1864.
The current tax intake is almost $6 billion a year, more than half going
to the states and cities. State tobacco taxes range from 2 to 21 cents a pack.
Local governments have levied taxes ranging from 1 to 10 cents. Because of
this price differentiation, cigarette bootlegging across state lines has become
a major problem in many areas. In New York City, for instance, it has been
estimated that one-half the cigarettes sold have been brought in illegally
to avoid taxes and that the city is losing $100 million yearly in tax revenues.
Taxes represent three times the gross receipts of the tobacco farmer
and double the retail price of cigarettes, which range between the average
35.8 cent per pack cost in North Carolina to 57.6 cent cost in Connecticut.
Without taxes, the average retail price would be less than 20c per pack.
Why should the Federal Government support the prices and control the
production of tobacco? To prevent overproduction and stabilize a market
where 600,000 farmers sell their tobacco to six major buyers. Farmers
have voiced overwhelming (over 95%) support for this Federal program in
referenda held every three years for the last forty. It has been the most
successful farm program in U.S. history. Its elimination could endanger
the livelihood of millions of rural Americans.
May 10, 1976
TO: David Moran, Issues Staff, Atlanta
FROM: Charlie Graham, Staff, San Francisco (telephone 415/563-1955)
RE: Gay People in California, and "The Family Lobby"
I don't know if you are aware of The Family Lobby, formerly The
Coalition of Christian Citizens, which tried in 1975 to
reverse the new consenual sex law. They stopped their referendum
effort when gay groups moved against them. First, the gay groups
threatened to challenge the signatures on their petitions; second,
they promised to cause an IRS investigation of the tax-exempt
status of the churches involved in this political effort.
In the newest ADVOCATE there's news of a repeated threat to
gay people from the Family Eobby, as attached.
Nevertheless, I think my suggestions in my message to you
earlier today remain valid. Perhaps they are even more valid,
(1) If the Family Lobby gets enough signatures, gay organizations
can still challenge them, and can still bring down the IRS on the
churches involved, probably reversing the effort.
(2) If this doesn't work, public opinion itself may defeat the
Family Lobby bill in November. But public opinion may splie
painfully over the fundamentalist/civil libertarian issue and
I don't think Carter wants to get caught in this bind.
If Carter postpones taking any stand on the gay rights
issue until the fall, he might end up defensive against the
pro-Family Lobby stand expected covertly from the Republican
nominee.
But if Carter speaks out modestly now, politely in favour
of his Women's Agenda position on "privacy in relationships
between consenting adults", he may be able to defer this fight.
Gay people will remember his support; and the fundamentalists
will know that he supports them in other ways but that he simply
won't take a stand on this one.
Charlie Cha I hope you agree.
Charles Hill Graham
CC: Ray Baisden, Bob Bush, Ben Goddard, John Lovell, Franklin Mullen,
Paula Watson
attachment
-80,000
THE ADVOCATE
San Mateo, California
(Gay People's biweekly)
May 19, 1976
(distributed May 10)
"They were going to have an
Sex Initiative
Easter sunrise service which, of
May Make
course, was an abomination,"
Depew, a Los Angeles attorney,
Ballot
told The ADVOCATE.
The Family Lobby announced at a
Depew estimates that the group
Sacramento press conference in
has collected 280,000 signatures,
late April that they have gathered
only about 32,000 short of the
about 90 per cent of the 312,000
number necessary to make the
signatures needed to place their
ballot. A spokesperson in the
"sexual offences" initiative on the
Family Lobby's central Fresno of-
California general election ballot.
fice said that more than 100,000
petitions now are circulating in
The announcement by the ad
California. The lobby is gearing
hoc coalition of fundamentalist
toward an early May completion
Christian groups means that
of its drive so that officials will be
California voters may be deciding
able to confirm the validity of the
the fate of the newly-enacted
signers by the legal deadline of
decriminalization of consensual
June 25.
sex when they go to voting booths
Said San Francisco gay politico
in November. The initiative
Jim Foster, "Everybody better get
specifically would reinstate the
clear on what this really means. If
criminal sanctions on sexual con-
this initiative wins, we probably
duct that were in effect before this
won't see more consensual sex
year, again making sodomy, adul-
legislation in this state for the rest
terous cohabitation and oral
of our lives. This is it." Foster
copulation between consenting
estimated that supporters of the
adults illegal.
now-threatened "Sexual Bill of
The recent announcement has
Rights" will have to raise between
Golden State gay politicos scurry-
$800,000 and $1 million to con-
ing to form new battle lines
duct the necessary campaign to
against a threat that seemed long
turn back the initiative.
dormant. A group calling itself the
Coalition of Christian Citizens
VESUS
CAN
(CCC) last year attempted to put
DILLE
assembly member Will Brown's
hard-won sodomy repeal (AB 489)
SAVE
on the ballot before the measure
HOMOSEXUALE
WHILEYOU
116m
could become law on Jan. 1, 1976.
Their efforts met defeat in July
AND FROTHELL
when CCC supporters could not
ARE ABLE
muster the needed signatures. The
coalition, however, regrouped
REPENT
THE FEAR OFTHE LORD
itself late last year under the name
of the Family Lobby, a name
IS THE BEGINNING OF
which would not alienate those not
KNOWLEDGE BUT FOOLS
aligned with the fundamentalist
DESPISE WEDOM AND
pins. orientation of the lobby's king-
INSTRUCTION PRO. 1:7
According to former CCC or-
ganizer and current lobby
spokesperson David Depew, the
highly publicized slave bust in Los
Angeles last month helped spur
the lobby campaign toward the
Depew, "That incensed so many
finish line it now nears. Says
people that it helped us im-
measurably." Depew also said
that the loudly-touted Lavender
photo by: Chuck Crandall
World's Fair in Pomona created a
backlash of initiative signers.
Constant companions: these protesters seem number to show AWO. up everywhere in
auction
May 10, 1976
TO:
David Moran, Issues Staff, Atlanta
FROM:
Charlie Graham, Staff, San Francisco (telephone 415/563-1955)
RE:
Gaining Gay People's Support in the California Primary
and beyond
David, here is some background material for Jimmy Carter on the
gay issue in advance of his California visits. I may be able
to expand and improve on these items in later days.
GOAL:
Carter can win as many gay votes as possible with an assertive
pro-gay rights stand. A conservative estimate in the primary
is that 500,000 of the 3.5 million votes are from gay people.
Also, he can gain support among civil libertarians, feminists
and others to whom his gro-gay rights stand will demonstrate
his attractiveness.
These people's dollars, endorsements and volunteer time can
come to Carter also.
METHODS:
1. Carter can reaffirm in a highly visible way the committment
to gay people's rights he has already voiced. I suggest
he do this at a press meeting in both San Francisco and Los
Angeles. A suggested text is attached (Attachment A).
He should also use the statement in his remarks at the
major fundraising dinners in each city. The gay community
will consider his making this statement before any less public
or impartial audiences as a cop-out.
2. Carter should confer with 2 or more acknowledged gay leaders
in San Francisco and Los Angeles for serious discussion of this
issue, and these talks should be publicised in the gay press
afterward. The tone of these meetings should be that Carter
is continuing his education on American people's needs from
government, and he has asked these distinguished community
fitures to advise him on the issue. Suggested attendees at
these meetings are listed on Attachment B. These meetings
could be merged and held in either city.
2.
3. Carter should affirm his committment to support gay rights planks at
the Convention, and to support gay issues in the fall election. Both
George McGovern and Jerry Brown are remembered negatively for backing
off gay people's issues once their nominations became assured. Carter
has an opportunity to reinforce his stand by promising and demonstrating
persistence.
4. On either the May 20-22 visit, or another trip before the June 8
primary, Carter should attend gay fundraising or other functions
in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
BACKGROUND ON THE GAY VOTE
Centered in San Francisco and on the west side of Los Angeles,
California's gay population has become increasingly politicized
and organized since the early 1960's.
The Los Angeles gay electorate supports Ed EdeIman and related
candidates, and is already becoming active in the Carter
campaign.
San Francisco's gay electorate, however, is more drawn to the
Moscone/Burton/Hongisto machine, which is endorsing Jerry Brown.
Governor Brown has no special hold over San Francisco's gay voters.
His lack of initiative or persistence in gay issues, among
others, earns him only soft support. Brown campaigned in 1974 saying
he would sign the consensual sex law if it came to him, and
he eventually did; but no other pro-gay efforts in Sacramento
are credited to him. Two San Francisco pro-gay people political
figures are staying apart from Jerry Brown's effort; they are
Willy Brown, a gay people's hero for managing the consensual
sex legislation which passed, after 5 years, in 1975; and Dianne
Feinstein, gay people's second choice for Mayor in 1975.
Strong pro-gay rights statements from Carter will loosen Brown's
influence in San Francisco considerably, and will strengthen
the Los Angeles effort.
BACKGROUND ON RELIGION AND GAY PEOPLE
Religion is a contentious issue for gay voters. The Bible and
many churches' apparent condemnation of homosexual activity is
dealt with by gay people in three different ways.
First, the Bible and church involvement are rejected outright by
many gay people.
Second, others agree with contemporary theologians of several
denominations who believe the biblical injunctions against
sexuality are misinterpreted. For example, new translations
suggest that the real reason for Sodom's destruction may not
have been God's dismay over same-sex affection, but rather the
city's inhospitality to strangers. Gay people within
established churches are lobbying for these points of view.
3.
Third and finally, growing numbers of gay Christians seeking traditional
church enviromnents with supportive theology and programs are joining
the Metropolitan Community Church, the country's fastest-growing
religious denomination, predominantly gay, and founded by the
Reverend Troy D. Perry in Los Angeles. Perry has endorsed
Carter. M.C.C. dwells more on Jesus' supportive affirmations than
the injunctions of the Old Testament. Current communicants
nationally exceed 100,000.
In explaining himself to the gay electorate in Califonria, Carter
need not apologise for his personal attraction to religion. However,
he ought to admit that Old Testament sexual theory doesn't have
to be everyone's way of life, and that it's possible to reject
religion and Christianity altogether and still be a complete
person. It may be difficult for Carter to adopt this either-or
approach to faith, but I'm convinced he can be damaged severely
with gay people and others unless he does.
NEGATIVE STORIES ABOUT CARTER AND GAY PEOPLE
I know four negatives about Carter that could lose votes from
gay people:
(1) In the May 3 U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, in the article
about candidates and religion, Carter is quoted as saying
that he agrees with the majority of Americans who believe
that sam-sex sexuality "is contrary to Biblical teaching".
(2) The May 10 TIME Carter cover story says Ruth Stapleton
cures homosexuals with religion. So-called cures are very
contentious among gay people who don't believe they are sick
to begin with; also there is no evidence of such cures having
lasting effect; and finally, they are sexist. The article's
reference is costing the campaign major contributions,
according to gay fundraising volunteer Newt Dieter.
(3) In an early 1976 issue of THE ADVOCATE, the nation's
major gay biweekly, Carter is mentioned as saying that he
does not support sex outside of marriage.
(4) An ex-McGovern writer named Mixen, now working on Capital
Hill, has told a story around Washington that in discussing
employment with Carter in late 1975, Carter said negative
things about gay people, including that he (Carter) didn't
know what to do about them, didn't know what a final solution
could be, perhaps hospitalization, but that Carter said,
"I sure would like to win that San Francisco vote!" This
story could be traced through Gary Aldrich, Legislative
Assistant to Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), 202-224-8134,
4.
(5) Mark Seigel, editor of Pennsylvania Gay News, reportedly says that
toward the end of a series of gay people's, ex-Schapp supporters',
approaches to Carter for his stand on gay needs, Carter turned lto
a Pennsylvania legislator and said, "What, is this entire
state full of fags?" Mark Segal's phone is 205-248-2248.
In dealing with these and any other alleged anti-gay remarks
from Carter, early feeling here is to rise above them;
for Carter to neither confirm nor deny, saying, for example,
"This is one of a number of issues on which I've had to educate
myself as the campaign has progressed. I may have insulted or
embarrassed people during my learning process and if so I'm sorry.
But I am ready to tell you what I feel about gay people, and
what I am going to do for them now and as President and then
Carter would explain his program as suggested in Attachment A.
POSITIVE MATERIAL ABOUT CARTER AND GAY PEOPLE
I Know four positives about Carter that will gain votes from
gay people:
(1) He endorsed the Women's Agenda, an eleven-point feminist
plank with two pro-gay points (Attachment C). His endorsement
letter (Attachment D) included "I would like to help you
implement these goals in the future
Your support for
my effort to seek the office of President of the United
State will not be forgotten, and I will not let you down."
His endorsement letter was sent to groups behind the Agenda,
including the National Gay Task Force.
(2) He spoke affirmatively at Ed Edelman's luncheon in Los
Angeles March 12 on the gay rights question. (David Moran
is arranging for a transcript of these remarks.)
(3) Carter spoke affirmatively before a U.C.L.A. audience,
also on March 12, on gay rights (David moran is arranging
for a transcript of these remarks.)
(4) Carter spoke affirmatively on Tom Snyder's TOMORROW SHOW
about gay rights. (see Attachment E). adding a note here
toosay that, on Snyder's show and elsewhere, Carter is focussing
too much on blackmailing closet gay people in high security
positions. If a environment for human sexuality is
encouraged by his administration, blackmail as a sanction
against expressing affection will cease to be a problem.
I suggest he rise above the security issue (which few gay
or non-gay people can unravel) and stress "
supportiveness
in all non-coercive expressions of affection and sexuality
II
which gains him lots of support for its humaneness.
Gay people are especially pleased that, as in (2), (3) and (4),
Carter will speak about gay issues to general-interest audiences,
and not just to gay activists.
5.
Of course, there are issues other than the gay rights struggle
that will gain Carter support from gay people.
They include Carter's stands on tax reform (and especially
the status of the single taxpayer), full employment, privacy
and mental health. Carter can move readily from a gay
rights remark into "other issues that relate to gay people as
well as to all Americans
"
David, please let me know what more I can do to help.
Sincerely,
Charles Hill Graham Graham
attachments:
A - Draft Suggested Statement From Jimmy Carter About Gay
Rights Issues
B - Gay People Carter Should Confer With In California, for
Input and for Gay Media Attention
C - Women's Agenda
D - Carter 4/20/76 Letter To Groups Supporting Women's Agenda
E - Carter on 3/19/76 "TOMORROW SHOW"
F - California Democratic Council Democratic Platform
Recommendations, February, 1976 on Civil and Human
Rights, including Gay Rights
cc: Ray Baisden, San Francisco
Bob Bush, Los Angeles
Ben Goddard, San Francisco
John Lovell, Los Angeles
Franklin Mullen, Los Angeles
Paula Watson, Atlanta
ATTACHMENT "A"
Charlie Graham
415/563-1955
May 10, 1976
DRAFT SUGGESTED STATEMENT BY JIMMY CARTER ABOUT GAY RIGHTS ISSUES
Carter:
I want to talk for a moment about the dignity of human relationships.
When Rosalynn and I chose to marry, all our friends and relatives
were excited and pleased. It's part of the American culture
to take pleasure when a man and a woman fall in love.
I'm sorry that not all close relatiships lou between people in this
country receive that kind of support. Closeness between
people of the same sex is frowned upon. I want us Americans
to be more appreciative and understanding of others' ways.
I agree with the goals of many of the liberation movements, and in that
that I believe in the right to privacy of relationships between
consenting adults. And I want to extend civil rights legislation
to prohibit discrimination based on affectional or sexual
preference.
These goals are also supported by over 80 nationally based women's
and other organizations, preparers of the U.S. National Women's
Agenda, of which I am happy to have been an early endorser.
I'm also glad to have spoken publicly in favor of the needs
of our friends and relatives whose affectional preferences
may be different from mine or yours.
You see, I believe our people are our most precious possession.
I want to ensure that our Government does not restrict the
talents or abilities given by God to one single person.
-30-
L
forthe
Preamble
We, women of the United States of America, join together to challenge our Nation to
complete the unfinished work of achieving a free and democratic society, begun long ago by our Founding Mothers and
Fathers. Join us as we commit our lives, hearts, energies and talents to the attainment of this goal.
In creating the first National Women's Agenda, we are making explicit demands on our Government, and on the
private sector as well. Firm policies and programs must be developed and implemented at all levels in order to eliminate
those inequities that still stand as barriers to the full participation by women of every race and group. For too long, the nation has
been deprived of women's insights and abilities. It is imperative that women be integrated into national life now.
Just
and
We are women with interests and roots in every sector and at every level of society. Although our programs and goals
in
Treatment
may vary, still we have agreed upon issues which must be addressed as national priorities so that women will play a full and
equal role in this country.
SEqual
Diverse as we are, we are united by the deep and common experience of womanhood. As we work toward our common
goals, we insist upon the protection of this diversity, and call for the simultaneous elimination of all the insidious forms of discrimi-
Treatment
nation, not only those based on gender, but also on race, creed, ethnicity, class, lifestyle, sexual preference, and age.
and
and
Equal,
Full realization of our Agenda also requires commitment to peace as fundamental to a free society, and attainment of the
Quality
Constitutional guarantees of equal rights. Without these, women's rights in the society will be neither guaranteed nor preserved.
Care
The U.S. National Women's Agenda declares full equality under law, as embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment, to be
and
>Equal
Service
Education
essential to the equality of opportunity and access for women in all aspects of life, including specifically:
D. FAIR REPRES AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
Support for and expansion of convenient and responsive medical and mental
Election of legislators who support the principles set forth in the U.S. National
health services available without regard to ability to pay
Women's Agenda
Implementation of the legal right of women to control their own reproductive
Encouragement for women to run for elective office, and provision of the
systems
necessary resources for women candidates
Expansion of private and public health insurance to provide for women's special
Appointment of increased numbers of women to political positions
needs
Provision of opportunities for women and girls to develop and exercise leadership
Increased attention to and support for research into new drugs and medical
skills
procedures which have special significance for women
Systematic preparation and examination of all legislation taking into account its
Increased attention to and support for research into the safety of all drugs and
effects on women
procedures which have special significance for women
Rapid development and enforcement of laws and regulations to open the political
Establishment and implementation of informed consent as the right of every
process to all citizens
patient
Commitment to and enforcement of equal access and affirmative action rules
Examination of present mental health services and programs in terms of impact on
within political parties
women
R
Education of women regarding the political process and how it affects their lives
86. EQUAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HOUSING
Elimination of discrimination in the rental of housing
Enforcement of federal, state and local laws which guarantee equal access to and
treatment in all educational, vocational and athletic programs and facilities
Elimination of discrimination in the sale of housing, and in granting mortgages,
ATTACHMENT C
Development of nondiscriminatory educational and vocational guidance
insurance and other credit requirements
programs, with equal access for all students
Provision of private and public funding programs to assure adequate supplies of
Elimination of sex role, racial and cultural stereotyping at every level of the
low and middle income housing
educational system, and in educational materials
Inclusion of realistic curricula on health and human sexuality throughout the
educational process
VIII. JUST AND HUMANE TREATMENT IN THE
Equalization of financial aids and research opportunities
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Equity in funding from private and public sources for organizations providing
Repeal of laws which treat women and men differently within the criminal justice
programs, opportunities and services for girls and women
system
Development of continuing education programs to meet the needs of varying life
Equalization of services for women and men offenders
patterns, and to assess and give education credits for appropriate life experiences
Increased numbers of women on faculties, administrations and policy making
Provision of comprehensive health programs and medical facilities for women in
institutions
bodies, at all levels of education aleysterms
Creation of offective rehabilitation precrams which permit expansion of economici
ATTACHMENT "D"
LETTER TO GROUPS SUPPORTING "THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL WOMEN'S AGENDA",
AN ELEVEN-POINT PLATFORM PROPOSAL TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON THE
NEEDS OF WOMEN AND GAY PEOPLE, AS RECEIVED BY THE NATIONAL GAY TASK
FORCE, NEW YORK, JEAN O'LEARY, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
April 20, 1976
Dear Friend,
As a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the
United States, I am fully committed to equality for men and women in all
aspects of life. Full equality under the law as provided in the Equal.
Rights Amendment is essential to equal opportunity for women in
the United States.
I see the creation of the United States National Women's Agenda as a
landmark and am writing to you because I know your organization also
supports the agenda. I was the first Presidential candidate to endorse
the agenda as circulated by the Democratic Women's Agenda. For the
first time, women in large numbers, representing a diverse array of
organizations, have agreed to support specific goals to achieve
basic rights for over half its population. The agenda displays
unity and concern for issues and policies that are beneficial to all
women and men.
I am deeply supportive of all eleven goals of the agenda and will
use the influence of my office when elected to make these goals
a reality. My congratulations are extended to all the women's
groups which have contributed to the planning and support of the
agenda and to the task forces which are now being formed. My
wife Rosalynn visited the headquarters of the Agenda in New York
in March to learn more about its problems. I would like to help
you implement these goals in the future.
Enclosed is a copy of my statement on women's rights and an excerpt
from "Women Today", in which some of my positions on women's issues
are explained. In taking a stand on these issues, I have considered
seriously the hopes reflected by the Agenda. When I am elected
I will do everything in my power to banish discrimination against
women. Your support for my effort to seek the office of President
of the United States will not be forgotten, and I will not let you
down.
Sincerely,
/s/
Jimmy Carter
CDC Democratic Platform Recommendations
February 1976
ATTACHMENT "F"
CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
We all are given rights as American citizens, intertwined with those
of others, that must be protected. All people must be brought into
the mainstream of American life.
Specific proposals we support include, but are not limited to:
WOMEN:
Our past positions on women's rights and particular stress on
immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Establishment of clinics to provide contraceptives, family planning,
abortion, maternity guidance, and postnatal care of mother and child.
CHILDREN:
Establishmet of child care programs with full family participation
including health, social service and early childhood education.
Funding of legislation designed to meet the special needs of the retarded
and the physically handicapped child.
AMNESTY & VETERANS:
Universal and automatic non-punitive amnesty for all
who as a matter of conscience violated laws by protesting or not participating
in the Vietnam war.
Additional funding of veterans hospitals to allow the extension of programs,
increased staff, improved facilities and guaranteed medical services for
veterans and their families.
Instituting retraining and employment programs that meet the needs of the
veteran.
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY:
Passage of legislation making an employer who
violates laws pertaining to wages, working conditions cr payroll records in
employment of aliens, liable for actual and punitive damages.
GAYS:
Rights of all persons to define and express their own sexuality and
to choose any lifestyle that does not infringe on the rights of others;
addition of gay men and women to the protection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act;
upgrading of less than honorable discharges from the armed services for reasons
of homosexuality to honorable, with retroactive benefits; elimination of bars
to immigration of gays, security clearances, and service in the armed forces.
ELDERLY:
Social Security benefits to reflect the changes in the national
standard of living.
Housing assistance for the elderly, and property tax exemption for citizens
over age 65.
Federal standards for nursing and rest homes.
AMERICAN INDIANS:
Efforts of Native Americans to protect their land and
strengthen their self-determination, and demands of the National Congress of
American Indians for a separate Indian housing agency.
SINGLES:
Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons.
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL
785 MARKET ST., # 1405
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
MAY 10 1976
Issues and Problems of Handicapped People
Allison
I TRANSPORTATION
A. Problems
1. Foor and/or non-existent models
2. Excessive cost to individual
3. lack of Regulatory response to needs
B. Reasons
1. persistent opposition by Transportation Industry
2. ineffectual leadership by Government
3. limited understanding of needs. by designers
4. inflation of cost by 3rd Party payor systems
5. misuse of "safety concern" as prohibiting factor
C. Solutions
1. stronger legislation and regulations to mandate totally
accessible Transportation
2. assumption of vigorous leadership role by Federals
- 3. uniform National standards on Transit design which reflect
the need of all disability groups
4. enforcement of those standards by the Architectual and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
II CIVIL RIGHTS
A. Problems
1. Discrimination in
a. = opportunity
b. public accomodations
c. housing
d. voting
e. education
f. mobility
g. services
B. Reasons
1. Historic attitudes
2. Superstition
3. lack of legislation
4. poorly enforced legislation
5. programs which foster dependency
6. no acceptable legal comprehensive definition
of handicap or disability
- 2 -
C, Solutions
1, inclusion in 1964 Civil Rights Act
2. Full enforcement of sections 501, 502, 503, and 504
of the Rehab Act of 1973
3. Legal Representation (see legal services)
III. Environmental Design
AKA Barrier Free Environments
AKA Architectual Barriers
A. Problems
1. varying standards
2. poor enforcement
3. lack of research for specific disabilities
4. lack of professional cooperation
B. Reasons
1. Poor interface between disabled and non-disabled people
2. very limited understanding of problems by professionals
and building industry
3. poor leadership by Government
4. poor leadership by providers
5. weak current legislation
C. Solutions
1. one uniform National Standard which reflects the need of
all disability groups
2. strict enforcement of that code
3. specific curricula in Schools of Architecture and Design
4. ,apply Code to all Publically used Buildings
5. enforce above through 64 Civil Rights Acts and section 504 of
'73 Rehab Act
6. make Architectual and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
a Regulatory Agency under an Administration on Handicapped
Individuals in the Office of the Secy. of HEW
IV Housing
A. Problems
1. Accessibility
2. usability
3. lack of sufficient Housing programs
4. emphasis on institutionalization
5. entrance into existing programs are income related
not disablity related
6. "special" housing often placed in isolated areas
- 3 -
B. Reasons
1. lack of understanding of Housing needs
2. no consistent housing policy
3. no leadership in government
4. poor leadership by Providers
5. no comprehensive planning based on needs and interrelated
with the service sector
6. societal reluctance to integrate disabled people
C. Solutions
1. Development of a clear National Housing Policy
2. expansion of Current Community and Housing Development
Act for Housing units and Community services
3. nationwide action plan for de-institutionalization
4. Housing Policy based on disability needs
5. provision for adequate mortgage financing
6. linkage of Office of Housing for Handicapped and Elderly HUD
with Administration on Handicapped Individuals HEW
7. make OHHE directly responsible to HUD Secy.
V. Education
A. Problems
1. poor quality
2. segregation
3. poor enforcement of Right to Education
4. poor transportation services
5. insufficient support services
6. inaccessible schools
7. limited post-secondary, trade school, and post graduate
opportunities
8. questionable rehab services support practices
B. Reasons
1. resistance to mainstreaming by professionals
2. poor interaction between Rehab and Education
3. poor testing and evaluation policy
4. ignorance of problems by professionals
5. prejudice of general society
6. feeling that services belong in realm of charity
C. Solutions
1. national mainstreaming policy
2. funding for making schools accessible and usable
3. increased support services
4. a cogent and rational transportation policy
- 4 -
5. post-secondary, trade school, and post-graduate support
6. placement of all educational programs in HEW under
Administration on Handicapped Individuals
VI Employment
A. Problems
1. discrimination
2. limited training
3. non-inclusion in vital legislation
4. poor enforcement of affirmative action
5. architectual barriers
6. poor and costly transportation
7. poor rate of advancement on job
8. discrimatory civil service requirements
9. over-reliance on sheltered workshops
10. poor educational background
11. lack of initial workforce entry support services
B. Reasons
1. false "safety consideration" fears
2. general attitudes of society
3. poor government leadership in private sector
4. inadequate strategies on provider level
C. Solutions
1. mandated inclusion of handicapped and disabled in CETA
based on disability
a. comprehensive manpower programs
b. public service employment
c. apprenticeship
d. Job Corps
e. work incentive program
f. research, development, and evaluation
g. employment service
2. full enforcement of sections 503 and 504 of Rehab act of '73
3. tax relief for employment related transportation in absence
of accessible public transit
4. tax relief for private enterprise for barrier free work sites
- 5 -
VII. RECREATION
A. Problems
1. limited opportunities for independent enjoyment
2. inaccessible public facilities
3. inaccessible private facilities
4. poor and costly transportation
5. segregated participation
6. general attitudes
B. Reasons
1. poor leadership by government and professionals
2. little public recognition of problems
3. little funding support
C. Solutions
1. legislation assisting recreation providers in
creating barrier free environments
2. inclusion of protections under 64 Civil Rights Act.
3. increased support funding for transportation services
for recreation providers
VIII. AIDS AND DEVICES
A. Problems
1. cost
2. quality control
3. repair
4. lack of information
B. Reasons
1. low production
2. captive market
3. lack of information for regulators
4. poor communication methods by producers
5. inflated prices
C. Solutions
1. tax relief for consumers
2. increased support by rehabilitation services
3. regulations for consumer protection
4. incerased consumer notifications of technology
advancements
- 6 -
IX. ACCESS TO SERVICES
A. Problems
1. different systems fail to communicate with one another
2. service delivery systems frequently do not deal
with the whole person
3. rivalry between systems and providers are detrimental
to clients
4. too many layers of bureacracy
5. gaps in service
6. overlap in service
7. different systems can and do impede other systems
8. either por or no consumer imput into systems/service
decision making
B. Reasons
1. self-perpetuating bureacracy growth
2. over reliance by private providers on government funds
3. services for disabled defined by non-disabled
4. services evolve in an uncoordinated context
5. services have refused to deal comprehensively
with problems outside of their scope but having
direct impact on their goals
6. limited success due to evaporation of funding
through bureacracy
7. self-imposed limitation of goals
C. Solutions
1. consolidation of services in administration on
handicapped individuals in office of secretary of HEW
2. mandated consumer involvement in decision making
3. strictly enforced affirmative action programs at
all levels of service delivery
4. mandated linkage and coordination between trans-
portation, housing, employment, education rehabilitation
and medical services etc.
5. analysis of current systems productivity
6. increased CILS
7. elimination of disincentives from various systems
X. LEGAL SERVICES
A. Problems
1. dearth of services
2. lack of expertise in areas of disability
3. current programs often tied to means test
4. architectual barriers
- 7 -
B. Reasons
1. lack of leadership by government and providers
2. lack of concern and leadership by legal profession
especially civil liberties organizations
3. over dependency by consumers on provider organizations
C. Solutions
1. specific legislation mandating legal services
2. presidential leadership vis a vis the legal profession
XI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Problems
1. poor organization in presenting information
2. media concentration on "charity" aspect
3. service systems explain themselves inadequately
4. poor coordination of systems information
B. Reasons
1. poor understanding of population and their problems
2. definition of issues by nondisabled
3. little central coordination of information
C. Solutions
1. consolidation of information output by administration
on handicapped individuals
2. output to media from consumers
OVERVIEW
The disabled population numbers some estimated 28 million (including
10-11 million severly disabled) in this country. Their needs are
provided by a collection of service systems (health, rehabilitation,
income maintenance, employment, recreation, housing, home support, trans-
portation, education) which:
1. have limited objectives
2. promote dependency through disincentives
3. are uncoordinated
4. do not inter-communicate
5. have little consumer input into decision making
6. are inaccessible to client/consumer
7. are often defeated in reaching their goals by environmental
realities
- 8 -
8. are promoted by non-disabled professionals
9. rarely. attack discrimination and myths about disability
10. are under funded and under staffed
11. have few legal services available
12. do not deal with environmental realities
13. have been poor advocates and leaders
14. have "suspect" cost/benefit ratios
15. are riddled with excessive bureacracy
16. rarely translate research into action
I have not dealt with the problems involving health, research,
advocacy, and income maintenance (SS1, SSD1) on purpose, since it
would have meant a delay in this paper reaching you. This outline
was put together in part with disabled people in a brainstorming ses-
sion held last week. The items within may raise more questions than they
answer. Nevertheless, they do represent a consensus of the status
quo as it relates to the individual.
May 13, 1976
Memo
To: Steve Stark
From: Morris Dees
Enclosed is a legal memo on the pending Supreme
Court case dealing with intergration of private schools.
The memo was done by Joe Levin.
CC: Hamilton Jordan
Jody Powell
Stu Eizenstadt
Rex Granum
ON DesegRegation of PROVATE School
Pending Superme Court Case
Presently pending in the United States Supreme Court is
the case of Runyon V. McCrary. This litigation was brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 1981, commonly known as one of the statutes comprising
the Civil Rights Acts of 1866. (Recodified in 1871 as Section 1981.)
It provides that no person may refuse to contract on equal basis
with any other person because of race. It has been held to apply
only to denial of equal contract to blacks. The statute is an
enabling act passed in order to aid in the implementation of the
thirteenth amendment prohibition against slavery and does not
require state action to sustain a cause of action - private acts
are covered.
Section 1981 is a companion statute to Section 1982
(also one of the 1866 Civil Rights Acts). Section 1982, however,
applies only to private discrimination against blacks in the sale
or lease of real estate. Section 1981 applies to refusal by a
white to contract on an equal basis with blacks. This has been
interpreted to include an independent remedy for
all racial discrimination in employment, Sanders V. Dobbs House,
431 F. 2d 1097; refusal to allow a black admission to a private
segregated law school, Amerson V. Jones Law School, C. A. No.
3343-N (M.D. Ala. 1972); and the refusal to admit blacks to a private
segregated barbering school, Grief V. Specialized Skills, Inc.,
326 F. Supp. 856 (D.C. N.C. 1971).
The U. S. Supreme Court has never specifically dealt
with the application of 1981 to private schools. However, in
Jones V. Alfred Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), the Court held that
1982 did apply to private acts of discrimination against blacks in
real estate transactions, and, more importantly, made clear that
1981 also was applicable to such private acts. The U. S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal have been consistent in their application of
Section 1981 to private acts of discrimination when blacks are
denied the right to equal contract. And, again in 1973, the Supreme
Court in Tilman V. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association, 410 U.S.
431, indicated its support of this position.
The legal issue presently before the Court is whether or
not 1981 may be used to desegregate a private school. An affirmative
answer to this question will most certainly depend upon whether or
not the Court believes the thirteenth amendment's prohibition
against slavery outweighs the first and ninth amendments' right
of free association, a right which is unwritten, but implicit therein
as interpreted on many occasions : by the Supreme Court.
I have no doubt but that the Court's past pronouncements
on 1981 and 1982, coupled with the universal Circuit Court inter-
pretation of 1981 as applying to private acts, will prevail and
that private schools will be held subject to desegregation under
1981.
Possible positions for the Candidate:
1. Supreme Court has already effectively foreclosed the
issue in prior decisions and the law of the land (a la abortion)
must be obeyed regardless of personal opinion.
Risky because Court may surprise us all
and reverse.
2. We should all await the outcome of the Supreme Court's
decision which can be expected before July. Then we're all bound
to obey the law of the land.
That's a "no position" position and I think
heavily subject (and rightfully so) to
criticism from blacks and civil rightsy
whites.
3. Blacks should legally and morally have the right to
attend private segregated schools. Vast networks of cheap, low-
quality private academies should not be allowed to replace the
old whites-only public school system. It destroys the very fabric
of our society, interferes with existing school desegretation plans
by creating all-black schools and diverting the strength of the
more politically powerful white community into the private system,
and prolongs the day when whites and blacks will co-exist harmoniously
Against the history of segregation in the South and the rest of the
nation any freedom of association in schoools based on racial
consideration must be subordinated the greater right of blacks and
society generally to be liberated from badges of slavery and vestiges
of servitude.
X
T425ec1981 (Civil Rights act of 1866 that gives blacks equal
Right to contract)
The United States
Supreme Court
Proceedings
BNA
LAW WEEK
May 4, 1976
THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON. D.C.
Volume 44, No. 43
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT
home. Mr. Justice Marshall rejoined:
Schools and Colleges
"A school is not a home."
Mr. Justice Rehnquist. referring to
Private Schools; race discrimination; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; applicability
laws prohibiting employment diserim-
ination queried why the private
Private schools defended their right
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
schools' right to exclude students be-
to reject applicants on the basis of
Koutoulakos contended that the
cause of race was any different than
race in argument before the Supreme
First Amendment right of freedom of
an employer's insistence that he had
Court last week. Two Virginia schools
association should govern this case
the right to hire whomever he chooses
and an organization of Southern in-
rather than Section 1981. Pointing to
The Chief Justice raised a similar
dependent schools seck reversal of a
recent Supreme Court decisions recog-
point. presenting the hypothetical
Fourth Circuit ruling that their re-
nizing parents' right to direct the
question of whether an employer
fusal to admit black children is a vio-
education of their children subject to
building an interstate highway could
lation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, a statute
reasonable state regulation necessary
refuse to hire blacks. Koutoulakos as-
derived from Reconstruction era legis-
to promote health. safety. and welfare,
serted that absent any specific stat-
lation giving all persons the same
he argued that both the parents' and
utory prohibition. the employer would
right "to make and enforce contracts.
the schools' free association rights may
have that right. Mr. Justice Stewart.
as is enjoyed by white citizens."
be jeopardized by an adverse decision.
however, pointed out that such dis-
The often heated debate centered
Koutoulakos stated that "common
crimination is impermissible under
upon the question whether the stat-
sense" teaches that "this country is
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
ute, which has been broadly construed
based on two things-the right to be
Andrew A. Lipscomb of Washing-
by the Court in recent years. applies
left alone and the right of individual
ton, D.C., representing Fairtax-Brow-
to the actions of private schools at
liberty." These rights, he added,
ster School, a suburban Virginia pri-
all. (Runyon V. McCrary. No. 75-62;
transcend the Bill of Rights. They're
vate elementary school with TT stu-
Fairfax-Brewster School, Inc. V. Gon-
"God-given rights." Thus, he submits,
dents. began with the statement that
zales, No. 75-66: Southern Independ-
the First Amendment right includes
"Section 1981 doesn't restrict private
ent School Association V. McCrary. No.
the right of a parent to select and a
schools from rejecting students on the
75-278; McCrary V. Runyon, No. 75-
private school to maintain a racially
basis of race." His argument
306)
segregated environment for the educa-
on what he conceives to be the re-
Mr. Louis Koutoulakos of Arlington,
tion of children.
strictive nature of the Thirteenth
Virginia, appeared on behalf of the
Amendment's language that
The private school in this regard is
Bobbes School, a private institution
"Inleither slavery nor involuntary
like a private club, he suggested. While
located in the Virginia suburbs of
servitude
shall exist within the
indicating that he personally dis-
Washington, D.C., with 155 students
United States, or any place subject
agrees with the policy of racial ex-
in kindergarten through second grade.
to their jurisdiction," and the intent
clusion, the lawyer stated that he ap-
Citing the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S.
of Congress in enacting Section 1 of
peared before the Court "to support
3 (1883), for the proposition that pri-
the Civil Rights Act of 1866. the pre-
the individual's right, his right of pri-
vate discriminatory acts are not pro-
cursor of Section 1981.
vacy, his right to freely chose his as-
hibited by the Constitution, he argued
sociates," in much the same way as
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
that Section 1981 should not be ap-
Mr. Justice Marshall "used to be in
plied to force a private school to enter
Quoting from the legislative his-
the old days supporting individual
into a contract against its will. Ob-
tory of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, on-
rights."
serving that it takes two parties to
acted to implement the Thirteenth
make a contract, Koutoulakos stated
Mr. Justice Marshall, however, re-
Amendment, Lipscoinb stated that
that blacks are not denied contractual
minded Koutoulakos that the
Congress never intended that statute
rights when whites refuse to deal with
Supreme Court rejected just such an
to force private schools to accept
them.
argument in a case involving all-white
blacks against their will. He noted that
Mr. Justice Stewart: "If a school--
primary elections, where as attorney
when the bill was originally introduced
for the NAACP he successfully chal-
in the 39th Congress it contained the
your client-will never make an offer
lenged the practice. Mr. Justice Mar-
provision: "That there shall be no dis-
of contract to a Negro, so that he
shall observed: "I can remember the
crimination in civil rights or immuni-
can't accept the contract, isn't that
argument like it. was yesterday. They
ties
on account of race, color,
depriving the Negro of the right to
said it was a right of association:
or previous condition of slavery or in-
make a contract?"
it was tike a country club. This Court
voluntary servitude." This Innurage
Koutoulakes replied that he has
just threw that argument right out
was omitted from the final
"never seen a contract forced on any
the window."
the Act. This clause, Lipscomb stated.
individual absent a mutuality of
created consternation in Congress
Koutoulakos maintained that the
minds." Conceding that it may not
that they were going beyond their
private schools by limiting their ad-
be a "nice right," Koutoulakos assert-
Thirtcenth Amendment authority.
missions are asserting a "God-given
ed that an individual has a right to
Much of the debate, he added, cen-
right" in a democratic society, like
tered on the question of whether the
refuse to do business with blacks.
the right to invite someone into your
language could be interpreted to re-
Section 3
Contents Copyright 0 1076 by The BUTCHE of National Affairs, Inc.
Rights of redistribution or reproduction belong to copyright owner.
44 LW 3617
44 LW 3618
The United States LAW WEEK
5-4-76
quire black and white children to at-
of the phone book, private schools
Leonard responded by pointing to
tend the same schools.
shouldn't be compelled to accept stu-
a Wisconsin law that every private
Mr. Justice Stewart: "Were they
dents they don't want," he stated.
school in the state must be integrat-
talking about public or private
Comparing private schools to law-
ed. However, he added, "I believe
schools?"
yers, Lipscomb remarked: "Just be-
that there are things of a funda-
"No. they made no dis-
cause lawyers are listed in Martin-
mental academic nature that the
finction. The idea of blacks and whites
dale-Hubbel, they can't be required
state can't take away." He pointed
attending the same schools was the
to accept clients they don't want."
to the example of the Amish student
basis of the objection."
George F. Leonard of Washington,
permitted to leave school and get
The Chief Justice asked when the
D. C., argued on behalf of the South-
equivalent instruction in the home.
idea of school attendance as a con-
ern Independent School Association,
Comparing the parent's right to ed-
tractual right came up. Lipscomb re-
a group representing approximately
ucate their children according to
plied, "I believe this Court has held
375 private schools located in the
their beliefs to the mandatory preg-
that it's a contractual right."
South, which intervened in the court
nancy discharge cases, Leonard stated
Mr. Justice Stewart: "Only by rea-
below. In his opening remarks Leo-
"You can't fix an absolute line of
son of statutes making it a right to
nard stated that the factual discus-
above and below which you can't
attend school."
sions of whether discrimination in
go."
Lipscomb continued that by enact-
fact took place don't affect the in-
ing the statute Congress was seeking
tervenor. He conceded that the schools
ALL BLACK SCHOOLS
to remove the legal impediments for
he represents do in fact discriminate
Leonard questioned whether a child
blacks to own property and form con..
against Negroes because of their
is entitled to an integrated educa-
tracts. It was argued that the legisla-
color. He stated. "We do it. We have
tion. He cited statistics indicating that
tive history of the bill demonstrates
stipulated that the majority of our
250,000 black children attend private
that Congress intended to counteract
schools have such limitations on ad-
schools. Mr. Justice Marshall ques-
the so-called "Black Codes" adopted
missions."
tioned whether any black schools ex-
by former slave states after the Civil
Leonard said that the issue in the
clude white students. Leonard named
War requiring freedmen to work for
Fourth Circuit was whether an
one private North Carolina institu-
"common wages given to other labor-
otherwise qualified black child is en-
tion with such a policy.
ers". Compulsory employment con-
titled to be admitted to any private
Mr. Justice Marshall: "Are there
tracts were among the evils the bill
school he wants to attend. Leonard
any other black schools that exclude
sought to correct, he contended. The
expressed the opinion that this ques-
whites?"
Chief Justice: "Would the sophisticat-
tion is too narrow and that the ac-
Leonard: "The Black Muslim schools
ed lawyers in Congress speak of the
tual issue should be: "Is any child
would do for that."
right to attend a private school in
of any color entitled to attend any
Mr. Justice Marshall: "You're wrong.
contractual terms?"
school of his choice?" Expanding on
Leonard: "When I filed the briefs.
Lipcomb: "I don't believe they
this idea, he questioned whether a
did."
Jewish child could attend a Catholic
Mr. Justice Marshall: "As of today
The Chief Justice: "What about
school, a boy could attend an all-
you're wrong. Are the black Muslim
the requirements for school and col-
girls school, student of Chinese des-
schools religious schools?"
lege admissions. Could they be spok-
cent attend a Mexican-American
Leonard: "No."
en of in terms of contractual rights?"
school.
Mr. Justice Marshall: "You're
Lipscomb: "Conceivably, your hon-
Leonard stated: "Every parent
wrong."
or."
with school age children in this coun-
Leonard then mentioned 11 paro-
Contrasting the "sterile language"
try may select the school which they
chial schools located in Mississippi
of the Thirteenth Amendment with
believe will develop their child into
that excluded whites.
the "magnificent" concepts of the
the kind of adult they want him to
Mr. Justice Marshall: "Can you
Fourteenth Amendment, Lipscomb
be."
imagine white students applying to go
contended that the Thirteenth
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "There are
to an all black school in Mississippi?"
Amendment "has no room to grow."
some limitations on this right -
Leonard: "Yes I can."
It abolished slavery and its incidents,
such as accreditation."
Mr. Justice Marshall: "What I'm
nothing more, he asserted. The lim-
Lipscomb agreed, citing the deci-
objecting to is your comparison of
ited nature of the Thirteenth Amend-
sion of the Tennessee Supreme Court
all-white with all-black schools."
ment prohibition, he argued, limits
proscribing the handling of poisonous
Mr. Justice Stewart: "Do you rely
congressional power to reach purely
snakes as a religious practice.
on the Religious Clause of the First
private actions.
Citing the Court's opinion in Rod-
Amendment?"
The Chief Justice: "What about
riguez V. San Antonio School District,
Leonard: "No, we do not. That's
Congress' ability to abolish the 'ves-
Leonard acknowledged that there is
no part of my argument."
tiges' of slavery through appropriate
an "amorphous" right to education.
Leonard noted that the Solicitor
legislation?"
This right, he asserted, is probably
General and organizations represent-
Lipscomb: "The discrimination rec-
limited to teaching the ability to
ing 90 percent of the private schools
ognized by people at that time was
"read. write, and do simple sums."
in the United States appeared as ami-
the disability of Negroes to own prop-
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "Why isn't
cus curiae opposing the stance taken
erty and make contracts."
a state or Congress free to say that
by the intervenor. He continued that
just as important as reading and
10 percent of the children in the
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
writing is learning in an integrated
United States attend private schools
Continuing his argument, Lips-
environment."
with 00 percent of that number at-
comb noted that public and private
Leonard: "That's just the point
tending religious schools. These
schools are quite different. Private
I'm trying to make."
schools are segregated in a religious
schools are not held to be public ac-
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "I won't dis-
sense but integrated in a racial
commodation. They can do things
tract you."
sense. In short, he concluded, 99 per-
that public schools cannot. he added,
As Leonard continued his presen-
cent of the schools in the United
especially in terms of religious instruc-
tation, Mr. Justice Rehnquist asked,
States are racially integrated while
tion and discipline. "Just because
"Would you agree that the question
one percent are not. Yet, he con-
they're listed in the 'Yellow Pages'
is how far the state can go?"
tinued, there are enough of these
5-4-76
The United States LAW WEEK
44 LW 3619
schools located throughout the coun-
think there is any significance in the
persons of Spanish descent there
try where parents if they want can
difference in introductory language
would be some problem. He stated,
send their children.
between Sections 1981 and 1982?"
"Section 1981 only applies to racial
Brown: "The 1931 language was
discrimination."
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "Do your
opponents rely on state action?"
added in 1870. It was designed to en-
The Chief Justice: "In operative of-
compass aliens. Section 1932 is limited
fect it covers racial groups?"
Leonard: "It wasn't raised below."
to citizens of the United States."
Brown: "Yes."
He further indicated that tax exemp-
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "What pro-
Mr. Justice Powell: "By limiting it
tions have been removed from the
vision of the 1870 Act was the reenact-
to racial discrimination does it sig-
private schools.
ment Section 1 of the 1866 Act?"
nify that you disagree whether the
Leonard questioned whether the
Brown: "Section 18 in verbatim
statute] would apply to all-girl or sli-
discrimination issue wasn't receiving
form with certain modifications."
boy schools?"
too much attention. He stated: "In
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "Then it is
Brown: "It's limited only to racial
a country which is essentially plural-
not verbatim."
discrimination."
istic-where the food you eat and
Brown, responding to the argument
Mr. Justice Stewart: "The only
the clothes you wear are all deter-
made by the private schools that ap-
cause of action under Section 1981 is
mined by your race and social class—
plication of Section 1981 involves
for racial discrimination?"
there is discrimination in every
coercion in making a contract, stated
Brown: "That's correct."
element of life." He continued that
that Jones V. Mayer Co., Tillman V.
Mr. Justice Powell: "Is it applicable
an element of choice in selection of
Wheaton-Haven Recreation Associa-
to all-boy or all-girl schools?"
a school is usually available to all
tion, 410 U.S. 431 (1973). and Johnson
Brown: "No."
students, black or white.
V. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S.
Mr. Justice Stewart: "Are there any
Mr. Justice Stewart: "Isn't the
454 (1975), have settled the question
cases under Section 1981 for other
only issue in this case whether the
whether prohibiting the denial to
than racial discrimination?"
statute prohibits the actions chal-
blacks of the same enrollment rights
Brown: "We have found none."
lenged here and whether the statute
available to whites creates a "com-
Mr. Justice White: "Is [Section
is constitutional as applied?"
puisory" contract. It was argued that
1981] a Thirteenth Amendment piece
a school that makes a public offer to
of legislation?"
Leonard responded that if Sec-
accept students for enrollment and
Brown: "I think it is your honor."
tion 1981 is applicable, "there is
has its offer accepted can hardly call
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "Didn't
nothing more."
itself an unwilling contractor. since
Johnson V. Railway Express Agency
Mr. Allison W. Brown, Jr., of Wash-
by making the offer it signifies its
say it's a Fourteenth Amendment
ington, D. C., appearing on behalf of
willingness to enter into a contract.
piece of legislation?"
two black students who were denied
The effect of Section 1981. it was as-
In response to a question from Mr
admission to the private schools,
serted. is merely to prohibit a school
Justice Stevens whether it was loction!
stated that the case revolves around
from making race or color a condition
to apply Section 1981 to privi to
two questions: (1) "Does Section 1981
of its offer. Further, Brown argued
schools and not to public schools,
apply to the contracts at issue? (2)
on the basis of the 1964 Civil Rights
Brown asserted that when the origi-
Is there a First Amendment prohibi-
Act that a person has no constitu-
nal section was enacted the joint
tion which restricts this application?"
tional right to discriminate.
committee of Congress was engaged in
Brown argued that the language of
Brown disagreed with his opponents'
drafting the Fourteenth Amendment.
the statute doesn't need an expan-
contention that in enacting the 1366
which would cover state action.
sive reading. "The words are clear."
Act Congress anticipated the school
Mr. Justice Stevens: What you are
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS
problem. Brown noted that in the
saying then is that it is a "badge of
House debates on the statute Con-
slavery" to discriminate in private
Insisting that there is no reason
gressman Bingham, who objected to
schools but not in public schools?"
to exclude private schools from op-
omitting the "civil rights" provision
Brown: "Yes, that's the way you
cration of Section 1981, Brown point-
on the basis that it would interfere
have to read it." Brown also pointed
ed out that Section 1981 and its
with the state segregation statutes,
out that not all states in the 1800s
"companion statute" Section 1982, giv-
felt that it should be dealt with as
had public schools.
ing "all citizens of the U. S. the
state action to be handled by the
Addressing the First Amendment
same right
as is enjoyed by
Fourteenth Amendment then be-
issue, Brown concluded that the
white citizens thereof to inherit, pur-
ing drafted. Further, he added,
schools cannot assert an institutional
chase, lease, sell, hold and convey real
"there is really no evidence in
right of privacy or a "selective right
and personal property," are derived
the legislative history what kind
of exclusion." Both defendant schools,
from the Act of May 1870, which re-
of contract Congress had in mind."
he asserted, advertised in the phone
enacted the 1866 Act. Section 1982, he
This Court, he stated, has held
book and solicited in the communities
stated, was upheld by the Court as a
that the language of the statute is
where they are located. He stated: "It
broad enough to cover admissions to
is well known that these schools at-
proper exercise of congressional au-
thority under the Thirteenth Amend-
amusement parks. guest privileges in
tract white persons in integrated
ment. These sections, he added, war-
private swimming clubs. employment
school systems." He stated that these
rant a like construction and prohibit
contracts, priva barber trade
schools are open to every white per-
discrimination by private parties. Cit-
schools. private law schools, and in-
son in the community and. citing
ing Jones V. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409
surance policies.
Tillman, he insisted that the schools
(1969). Brown argued that all per-
The Chief Justice: "Suppose a com-
have no "plan or purpose to be pri-
munity established a school located
vate." Race. he argued. is the
sons have "the same right" as whites.
on property not covered by diplomatic
factor that constitutes an absolute bar
By maintaining their racially dis-
criminatory policies, he argued. the
immunity with a requirement for ad-
to admission in these schools.
defendant schools plainly denied
mission that one or both parents be
Sixteen states, Brown noted, have
black families "the same right" to
Spanish speaking. Does Section 1981
laws prohibiting discrimination in
enter into contracts of enrollment
reach it?"
private school admissions. "It would
for their children that is offered
Brown responded that if the limita-
be a surprise to those places if-thism
whites.
tion is only to Spanish speaking per-
Court were to say it's all right to dis-
sons Section 1981 would not cover it.
criminate on the basis of race." he
Mr. Justice Rehnquist: "Don't you
But, he added, if it was limited to
stated.
LW 3620
The United States LAW WEEK
5-4-76
Turning to the parental right of
the award of attorneys' fees. His
court of appeals orr in substituting its
privacy asserted in the case. Brown
clients, Boggs contends, are entitled to
judgment of facts for that of trial court
emphasized that the cases from which
attorneys' fees under the "bad-faith
in reaching its conclusion that defend-
ant's conviction cannot stand?
the right of privacy arise don't neces-
exception." This bad faith, he argues
serily involve invasion of privacy but
was exhibited in the manner in which
SOCIAL SECURITY
interforence with the individ-
witnesses for the private schools as-
No. 75-1197. Mathews V. De Castro.
undicability to act freely. Without dis-
serted under oath that they
Ruling below (USDC NIII, 403 FSupp
puting the basis of a claim of parental
do not deny admission on the basis
23, 44 LW 2190):
right in the upbringing of children,
of race.
Social Security Act's provision of wife's
he referred to the state's power to
Mr. Justice Marshall: "You are
insurance benefits for married, but not
impose standards on the manner in
talking about witnesses. Bad faith goes
divorced. wife under 62 who has wage-
carner husband's dependent child in her
which the schools are operated. The
to parties. Didn't they assert a First
care violates Fifth Amendment
states, he concluded, can regulate in
Amendment right-a constitutional
Question presented: Is Congress con-
the constitutional sense that children
right?"
stitutionally required to make wife's in-
attend schools, which the state feels
Boggs: "Yes."
surance benefits available to divorced wife
of retired or disabled wage carner on
serve the child's best interests.
Mr. Justice Marshall: "It is pretty
same basis as if she had remained mar-
hard to assert a constitutional right
ried to wage earner?
ATTORNEYS' FEES
and find bad faith."
Mr. Rederic V. O. Boggs, Washing-
Boggs rejoined that bad-faith tests
Summary Action
ton. D.C., raised additional issues re-
must distinguish between deceptive
ELECTIONS
garding the award of attorneys' fees
litigation conduct and an assertion of
to the plaintiffs, which was reversed
a constitutional de se. These
No. 75-1146. Bradley V. Lunding.
by the Fourth Circuit, and the ap-
schools, he argued have extended this
Ruling below (Ill SupCt. 1/19/76):
plicable statute of limitations in Sec-
litigation unduly. This court, he main-
Trial court's decision holding uncon-
stitutional Illinois State Board of Elec-
tion 1931 actions. Boggs noted that the
tained, is particularly sensitive to
tions Regulation that provides that group
federal district court had awarded
bad faith in discrimination cases. Un-
nominating petitions shall be considered
pinintiffs $2,000 in attorneys' fees
der Newman V. Piggie Park Enter-
as one number in lottery to break ties
wishout argument before the Supreme
prises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968), attorneys'
for first positions, is overruled. (Appeal
dismissed.)
Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline
fee awards are appropriate if defend-
Service Co. V. The Wilderness Society.
ants maintain a vexacious defense.
No. 75-1356. Driskell V. Edwards.
44 LW 5561 (1975). The Fourth Cir-
The proper procedure, he concluded.
Ruling below (USDC WLa, 1/15/76):
cult thus found the "private attorney
would be to remand the case to the
Selection of delegates to state consti-
general theory" relied on by the dis-
district court for a determination of
tutional convention. sole purpose of which
trict court inapplicable and reversed
the bad-faith issue.
is to draft new state constitution for sub-
mission to voters for their approval or
rejection. need not comply with one man,
one vote principle. (Judgment affirmed.)
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
SUMMARY OF ORDERS
No. 75-1316. Whitman V. City of Canton,
Ohio.
At the session of May 3, 1976,
case, there is given (1) its number
Ruling below (Ohio SupCt, 44 OhioSt2d
the Supreme Court granted review in
and title; (2) a citation to the lower
62):
two cases and summarily disposed of
court's opinion or order; (3) the rul-
State law that requires municipality to
four others. By other orders, the
ing of the court below; and (4) the
fluoridate municipally-owned-and-oper-
Court denied review in 32 cases. Re-
ated water supply. unless exempted from
principal questions presented if the
law by special election held within 120
view was also denied in 35 cases in
case is to be argued.
days after law's adoption, is valid exercise
the 5000 series, which was formerly
Other orders appear only in the
of state police power. (Appeal dismissed;
the Miscellaneous Docket.
cert. denied.)
Journal.
Grant of review, as used in the fol-
TRANSPORATION
lowing summary of orders, is evi-
Review Granted
No. 75-1165. American Trucking As-
denced in appeal cases by the Court's
sociations, Inc. V. U.S.
action noting probable jurisdiction or
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Ruling below (USDC DistCol, 10/20/
postponing the question of jurisdic-
No. 75-871. Manson V. Brathwaite.
75):
tion to the hearing on the merits;
Ruling below (CA 2. 18 CrL 2290):
Substantial evidence supports Inter-
in certiorari cases, by the granting
Narcotics defendant is entitled to ha-
state Commerce Commission's finding of
"special circumstances" to warrant ap-
of certiorari. In all cases where re-
beas corpus relief from state conviction
proval without restrictions of railroad's
view is granted, oral argument will
that followed trial at which undercover
application under Section 5 of Interstate
follow.
agent who had only fleeting. late night
Commerce Act for acquisition of motor
opportunity to observe defendant, testi-
carrier. (Judgment affirmed.)
Disposal by summary action is evi-
fied about out-of-court identification that
deneed in appeal cases by a per
resulted from unnecessarily suggestive
single-photo showup: undercover agent's
Review Denied
order affirming, reversing. or
fleeting opportunity to observe defend-
ANTITRUST LAWS
the judgment below or dis-
ant. coupled with number o: "buys" agent
the appeal: in certiorari
made from different suspects and de-
No. 75-1311. Pacific Coast Agricultural
Check, by a per curiam order granting
fendant's plausible alibi derense. raises
Export Assn. V. Sunkist Growers, Inc.
serious questions about reliability of
potition for certiorari and simul-
Ruling below (CA 9. 526 F2d 1196):
agent's in-court identification: reliabil-
affirming, reversing or va-
ity standards announced in Noil V. Elist-
Federal district court did not abuse
gers. 400 U.S. 138, 41 LW 4004 (1972).
its discretion when. after jury verdict
enting the judgment below.
apply only to showups held before Stovall
in private antitrust action was returned
Denial of review relates only to cer-
V. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, was decided.
against agricultural cooperative. it re-
Corari cases and is evidenced by
Questions presented: (1) Did court of
fused to order cooperative's dissolution
denial of certiorari.
appeals apply proper standards in deter-
and refused to enjoin cooperative from
mining that evidence presented at trial
selling oranges in Hong Kong for six
The summary below lists the cases
that was based on impermissibly sugges-
years.
the Appellate Docket in which the
tive photographic identification rendered
No. 75-1325. Sunkist Growers, Inc. V.
Court granted review, took summary
defendant's conviction invalid notwith-
standing evidence serving as basis for
Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Assn.
action, or denied review. As to each
reliable in-court identification? (2) Did
Ruling below (CA 9, 526 F2d 1196):
Ab
Jimmy Carter
Presidential Campaign
For America's third century, why not our best?
MEMO
To: Steve Stark, Stu Eizenstat, Milt Gwirtzman, Bob Havely
From: Mike Miller
Re: California Issues
May 13, 1976
THE ARTS PLANK
As I mentioned in my my previous memo, the artistic community
(including all those involved in motion pictures and television)
is stressing the need for the Democratic Party to address itself
to the Arts in a plank to be added to the platform at New York.
I had an opportunity to discuss the Arts plank with Kathleen
Nolan, President of the Screen Actors Guild, and she provided
me with a simplified copy of the proposed plank. She also
indicated those issues which she thought were bottom line.
I am enclosing a copy. Those elements marked by checks or
crosses are the things Ms. Nolan considers most important.
A statement by Jimmy in support of the artistic community
would be helpful. An endorsement of the principles - as opposed
to the precise language - embraced in the Arts plank would
probably give us a big boost against Jerry Brown in California.
Support from the artistic community here is important because:
(1) The entertainment industry in California is either the
third or fourth largest single industry in the State.
(2) The endorsement and support of certain members of the
industry is critical to our fund-raising effort here.
(3) A supportive statement from Jimmy would do much to
belay the currently widespread image of Carter in the minds
of Californians that he is some tobacco road redneck.
Obviously, there are provisions in the Arts plank that Jimmy
would be reluctant to support precipitously --- indeed, there
might be some he would not wish to support at all. Moreover,
some of the public considers the California entertainment
industry to be made up of nothing but pill-popping porno
producers. However, a carefully-worded statement perhaps
P.O. Box 1976 Atlanta, Georgia 30301 404/897-7100
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
17
2-2-2
quoting John Kennedy on the Arts, and/or referring to the
extraordinarily high unemployment rate in the motion picture
industry
would be something we could live with.
Helpedert
recording
I want to emphasize that I have no connection whatsoever
m.p.mustry
with the industry - I'm a former teacher - but it seems to
me that, on balance, this is a route we should seriously
consider. The risks involved are minimal. The potential
benefits in California are enormous.
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JEWISH COMMUNITY
We have been making substantial efforts to sell Jimmy Carter
in the Jewish neighborhoods here, and we have had a modicum
of success. With Jackson and Humphrey de facto out of the
race, the Jewish vote in Southern California is fluid.
To help us in the Jewish Community, we need three things:
(1) A statement from Jimmy that he favors a Geneva-like
conference between the Arabs and the Israelis. This is
consistent with his previous Middle East statement, in
which he referred to "face-to-face" negotiations.
(2) Some statement which condemns the Arab blacklisting
of American firms.
(3) A clear statement that explains the difference between
the quota system and affirmative action programs. The
quota system is poison in the Jewish Community.
0DDS & ENDS
OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING - Jimmy will undoubtedly be asked his
views on this subject. Keep in mind that the environmentalists
are still paranoid about the Santa Barbara oil spill of
1969.
IN HOUSE MEMOS
May 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR STEVE STARK
Some time during the next 30-60 days, and probably before the
Convention, the world agricultural sector will assume a direction
for the year:
- Good crops nearly everywhere, with declining prices to
farmers, and improved chances for food price stability
(helping the economy! and the incumbent?), or,
- Bad weather in several key countries, putting the world's
food sector on edge, causing early buying, raising farm prices,
threatening higher food prices late this year and next year.
(This pattern has dominated the mood of the agricultural sector
the past 2 weeks, as mild drought develops in several countries.)
It would be timely to be prepared to say something on food and agricul-
ture by July 1 (possibly in an address on the economy) but perhaps not
necessary to say it, if no issues have risen, or no natural forums found.
If the weather and crops were to turn very bad soon, the question
of early export controls versus future inflation would face both the
President and the Candidates, and it would be a difficult one. I believe
the Administration would limit exports in 1976, until about September.
If that issue were to arise after September, I believe the President
(assuming he is their candidate) would let farm prices rise, and worry
about iflation later.
Pray that these questions do not arise.
CC: Lawrence Klein
Dick Creecy
John a Schooltker
(Poke)
Letelemand
IN HOUSE ENVIRONMENT
May 16. 1976
FOR STEVE STARK FROM JOE BROWDER
Steve, here 1a a draft for the planning editorial. I'll definitely be in
California for about ten days starting May 20, reachable through B. Roller.
-0-
Planning - particularly planning as $ discipline to help give direction to public
spending programs - has been counted on 05 one of the tools required to build the
modern American economy. In recovering from the Great Depression. in defining new
federal responsibilities for production of food and energy and for management of
money and resources, in accelerating federal spending for defense, transportation,
and housing, planning has promised to help make private capital and public policy
work together for greater social and economic equity.
It hasn't worked that way. After investing billions to cerry out federal housing
programs, the federal government 1a the nation's worst sloulord. Although four
fifths of all travel time in America is spent within local communities on short
trips for work, shopping, and recreation, federal transportation planning has given
overwealming emphasis to subsidizing travel between large cities. More billions of
tax dollars have been spent to plan and build flood control dans that drown America's
best farmlands and rivers while encouraging urban development in lowlands sost subject
to continued flooding. American cities need energy and jobs, and America 1x blessed
with an abundance of high quality coal, widely distributed throughout our industrial
regions, but Project Independence planning would divert energy investment and energy
production to Low grade coals in the resote agricultural lands of a few faderally
controlled regions of the West.
Planning has become. to many Americans, # way of rationalizing the irrational.
This doesn't mean that planning should be abandoned, but that we rethink what the
expect from planning and how we want to accomplish it. Planning has not responded
to the real strength of American society, to our diversity and our ability to find
many good solutions to common problems. Instead, planning bas too often COMP to mean
the search for a single best solution. Then, reinforced with the carrot and stick
of federal subsidy and regulation, planning becouse the supposedly objective
explanation of why one solution must become the housing policy, the transportation
policy, the energy policy for all America.
Browder planning 5/16/76
two
Reconciling the need to plan with the need to respect diversity will be easier If
we honestly recognize the abases, conceptual and political, that have turned
planning into an instrument for centralized and inefficient economic and political
management.
First, we should learn to distinguish between planning to prevent the spread of
damage, and planning to encourage the growth of opportunity. The uniformity,
consistency, and certainty required to stifle a wrong are just as suffecating
when applied to a sultitude of rights. A person, R corporation, a city or A
country should be stopped from throwing garbage into the neighbor's back yard.
But planning that leads to R one-and-only way of treating waste turns pollution
control from @ lew enforcement program into a public works porkbarrel project.
Instead of genuinely encouraging the growth of opportunity in the pollution control
industry. federally subsidized sevage treatment programs have frustrated imovation
in pollution control, while reinforcing wasteful development patterns that damage
our economy and our environment.
Why has planning produced 60 many wrong answers? Probably because our natural
suspicion of public authority over private lives has made planting politically
credible only in times of emergency, when people are more willing to temporarily
delegate what they believe to be the mechanisms of managing their lives. But
because emergency planning is predicated on the surrender of economic and political
standards that would be, in a free society, held secred in times of normalcy,
crisis planning is inherently incapable of describing or providing the needs of
a healthy, prosperous, tolerate society.
Our Interstate Highway system was originally promoted as a nacional defense
transportation network. Economic decay in our cities, brought about in large pare
by the success of the highway building program, became a crisis solvable through
the physical destruction that was called Urban Renewal. A sudden national avareness
of our environmental problems produced the single-winded federal sever subsidy progres,
and lared still more development and investment away from our cities. Dur need for
more reliable energy sources has been portrayed as the gravest peacetime threst ever
faced by the United States, a threat that requires, like all the other crises in
transportation, housing, space, defense, and resource management, extemordinary
sacrifices. Who can argue about losing B neighborhood to a national defense highway,
OF complein about a homesteed etrip-mined away for Project Independence?Who can question
the economic sbsurdity of electric utility rates if the industry 1s faced with e
capital crisis, or have more than passing regret for dead miners If the energy crisis
Browder placeing 5/16/76
three
Most Americans can, should, and do question such secrifices. Most people are smarter
than most plassers, or at least than Bost plans, give then credit for. thes DUE
institutions and leaders, public and private. gives us a highway crisis, a missile
crisis. A space crisis, a housing cricis, a Limber crisis, an environmental crisis,
an energy crisis, a capital crisis, and myriad lesser crises, all accompanied by
planned reactions to the emergencies, people begin to doubt both the vision and the
motives of those the perceive the crises and those who plan to solve then. In recent
years, the crisss have bloomed and faded and been replaced so quickly that government
agencies, Congressional Committees, and private consulting and planning firms base
hardly been able to change their organizations' names fast enough to keep up.
There are twenty-three federal agencies, administering one hundred twelve programs
that have a direct or substantial indirect inpact on the way Land is used in the
United States. Mont of these programs will affect the twenty-seven thousand, DSV
households that will be formed in this country each week between now end 1985.
There is little comminication, such less coordination, among these federal programs
Yet suspicion and cyniciem about crisis-oriented planning killed the federal land nao
planning legislation in this Congress. Like it or not, planners should face 40 to
the lack of public trust in the planning process, adult there in good reason for the
lack of confidence, and join an effort to restore both the real and apparent values
of planning.
Such an effort wen't be successful unless plannere, public and private, deal honestly
with the political abusee that have grown out of planning's theoretical confusion.
It is politically painful to set standards that prevent one enterprise or jurisdiction
from damaging other interests. It 18 politically tempting to case the pain by
offering to help finance the enterprises or jurisdictions being regulated. So do
planners, who, after all, work for politicians, help communities solve problems, or
$
help the commiss and agencies stepping forward for their share of the
problem selving money.
The question need not always pess as conflict. If people need housing, pied other
people need jobs building houses, government incentives to housing development can
serve both interests. But while serving the people who need housing will inevitably
benefit homebuilders, the reverse 1s not true. More planners need to be shle to
tell the difference, and more leaders of business and labor need to learn to respect
the value, to themselves and everyone else, of planning that serves communities and
COMMISSION rather than developers not suppliere.
Browder planning 5/16/16
four
Still, the desire to compensare for regulation by offering rewards, coupled with
the crisis atmosphere that surrounds most major federal planning programs, biases
government problem-solving toward a quick-selation approach that is usually
characterized by a heavy emphasis on money and hardware, Canals and days, urban
renewal, Interatate highways, energy parks, and similar visible concenttations of
capital and resources are offered as the best ways to deal with problems that have
many possible solutions,
The alternative approaches are often documed, however, by government sanction or
subsidy of the large-scale standardized pregrams. Friority for the massive projecta
generates special-interest constituencies with such a stake in continuation of
specific systems that ionovations, in housing or energy or transportation or farming,
become a threat to existing investments. Enterprises already getting the 1100's share
of public subsidy pressure planning agencies to discourage reaningful investment in
new programs. and the agencies become authoritarian in defense of established priorities.
Failures in the fevored programs are paid for by applying stronger standards of
efficiency and productivity to those programs that don't have effective political
constiruencies. So energy conservation and more productive ways of making power
independently of the electric utility industry Are ignored by federal planners who
propose enormous subsidies to utility growth. Solar energy receives only token
federal support, while costly nuclear and synthetic Fuel systems promoted by najor
corporations are given top priority by federal planners. Rural America is presently
caught in a similar efficiency squeeze, with the abandoment of hundreds of country
post offices and thousands of miles of branch railroad lines.
How nany of the fiscel problems of New York and other American cities can be traced
to borrowing practices stimulated by the race for perticipation in federally-favored
public works spending programs? How many of those progrems have delivered the &
housing, transportation, and community development promised by the project planneral
If the Bane planning process determines our new national programs for production of
energy and food, will the results be any better?
Bruwiet planning 5/16/76
five
Planners, and planning, are essential If our communities and our country are to
survive in a complicated world. Planning can help 08 be honest about the
consequences of policy. It can help us be equitable in sharing both the benefits
and the adversities sure to case with transitions in energy and respurce price and
supply. It can help 08 understand whether a course of action will truly ready an
economic or social injustice, or will merely favor one of many interests that profit
from public decisions,
Threats to our health and safety, to Constitutional rights, to resources we all
depend IIII, can be met only if the rules of protection are clearly spelled out, and
enforced without favor. But when the line is crossed between preventing an
anti-social act and encooraging positive social and economic action, planning must
become tolerant. The Darrow focus that pinpoints a problem also limits the search
for inswers. Broadening our vision 18 required, not just out of compassion for
interests that are damaged by insensitive planning, but out of respect for the
genuine economic, social, and political values that flourish only in 8 diverse society.
jbb
-
May 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM:
Barry Carter
SUBJECT: Meeting with Steve Stark on Saturday, May 15.
Larry Weiler, Fred Wyle, and I met with Steve Stark
on Saturday, May 15, to discuss nuclear disarmament and other
issues. The meeting started at 5:00 p.m. and lasted a little
over an hour.
After some introductory comments by Stark, both
Larry Weiler and I noted that Jimmy Carter's speech on
nuclear policy issues in New York last Thursday had been
excellent. We saw the excerpts in The New York Times,
and found that the speech not only clearly addressed some
pressing issues, but did so in a thoughtful and innovative
way. Speeches like this would do much to dispel the allegations
that Carter was fuzzy on the issues. Weiler said that one of
his colleagues at Stanford, Sid Drell, had likewise read the
speech and been impressed. (Drell had wanted to attend this
meeting, but had a schedule conflict. He had given some
materials to Weiler which he passed on to Stark.)
We then considered a draft talking paper which I
had prepared after consulting with Weiler. (See attached.)
Stark indicated a special interest in Proposition 15, the
nuclear power initiative (which, if passed, would impose a
delay on nuclear reactor construction). After a brief dis-
cussion of the actual provisions in the proposition (a copy
is attached), the following points were made:
1. There is tremendous public interest in the propo-
sition. While most prognosticators believe the initiative will
lose, polls indicate that the public is about evenly split and
feelings run very high on both sides. The supporters of the
proposition are especially intense. Supporters are found
particularly among white middle-class liberals and moderates
interested in the environment. On the other hand, opposition
is particularly strong among those who favor rapid growth, the
labor unions, and apparently minority groups because of the
belief that the initiative would substantially increase energy
costs and slow development in the state.
2. Interest in the proposition will become even more
intense in the next few weeks because of the large campaign
chests on both sides. As of a few weeks ago, opponents of the
proposition had apparently collected over $1.5 million while
the proponents had about $500,000; even more contributions are
likely.
3. The state legislature is considering three state
bills which would impose a number of safeguards on reactor
development, but which are not as stringent as the proposition.
Although the bills recently encountered some procedural setbacks,
they are apparently not yet dead.
4. Governor Brown is supporting the bills, but has
avoided taking stands on the ballot proposition. He will
probably continue to avoid taking any stand.
5. Jimmy Carter should probably avoid coming out for
or against the proposition since it is such a divisive matter.
His choice really seems to be whether to back the bills in the
legislature or to somehow avoid taking a specific stand on both
the proposition and the bills. In the latter case he should
develop broader positions such as he enunciated in his New
York speech. There was considerable discussion about the
details of a possible Carter position.
6. Stark was encouraged to contact Charles Warren,
the state Assemblyman who has been handling well the hearings
on the legislative bills and who is generally well-regarded
for his work here. Stark might also contact Mason Willrich
at the University of Virginia who has done a long paper on the
legal implications of the initiative, apparently concluding
that it is unconstitutional because of federal preemption.
Everyone agreed with the statement in the draft
talking paper that nonproliferation should be top priority
issue, partly because Proposition 15 has sensitized some
California voters to the dangers of proliferation.
-2-
need to get control of other bureaucracies in Washington,
so too should his Administration seek to run the Pentagon
more effectively. If he does that, he will have more
options in deciding what and how to negotiate in the arms
control area.
II. SALT
-
The U.S. should try to reduce the levels on offensive
missiles which were reached at Vladivostok - i.e., each
country was allowed 2,400 strategic delivery vehicles
(bombers and missiles), of which 1,320 could have MIRV's.
-
Testing of strategic cruise missiles should be delayed.
Getting some limits on these missiles is essential.
III. Nuclear Testing
-
The U.S. and Soviet Union should adopt a five-year ban
on nuclear tests for both weapons and peaceful purposes.
-
The U.S. - Soviet agreement to ban underground nuclear
tests above 150 kilotons is "wholly inadequate."
IV. Nonproliferation
-
This should be a top priority issue. Many countries are
on the verge of going nuclear and the U.S. must act quickly
if anything is to be done. Moreover, except for domestic
nuclear energy questions, this is possibly the nuclear
issue of greatest interest to U.S. voters.
-
A good start is Jimmy Carter's recent proposal for a
voluntary moratorium by all nations on the purchase or
sale of nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing plants.
V. Proposition 15 - The Nuclear Initiative
2.
MORRISON & FOERSTER
ONE POST STREET
nen WEST SIXTH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO 94104
LOS ANGELES 0001-
(213) 026-0800
(413) 088-1310
TELEX 34-0154 CABLE MOFO
May 17, 1976
Mr. Richard Creecy
Carter for President
2000 P Street, N.W.
Room 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Dick,
Three of us met on Saturday afternoon with Steve
Stark and discussed nuclear disarmament and other issues.
Besides Stark, there was Larry Weiler, Fred Wyle, and myself.
Wyle was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International
Security Affairs) from 1965-69, working with Paul Warnke.
Larry Weiler and I invited Fred Wyle to provide, frankly, a
somewhat different perspective than the ones we represent.
Larry had earlier called Herb York but York was
unable to come up from San Diego. I had talked to Harold
Brown's secretary, but he already was scheduled to attend
a Cal Tech alumni function on Saturday; you should probably
be able to reach Brown when he is back East on one of his
many trips there.
Enclosed is my brief report on the meeting. Inci-
dentally, as indicated in the report, Larry and I both thought
that Jimmy Carter's speech in New York last Thursday on nuclear
power and other issues was eloquent, thoughtful, and innovative.
On further reflection, I still cannot think of any
scientist whom I can personally recommend for the nuclear
disarmament group other than ones we have already discussed,
such as Dick Garwin, George Rathjens, Sid Drell, Pete Panofsky,
and Paul Doty. I do, however, have the perfect candidate for
your energy issues group, a group for which you said you
needed some new and imaginative people.
As for SALT, everyone agreed that the numerical
levels agreed to at Vladivostok were too high. Fred Wyle,
who said that he was probably more cynical about the SALT
process than either Weiler or me, suggested that Jimmy Carter
should try to get away from the "numbers game" since reducing
the Vladivostok ceilings by a few hundred was hardly great
progress. He did not, at this point, clarify what the best
alternatives were. He gave Stark a four-page memorandum which
he had quickly prepared that afternoon.
There was further discussion on SALT, but no real
conclusions were reached. Weiler thought that the U.S. could
still try to obtain much more stringent controls on MIRV's.
On the more general subject of U.S.-Soviet relations,
I noted that Elliott Richardson had apparently considered
making a broad defense of detente, looking not only at SALT
but also at its implications for world trade and the Mideast.
For instance, East-West trade has grown rapidly and is now
about 3 to 1 in the U.S.'s favor. Most of what the U.S.
exports is agricultural products and not high technology goods.
At the same time we import mainly industrial raw materials
from the Soviets, materials which we have to import anyway.
These benefits from the U.S.-Soviet relationship are being
forgotten today in the Ford Administration's defensive stance
against Reagan's rhetoric. Weiler thought that one should
emphasize the SALT talks as the centerpiece of detente. I
said that Jimmy Carter might develop the discussion on a
broader scale that also includes trade and the Middle East,
pointing out that detente, though not always working in the
U.S.'s favor, was on balance beneficial. Fred Wyle disagreed.
He thought that, by our sales of agricultrual products to the
Soviets when they faced shortages, we were allowing them to
devote more resources to their military forces, especially
their conventional ones, and to other areas which were contrary
to our interests. Wyle did not make any suggestions on how
we might restructure our relationship with the Soviets.
There was some general discussion about Governor
Brown and other matters, and then the meeting concluded.
-3-
To: Mr. Charles Kirbo
5/17/76
This may be important, at least
maybe someone should pour some
"baby oil".
Ovid R. Davis
HANDWRITTEN LETTER FROM LEWIS M. BRANSCOMB
April 29, 1976
Dear Paul:
I am under the impression that you have been helping
Jimmy Carter, in your personal capacity, and I have been
trying to do the same for several months. On the chance that
you may be plugged in more effectively than I am, I want
to share a serious concern about his campaign organization
on the off-chance you can speak effectively to the right
people.
My concern: notwithstanding Carter's reputation as a
good manager - as Naval Officer and Governor - his campaign
staff seems to be caught up in petty jealousies, in
bureaucratic ineffectiveness and in an inability to
evaluate people that can be very destructive to Carter's
effectiveness as: candidate and as President.
Examples - to convince you - not to be quoted
indiscriminately:
I offered - in December 75 - to lay the groundwork
for a Scientists and Engineers for Carter organization -
nationally. Carter wrote me and said to proceed, working
through Steve Starke in Atlanta. Anne and I had Steve in
our home overnight; I wrote a White Paper on Science Policy
I have heard nothing. Carter's issues staff - now in
Washington - told my wife my help is not needed. Meanwhile
-2-
an individual named Art Purcell has printed letterhead
"Scientists and Engineers for Carter" and is soliciting
members. He has no one on his masthead. I inquired and
discovered some unsavory things about how he operates -
it reminds me of the young Nixon people all over again.
One person of good judgement described him as "dangerous".
I don't know if Carter even knows that Purcell's outfit
exists - but Carter's Washington office certainly does.
Other examples involve poor judgement in people -
for example involving Julius Edelstein of C.U.N.Y. in
New York as an "enemies" advisor. Edelstein is an over-
bearing, over-ambitious and under qualified New York City
politician.
The Carter Washington office hired a man from Westchester
County, apparently without looking into his qualifications.
He was totally ineffective in the primary campaign.
Anne's help - she was organizing top-notch people
across the country to contribute to policy on the major
issues with Jimmy's personal encouragements - he's been
explicitly rejected by the Washington staff. We have
spent perhaps a thousand dollars on phone calls and travel -
not to speak of Anne's lost legal time, and must now tell
our friends across the nation their input will not be
requested by the Carter organization. Anne is an old hand
at this petty jealously in national campaigns (she work
McGovern's headquarters) and can fight her OW
-3-
But it is appalling to learn that Carter's people are working
with such little effectiveness compared to McGovern.
The Branscombs continue to support Carter's campaign.
After conversations with me a number of top corporate
executives have contributed. My daughter worked her heart
out as a. Carter Delegate in the primary. But it is clear
that under present conditions I must withdraw from any
more initiatives to offer active support. Perhaps later
things will sort themselves out.
In the meantime, if you feel that someone mature,
responsible and closer to Carter should see this letter,
you may pass it on as a genuine effort to be helpful.
You know I've served 20 years in government and have no
ambitions or axes to grind.
Yours,
(signed) Lewis
IN HOUSE
Jimmy Carter
Presidential Campaign
For America's third century, why not our best?
May 17, 1976
Dear Task Force Member:
Let me again thank you for offering to serve on Governor Carter's
Transportation Task Force.
By the first week in June we would like to announce the form-
ation of the Task Force and present a statement outlining the
Governor's general views on transportation policy. A draft of such
a statement, which has not been reviewed by Governor Carter, is
enclosed for your analysis and comment.
We will attempt to revise the statement in accord with your
comments. But the goal is not a document which is phrased exactly
as everyone would like, but one which is sufficiently represent-
ative of your individual views to allow the Task Force to move
forward in detail.
Our hope is that the Task Force can meet occasionally to discuss
key issues. We view the Task Force as a vehicle through which the
members, individually and collectively, can present their views
on transportation to the Governor.
Once the committee has been announced, we would hope to follow
with perhaps five or six major position papers on different areas
of transportation policy. We would also expect that you would be
thinking in terms of more specific programs that would be approp-
riate should Mr. Carter be elected.
Some of you are in the process of providing us with specific views
on transportation issues. As they are received, those papers will
be circulated to members of the Task Force.
I would appreciate it if you could provide us with your written
comments on the proposed statement by May 24th.
P.O. Box 1976 Atlanta, Georgia 30301 404/897-7100
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is ovailable for purchose from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
17
Carter Campaign
May 17, 1976
Transportation Task Force
Page 2.
Due to prior commitments, I will be resigning from the campaign
on May 22nd. Orin Kramer, who will be based in Atlanta, will
assume the role of National Task Force Director, effective May 23.
The Washington office will continue to assist in coordinating the
task forces under Mr. Kramer's direction. You should address your
comments to Mr. Kramer at the Carter for President Headquarters,
1795 Peachtree Street, N. W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30301. His tele-
phone is 404-897-7106 (7).
I have very much enjoyed working with you and want to again thank
you for your valuable assistance.
Sincerely,
Drik Creecy
Richard Creecy
National Task Force Director
RC:ras
Enclosure
Dear Assq
Table Force Member:
het me again thank you for offering to serve on
Governor Carters Transportation Task Force,
We would like to announce
By the first week in June we would like to
annoince the formation of the tash force and present
a statement outlining the governor's general views
on transportation not policy. A draft of such a statement,
which has nother been reviewed by governor Carter,
is enclosed for you analysis and comment
We will attempt to revise the abatement in
accord with your comments. But the goal is not a
document which is phrased exactly as everyone would
like, but one which is sufficiently requesentative of
your individual views to allow the Task Free to move
forward in detail,
we hope is that the task force can meet
occasionally to discuss bey issues. we view the task
force as a vehicle through which the members, individually
and allertively, can present their views on transportation
to the governor.
Once the committee has been announced we would
hope to follow with reveral major position papers on
perhaps five or six
differents areas of transportation policy. We would also
expert that you would be flimbing in terms of more
specific programs that would be appropriate should
Mr. Carter be elected.
Some of you are in the process of providing they us with
specific in on transportation issues, As these are
received, those pupers will be circulated to members
of the Tash fore.
& would appreciate it if you could
provide us with your written comments on the
proposed statements by May 24th.
Due to prior commitments, d will be
this office your why 22nd resigning from the compaign
on May 22nd. Orin Knamer, who will be based in
Atlanta, will assume the role of National Task
Force Director, effective May 23, your The Washington
office will continue to assist in coordinating
the fash forces under Mr. Knamer's direction. you
should address you comments to Wh. Knamer #
Care of the Jimmy Carter Campaiger, Posh Office
Box 1976, Atlanba, georger at the Carter
for President Headquarters, 1795 Peachtree Street
N.W., 404-897-7106(7). Atlanta, georgia 30301, this telephone is
Then have very much enjoyed working
with you and want to again thank you for your
valuable assistance
Sincerely,
Richard Dale Creezy
National Tash force Director
IN HOUSE AGR.
May 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR STEVE STARK
Milk Price Supports
I oversimplified a bit yesterday when I called you about the
current quarterly review of milk supports--in saying that Secretary
Butz must consider whether or not to raise the support level from
$8.13 per 100#, by the % increase in farmer costs the past 3 months,
and that if Governor Carter is asked about this, the answer is "yes".
It is more complicated.
This review is broader: the Secretary may at any time, raise
the support level to a higher % of parity.
In this case, public views have been solicited by June 1, re-
garding milk support level after July 1. Governor Carter could:
1. Urge an increase to 80 percent of July 1 parity, to offset
cost increases; but that would be only 1-2%, or from
$8.13 to perhaps $8.30. That will not do after talk of
85 and even 90% of parity in Wisconsin.
2. Urge the Secretary to use this opportunity to raise the
support level to 85% of parity-which was, as I recall,
your firm position in Wisconsin. Milk supports would
rise July 1 from $8.13 to around $8.80 per 100#.
3. Urge 90% now! This carries a risk on the consumer side
that you would have to weigh.
In California, everything is different, including milk.
California has its own marketing order program for drinking milk,
and produces almost no surplus milk for the support program, so
the above is not very relevant there.
I have a man working on California farm labor questions, and
hope to have a memo soon.
Jas
TO: Hamilton Jordan
RE: The Rhode Island situation
FROM: George Hand
5/19/76
The Brown victory in Maryland has changed the look of
the Rhode Island campaign. At this writing, Senator Church
backed by Senator Pell is probably still Governor Carter's
most serious competition for delegates. Pell has mobilized
senior citizens groups, and senior citizens traditionally
provide upwards of 80% of the voters in Rhode Island primary
campaigns. Efforts must be made to co-opt as much as possible
of this support (media spots aimed at the elderly are needed).
Psychologically speaking, however, Brown is now the big threat
threat. His public reception in Rhode Island was as enthusiastic
as in Maryland. As in Maryland, his campaign is hampered by
his lack ofadelegate slate. He is aiming for the uncommitted
slate, much of which favors Carter (or at least did before
Tuesday night). Opinion is divided here as to how much actual
time and money Brown is investing in the state. But any figures
pale into insignificance viewed against his warm reception
here and his victory in Maryland.
Only one thing is clear: Rhode Island must now be taken more
seriously than before. The number of delegates at stake is not
impressively large (a maximum of 18 elected generally with four
additional elected by the delegates). But Rhode Island is, in
the final analysis, a "northern industrial state" and also a New
England state, and Carter has fared poorly in the latter
category. Psychologically, a victory there represents "momentum."
Of the three primaries that, DAY Governor Carter will probably do
best there.
Rhode Island Carter workers are t roubled by the fact that
they "do not have a handle" on the city of Providence proper.
Carter support appears weak there, but no one knows for sure.
The local Democratic party apparatus is split and incapable of
providing effective leadership and support (probably a blessing
im disguise). There are similarities to Philadelphia: the
Governor's campaign has been doing well in the state generally
but outside help will be required on both the strategic and the
tactical levels in order to crack the state's most important
city. Strategically, more enthusiastic union support and/or the
endorsement of a major elected official (such as Senator
Pastore) are required. Tactically, an infusion of additional,
experienced campaign workers will be needed.
Rhode Island is a labor state (both industrial and teachers),
"conservative" on "social" issues and "liberal" on economic
issues. Labor is lukewarm toward Carter, at least in part
-2-
because it views him as fuzzy on the issues. The Governor's
economic policy positions are virtually unknown here (even
among Carter people), and media spots are needed to correct
the situation (up-dated issue flyers are also needed). Labor
would be friendlier if it knew where he stands, particularly
on such matters as unemployment, energy (especially his
position on divestiture in the pil industry), and social
services.
Over and above the standard economic and social issues thatt
affect the state in standard ways, there is an issue of special
significance to Rhode Island that presents the Governor with
a unique opportunity, and that is the Navy issue. Proper
exploitation of this issue could serve the Governor well
nationally as well as locally.
Locally, the former naval presence still looms large
both materially and psychologically. Many of the issues of
concern in the state are reflected in this area and can be
dealt with tangentially without the Governor leaving an
impression of vagueness and lack of committment.
Nationally, the Governor appears too have been thus far
reluctant to exploit to theefullest, Navy background. Rhode Island
could provide the occasion to do SO.
The Nixon administration pullout of the Navy in 1973
directly terminated some 20,000 civilian jobs. Subsequently the
state has been hampered in its efforts to redevelop the
facility by federal red-tape and the government's insistance
on retaining the use of an air-strip here, a docking facility
there, and so on. Governor Carter could win many friends doing
nothing more than promising the state a clear go-ahead to
develop the property as it sees fit. The possibility of additional
federal encouragement would be welcome.
President Kennedy suggested back im 1963 that Melville
Station would make an ideal nuclear submarine refitting base.
The Groton area is over-crowded and is not as good a natural
facility as Melville. The idea is still attractive to the state.
Electric Boat, with operations at Quanset Point and Groton,
Connecticut, is the state's largest single employer, with 2500
and 3500 employees respectively (many at the latter are Rhode
Island residents). An early morning handshaking visit to Electric
Boat followed by a luncheon address to, say, the Metal Trades
Council, would give the campaign a significant boost. If possible,
a joint appearance of the Governor with senior naval and
congessional people concerned with the nuclear submarine program
would assist his candidacy still more.
Many retired naval personnel and their families reside in
the state and, of course, face problems similar to those of
senior citizens elsewhere.
-3-
The potentially disastrous effects of the Navy pullout
on local school systems has been temporarily and partially
offset by the Pell amendment on impacted areas funding. A
word of support in favor of the federal committment to
education implicit in the Pell amendment would have a more
specific resonance in this context without in fact being specific.
Of the major issues facing the state -- energy, unemployment,
the elderly, and education -- only the energy problem fails to
emerge from a discussion of the Navy situation. And even this
base might be touched by association with a projected image
of "Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer and candidate best qualified
to make the hard decisions necessary to solve the energy problem." "
Two local political personalities bear mention in closing.
Speaker of the Rhode Island House, John Skiffington, has
recently declared publically for Carter. He is a leader of the
uncommitteds and has already been unsuccessfully approached by
Brown. A courtesy call is in order if one has not yet been
made (401-762-2873).
There is unanimous agreement that the Governor should be
prepared to deal with questions regarding Governor Noel's
recent remarks om racial questions, and that Governor Carter has
to be diplomatic in the extreme. Many of those offended by
Noel's remarks would also be offended by too pointed criticism
from an "outsider."
For further details, I can be reached during the day at
617-362-2131, X286 or X345, and during the evening at
617-261-5396.
may 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM
ScheDuLeIII
TO: Richard Weinstein
Director, National Citizens for Carter
FROM: Joyce Starr
Special Advisor
RE: Jewish-audience radio and television programming: Ohio and New Jersey
OHIO
The only Jewish-audience media programming which could be of service to
the Carter campaign originates in the Cleveland area. There are no
programs at all specifically aimed at Jewish audiences in Columbus, while
Cincinatti does have both a radio and television show, but these are
strictly public service/religious focus and could not accomodate discussion
of political issues. (WGUC-FM, University of Cincinatti, Rabbi Albert
Goldberg-MC; "Dialogue," an interfaith Sunday morning television show
with a regular panel of clergyman)
In Cleveland:
The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland puts on several radio talk
shows per week. I spoke with Ted Farber, Director of Public Relations
for the Federation. He thought it would probably be impossible to
incorporate political programming, given the public service status of
their programs. However, he will check further. Farber lead me to
Phil Neuman, WXEN-FM, who has a two hour talk show called "The Jewish
PfBgram" which airs every Monday through Friday 9am - 11am. Neuman told
me he was trying to get in touch with the various candidates to offer
program time. He had not yet made contact with the Carter office.
Jackson was scheduled to appear on the program, but cancelled out for
obvious reasons. WXEN is strictly aN ethnic station, with the Jewish
audience one of the largest groups represented in their listenership.
The Neuman program reaches approximately 900,000 listeners. I suggest
this would be an rexcellent vehicle for reaching Jewish voters, probably
the best in the largest area of concentration. (Both Neuman and Farber
recommended putting resources into the Cleveland Jewish News which reaches
approximately 20 - 25,000 families.) One advantage with the Neuman program
is that Carter could probably dominate the schedule. The week of May 31st
is already heavily programmed, but Neuman would be willing to make some
changes if he hears from us by the beginning of next week. The cost is
$200 per hour. The format is call-in; one hour of the Governor's time
could be used very effectively in making his views known to large numbers
of Ohio voters. We could alee plug in representatives of the Governor.
I recommend purchasing two hours of time, perhaps one on Memorial Day
when the workers are home and a second later in the week.
TALKED to Neumar again pm - he would we are N
buy in the television Also suggess starions we buy of A show put m WABQ, the The
Pare BLACK and reserved sunday, June 6 anytime
cares STATION on. u creveland - could TAPe a Th phon
betweed day 2pm and 6:00 pm $125 per 1/2 hr. same (Botharl but iding) in the
NEW JERSEY
The Joseph Jacobs Organization is the group. in New York City that handles
the bulk of Jewish media advertising. Jacobs represents most of the
country's Jewish newspapers, (approximately 80%). They also produce two
radio programs on WEVD in New York aimed specifically at Jewish audiences.
These programs also reach about 25% of the New Jersey listenership. I
spoke with Bruce Baff, Director of Sales for Jacobs. He sent me a
package of information of their newspaper distribution and rates (attached).
Radio rates are as follows:
1 - 12 5-minute spots $80.00
1 - 12 10-minute spots $77.50
1 - 12 15-minute spots $125.00
I have more information on the rates if we need it.
WEVD hits Northern New Jersey. South New Jersey doesn't have any ethnic
radio stations. However, Neuman from Cleveland used to work at WOND in
the Atlantic City area. WOND is the #1 station in the market. Neuman
suggest we be in touch with Paul Wilcox at the station who can help us
get some good spot time. (He will do the same for us with his station
in Cleveland -- he likes Carter.)
area
The only other programming which reaches into New Jersey comes from New York,
primarily the Board of Rabbis. I talked with the Public Relations
woman at the United NOT Jewish Appeal and she says these
programs could accept political spots or discussion of issues without
jeopardizing their fund-raising status.
Two small programs in New Jersey that I have not yet checked out -
Vineland WWBZ-AM
Voice of Israel
Sunday, 10:00 am
Princeton WPRB-FM
Sha'at Shalom
Hillel Society
Sunday, 5:00 pm
SCHNITTKER ASSOCIATES
1339 WISCONSIN AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
(202) 333-7650 TELEX: 440361 CABLE: SCHNITCON
Ateve Atarh
I want to stop
in attanta one day
Apon - - $ see who
I've been tolking with
for the past year
John Schwttt
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR STEVE STARK
The following provides background information on the farm
labor law and situation in California, and further background on
the 40-year exclusion of agricultural workers from the National
Labor Relations Act.
1. There is a rather incredible farm labor situation
in California now. In the spring of 1975, Governor
Brown took an extraordinary initiative to obtain
a new California Farm Labor Act which he signed in
June 1975. The Board was appointed, funds were
allocated and it began to function in September last
year. During the following five months the Board
conducted over 400 elections, more than the National
Labor Relations Board did in its first two years.
The original budget of $1.3 million was depleted much
sooner than expected because of this activity. With-
out funds, the Board folded in February 1976; its
staff is gone and only two members of the five per-
son Board remain. When the Board ceased to func-
tion, more than half of the labor election outcomes
were uncertified, and there was a mountain of un-
fair labor practices and other charges pending.
2. The failure to get further funding was both tech-
nical and political, but mostly political. An
emergency appropriation of the type required must
have a two-thirds majority in the California
legislature and this failed because rural Democrats
who had supported enactment of the law in the spring
of 1975 wanted some minor amendment as a condition
of their support of the further appropriation. They
opposed the appropriations because early operations
of the Act brought a lot of suprises and therefore
new opposition from Democrats. Petitions for elec-
tions have been more numerous than expected; they
covered areas where farm employers were not expect-
ing unionization; most elections went in favor of
unionization. Thus legislators heard from farm
constituents who had been neutral or asleep when
the law was originally enacted.
3. By April this year, the United Farm Workers, which
has been the major supporting interest in getting
funds for the Board, abandoned Sacramento in favor of
- 2 -
a direct initiative on the ballot in November. This
initiative would reenact the prior legislation with
some pro-union embellishments, and would provide fund-
ing. Meanwhile there is no Act and no board to cer-
tify some of the past elections. So there is no
new collective bargaining, no renewal of contracts,
and no further unionization.
4. Governor Brown's role in the failure to get funding
is a puzzle. It was he who got the legislation
through and he claims it as one of his greatest
accomplishments. It is basically good legislation
and he deserves credit. But once it was achieved,
why did he abandon it? Even before he took up run-
ning for President, his efforts to obtain funding
from the legislature were half-hearted. This failure
of follow-through on the part of the Governor could
be a major point of reference in Governor Carter's
campaign in California, because it certainly appears
that Brown's style is to begin things and then lose
interest in them.
5. It is probably important to keep in mind that des-
pite the impasse over the California Farm Labor Law,
the United Farm Workers remained with him, as I
understand their position, and is at the moment pro-
viding assistance in the Oregon primary. Thus
Governor Carter may need to appeal to the other con-
stituency. If he does do so on this issue, he should
do it without opposing the right of farm workers to
organize and the need to have farm workers covered
under protective labor measures nationally.
BACKGROUND ON THE HIRED FARM LABOR FORCE
Hired farm workers are most widely used in California, Arizona,
Texas, and Florida, but are used seasonally everywhere. Their sit-
uation continues to be one of poverty. Their average income in 1974
from farm work was $1,447; their average employment was 87 days and
their average earning per day was $16.60. The number of migratory
workers has declined somewhat in recent years; they are now 8% of
total hired farm workers. Their annual earning in 1974 was only
$1,688.
These averages are pulled down by the seasonal and casual em-
ployment of large numbers of students, housewives and others who
are not full time in the labor force. But the employment and earn-
ings record of men whose principal job is on farms, and are in
their occupational prime is still substandard. Males in the age cate-
35-54 are about 1/8 of the hired farm labor force. One fifth of the
males in this age category were extremely casual-they worked less
than 25 days at farm work, and at the other extreme, only one-third
worked 250 days or more. Males in the age category 25-34 have the
highest earnings per year, $5,203. Thereafter, earnings decline
with age, ending with $1,614 for those 65 and over. Farm wagework
may be temporarily not too bad for schoolboys and muscülar young men
but it is aggravated grief for the aged.
The lot of the hired farm worker is not improving with the
technological revolution in agriculture. Despite the fact that farms
are becoming much larger, farm operators and family members do more
than half of the nation's farm work-as a national average. Industri-
alized farming areas as in California are exceptions. But the number
of regular and year round workers and the proportion of the nation's
farm work they do continues to decline.
Wage Rates
During the past 20 years wage rates per hour of farm labor have
more than doubled but they still are only about half of the wages paid
in industry. The 1975 average farm wage was $2.45 while the national
average nonagricultural production wage was $4.54. The lowest farm
wage, $2.08, was in the East South Central Region (Standard Fed. VI).
The minumum wage law for agricultural labor was discriminatory--its
level was low and its exclusions were extensive; in consequence, it
has had no practical effect whatever in most states and very little
in the low-wage states.
Unemployment Insurance
As was characteristic of New Deal legislation, farm workers
were excluded in NLRB. Several efforts at the national level have
not produced normal coverage. The 1970 legislative effort passed in
the Senate, failed in the House and ended up with another study of
the situation. A few states, notably Minnesota and California,
have enacted mandatory coverage of farm labor. National action is
needed.
- 2 -
Collective Bargaining
The "temporary" exclusion laid upon farm laborers when the
National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935 has now passed its
40th anniversary. Nothing presently happening in Washington offers
any assurance of realizing Rep. Connery' 1935 hope: "If we can get
this bill through and get it working properly, there will be the
opportunity later, and I hope soon, to take care of the agricultural
laborers " Some states, notably Hawaii and California have en-
acted farm labor relations laws. But that of Hawaii is limited in
coverage and that of California lies administratively prostrate for
lack of operating funds and the lack of appointees to its Board. The
general picture that prevails then is that, as a class, farm laborers
are not only denied the benefits of most social programs but they
also are denied rights of protection to try to do anything for
themselves through collective bargaining. This should be remedied.
MEMO TO: Robert Lipshutz & Stuart Eizenstade
FROM: Dick Weinstein
DATE: May 26, 1976
RE: Actions taken since Wed. May 19, 1976 meeting in Washington, D.C. with
Weinstein, Eizenstadt, Toibb, Pollard, Starr (the latter 3 being special assist-
ants on the questions discussed). Assignments attached.
1. Ads were placed in all of the Anglo Jewish papers in New Jersey and Ohio
with the modifications from the Maryland ad recommended by Eizenstadt.
Copy of the Maryland ad annexed hereto as Schedule I.
2. Contacts were established by Toibb, Starr and Weinstein with various individuals
capable of working within the Jewish community between now and primary date.
List of contacts, telephone numbers and person contacted annexed hereto as
Schedule II.
3. Joyce Starr pursued her assignments and has submitted a report, copy
annexed hereto as Schedule III.
4. Allan Pollard pursued his assignments, submitted a draft of a proposed talk
and demographic data which includes list of delegates and alternates to the 1972
convention with proper Jewish names from Ohio and New Jersey; population
statistics relating to Jewish population in the U.S.; a list of all Jewish organizations
religious and secular. One copy only annexed to Lipshutz report, as Schedule IV.
5. RSW met with ADL in New York including top volunteers and professional
leadership to discuss their willingness to clarify New York Magazine piece.
Subject of Agnew response came from those meetings. (RSW long involved in
ADL activities at State and Regional levels in Conn. etc.) Furt er contact
if required should be made through Benjamin Epstein, National Director
who was most helpful.
RSW met with Rabbi Alexander Schindler, Chairman of the Conference of
National Jewish Organizations and Chief Executive of the Reform Rabbis in
America. Schindler is a close friend of RSW's partner and known personally
to him for some years. Schindler agreed to send immediately through his
office at the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, to all Reform Rabbis
in America who are associated with him, a memorandum which I am certain
will be helpful on the general subject of religion in the campaign.
RSW contacted David Haaken, Regional Director for Ohio of the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations. Haaken is a friend and agreed to write a personal letter
on personal stationery to all Reform Rabbis in Ohio and in New Jersey to the
extent that he knows them (N.J. is not part of his district).
Page 2
May 26, 1976
RSW contacted Rabbi Burkin of Connecticut a conservative Rabbi active
in conservative Rabbinical leadership (brother-in-law\of one of RSW's
associates). Burkin is communicating by telephone with all of the
conservative Rabbis known to him in New Jersey and Ohio at this time.
He is willing to give further assistance if requested. Purpose of the
telephone call is to inform and allay concerns.
Some suggestions:
1. Rabbi to Rabbi contact by telephone from Rabbinical leaders in Georgia
who know Governor Carter might be helpful.
2. See to the ciruclation of the New York Post article on Jimmy's cousin.
3. Seek as many speaking engagements for informed Jewish leaders who
are associated with the campaign in Ohio and New Jersey in order to disspell
some of the concerns -- e. g. Governot Licht, Congressman Levitas.
4. Proceed forthwith with the establishment of store front and state
organizations in Ohio and New Jersey.
Women
Jimmy Carter Presidential Campaign
(1) and for See.
MEMORANDUM
+Bull
TO:
Reviewers
(2) Nomenture aboutun or
FROM:
Mary King dhay
family planning
SUBJECT: Women Speech
DATE:
May 26, 1976
Enclosed is a very rough first draft of the women
speech. It still requires a great deal of work ----
addition and subtraction as well as rewriting. It is
being sent to you now for policy consent review.
Please call me collect at (202) 234-0660 or Mary
Anderson at (202) 296-2730 with your comments as soon
as possible.
Announcements of The Committee of 51.3 Percent are
planned for the same day as the speech. We still do
not have firm arrangements on the scheduling because
of the need to maintain as much flexibility as possible.
This draft needs to be treated confidentially.
2000 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.
17
DRAFT
More than eighty years ago in his book of enduring fame,
"The American Commonwealth", James Bryce wrote:
"It has been well said that the position which
women hold in a country is, if not a complete
test, yet one of the best tests of the progress
it has made in civilization."
Comparing different societies, he concluded that in
every case civilization's advance had been accompanied by
greater freedom accorded women and "by a fuller participation
on their part in the best work of the world".
Bryce believed American women, at that time, were the
most advantaged in the world and enjoyed the greatest measure
of equality. He attributed this to our democratic concept that
all men are free and equal and possessed certain inalienable
rights and which, he asserted, we held "with the pride of
discoverers" and "the fervor of apostles". "This root idea
of democracy cannot stop", he said, "at defining men as male
human beings any more than it could stop at defining them as
white human beings".
In the many decades since Bryce wrote these words, the
position of women in our country has improved immensely. But
a democratic society should be measured not so much by the
-2-
DRAFT
progress it has made as by the distance it still has to go
to achieve the progress of which it is capable. In these
terms we are challenged as a nation quickly to remove the
barriers which still impede the full contribution of women
and deny them the equality to which all our people are
entitled. The promise of democracy will not be fulfilled
until we can truly say "all men are created free and equal",
and mean by "men" - "all men - all women - all mankind".
I want to talk today about some of the most urgent goals
for the progress of women in the United States which we should
set for ourselves and of the plans for action which I would
carry out as President to speed their achievement.
/ Employment
One of the most significant social changes of our times
has been the very rapid entry of women into the nation's
labor force. Over the past twenty-five years the number of
women workers has more than doubled. Today, the thirty-eight
million women in the labor force represent more than two out
of every five wage and salary earners. Over 55 percent of our
women between the ages of 16 and 65 are gainfully employed.
Their contribution to the economy and to the living standards
of their families has become basic to the American way of life.
Women work for the same reasons men do. They have brains
and hands to use and find fulfillment in realizing their
DRAFT
-3-
potentials. Like most men, most women work primarily because
of economic need. Seven out of ten gainfully employed women
are single, widowed, separated or divorced, or have husbands
who earn less than $10,000 a year.
Yet the hard fact is that we have relegated to women
the least skilled, the least rewarded and the least rewarding
work to be done. Over three quarters of all women are in
jobs which, for the most part, are labelled "women's work"
such as clerical, sales, and service occupations, teachers
other than in colleges and universities, registered nurses,
and operatives such as sewers, ironers, laundry and dry
cleaning workers, most of whom are relatively poorly paid.
In consequence of their concentration at the bottom of the
job ladder, women who work year round and full time have
median earnings only 57 percent those of men similarly
situated. And despite the fact that discrimination in
employment on the basis of sex was prohibited by Federal law
more than ten years ago, the earnings gap, which is a measure
of where women are in the occupational structure, has been
widening in recent years.
The fact that unemployemnt hits women a much harder
blow than men is of serious concern to them and their families.
DRAFT
-4-
Last year the unemployment rate for women was 9.3
percent compared to 7.9 percent for men. Women's excessive
unemployment has not been just a product of the recession;
unemployment among women has averaged 28 percent higher than
among men over the past twenty years, and has averaged 35
percent higher during the past seven Republican Administration
years. Discriminatory practices always accelerate in recessions.
Women are the last hired and the first fired. Many who need
and want full time work are put on part time. Mobility up
the job ladder slows down.
Unemployment among women is closely linked with the
problem of poverty. In about half of all families in poverty
are headed by women and the number of such families is higher
today than it was in 1959.
Nothing would do more to improve employment opportunities
for women than an expanding economy which would assure jobs
for all women and all men who wish to work. I am committed
to the policies and in the Full Employment
goal offull and the implementation of that goal goal
and Balanced Economic Growth Bill introduced by Senator Humphrey
and Congressman Hawkins, and which would, if enacted, enable
us to use our human and material resources wisely and well.
-5-
DRAFT
There is no higher priority on our domestic agenda than
to bring unemployment down as rapidly as possible to the
low rates we are entirely capable of sustaining over long
periods of time. Let us not forget that under the Truman
Administration unemployment was brought down to less than
three percent and I regard this as an entirely feasible
goal, achievable within three or four years. And this
accomplishment, which I intend to duplicate, was not
accompanied by inflation. As unemployment decreased during
the Truman years, consumer price rises diminished and during
the year joblessness was at its lowest, consumer prices
actually rose less than one percent.
In the Kennedy-Johnson years, as in the Truman Administration,
when sound, people-oriented economic policies governed our
domestic affairs, our annual rate of economic growth was high.
It averaged nearly 5 percent a year. Sound economic growth
mean jobs. Unemployment was drawn down in each succeeding
year and without inflation. And during these years, from 1961
to 1969, jobs for women opened up at almost twice the rate
as in the preceding eight years of the Eisenhower Administration.
Sound economic growth means higher incomes for our families.
-6-
DRAFT
It means progress in the war against poverty. During the
brief period, 1961 to 1969, poverty was cut by more than
40 percent.
What we did to achieve economic advances in the Truman,
Kennedy, and Johnson years we can do again and will do again
under my leadership. Our nation simply cannot afford to
continue the disasterous economic policies of Presidents
Nixon and Ford. During the last seven years, economic growth
has been dismally low, averaging only 1.6 percent a year.
This is what had produced the highest unemployment since the
Great Depression and the steepest rate of inflation since
the Civil War. Low rates of economic growth mean not only
unemployment and inflation, they mean lower living standards
for our people. Last year, the average weekly wage of
production workers with three dependents was less than it had
been ten years earlier, measured in dollars of constant
purchasing power. And the number of people suffering the
acute hardships of poverty was actually higher than when
Nixon took office. Women, whether they are employed or full
time homemakers bear the brunt of family income decline.
DRAFT
-7-
Too much on not puper
economic
I believe in the great American economic potential and
I am committed to its realization. The healthy rate of
economic growth I am determined to achieve will not only
spell an end to the high rates of unemployment and inflation
from which we are still suffering; it will bring about the
higher incomes for our families to which we all so rightfully
aspire. And when family incomes rise, our Federal, state
and local governments enjoy the higher revenues we need so
urgently to meet our human needs.
Under my leadership I am confident we can reduce dult
by
unemployment to 3 percent 1981, as mandated by the Humphrey/
Hawkins Bill. The economic growth rates that would make this
possible would, I estimate, assure us of Federal government
receipts of about $150 billion, higher than they would be
were the Nixon-Ford economic policies to be continued.
Increased Federal revenues of this magnitude would make it
possible for us to meet our human needs which have been sorely
neglected over the past several years. A small part of the additional
revenue would help finance the national health insurance program
to which I am strongly pledged. With a very small share, we
would be able to expand and improve child day care services - a
responsibility we have been shamefully disregarding in recent
years. Our welfare and social security programs could be
considerably improved; housing and community development
could be speeded; additional revenue would help expand our
DRAFT
-8-
outlays for education and go far toward clearing our polluted
land, air and waters. The increased government revenue
within our power to achieve in the four years ahead, would
enable us to achieve all this and more; and it would make
it possible for us to balance the national budget.
What a contrast this would be with the past seven years
when funds allocated by the Congress to meet human needs have
been impounded by the Nixon-Ford Administrations on a vast
scale; when social and health services have been callously
short-changed; when budget deficits have soared to staggering
levels.
I want to talk in more detail about some of the major
goals we must achieve when are of particular concern to the
women of our country and which will be achievable in an
economy vigorously on the move again.
First, with respect to women's employment opportunities,
nothing would do more to open up more jobs to women that the
full employment policies which I intend to follow. But more
than job opportunities are essential if women are to share
equitably in occupational and income advance. We must wipe
out discriminatory employment practices.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964,
prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex as well as
race, color, religion and national origin. The Equal
-9-
DRAFT
Employment Opportunity Commission which has the responsi-
bility for enforcing fair hiring practices in the private
employment sectors must be completely overhauled. It is
now under numerous investigations by Committees of the
Congress and the Justice Department, following the dis-
closure of audits that contain charges of mismanagement,
irregularities and alleged criminal misconduct in the
Agency's field offices.
It has been reported that the Agency has fallen so far
behind in processing complaints of discrimination that a
backlog of more than 130,000 cases has piled up, with the
average complaint pending for more than two years. The
EEOC's Chairman, who refused to act on the audits, has
recently resigned.
An intensive review would immediately be instituted
after I take office, not only of present practices under
Title VII, but also under the Executive Orders directed
toward the elimination of employment discrimination in the
Federal Civil Service and on the part of contractors with
the Federal Government.
I am aware that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has
recommended the consolidation of all Federal equal employment
enforcement agencies in a new agency to be called the National
Employment Rights Board, which would be given litigation and
administrative authority and would enforce, as a new consoli-
dated
agency, one law banning job discrimination in the
private sector on the basis of sex, color, religion, age and
DRAFT
-10-
handicaps. I am completely in accord that coordination is
essential. All agencies concerned with discrimination must
speak with one voice. Whether this could best be accomplished
through a consolidated agency is a matter which will need
to be studied in more depth. I am pledged to the reorgani-
zation of the Federal Government and it may well be that a
"super" agency of the type the Civil Rights Commission has
recommended would fit right in with my plans for consolida-
tion of the federal government.
We must speed its elimination with all the power at
our command, not only in the private sector but in government
service as well. I am particularly concerned with the lack
of progress women have made in Federal employment in recent
years. The first women to serve as a Cabinet member was
appointed 43 years ago. Why have there been only two women
in similar posts in subsequent years?
Women will serve at the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet level
in my Administration and I shall not make token appointments.
I will name women to Ambassadorial and other appointive
posts in substantially increased numbers. There is an army
of highly competent women, eager to serve in every field
of human endeavor, on which I intend to draw.
I am shocked disturbed that there are SO few women at the higher
levels of the Federal Civil Service. The latest figures
available show that women were only 2 percent of the nearly
10,000 employees in the three highest Civil Service employment
grades. Within three months after taking office I pledge to
DRAFT
-11-
better the excellent record of President Johnson who, in
January 1964, stated and carried out his intention to
appoint, within 30 days, upwards of 50 women to high level
Federal positions.
At a dinner on March 4, that year, while honoring
the late Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, President Johnson said,
"This great lady would have understood that our determination
to enlist women in this administration is no sporadic,
election year objective. It will be a continuing aim, not
because it is politic, but because it is sound."
That aim is sounder than ever before and I intend to
pursue it.
2. Child Care
The child day care issue is another matter of great
concern to women about which I wish to speak in fuller detail.
I have mentioned how rapid has been the overall increase in
the employment of women. Few people seem to realize that no
group of women has more actively sought jobs than the mothers
of young children. They, especially, need the money. They
have moved into the labor force, during the past fifteen
years at a rate four and a half times more rapidly than women
in general.
Today, more than 6-1/2 million children under the age
of six have working mothers. "Who will take care of the
children when mother works?" is a very difficult question
-12-
DRAFT
for the average family to answer, these days. There are
very few households which include a female relative avail-
able to care for the children when the mother must be on the
job. The full time household worker is rapidly disappearing
from the scene, and relatively many few families can afford the
sucha
minimum wage she now must be paid. Good day care, of the
plason in any event
quality working parents want for their children, is beyond
the means of a large percentage of families and, even if
within their means, is hard to come by. Licensed or approved
family day care homes and centers have a combined capacity
to provide care for only about a million children, including
those of preschool age and those of school age who need after-
school supervision. Public subsidies of day care to bring
services within the reach of those unable to purchase them
or able to pay only part of the cost, have been extremely
limited. While an excellent bill to augment such funds was
passed by very substantial margins by the Senate and the House
of Representatives nearly five years ago, it was vetoed with
heartless
a cruel message by President Nixon who denied the existence
of need. And the continuing threat of a Presidential veto
has thwarted subsequent legislative action. The inadequacy
of Federal funding has had sad consequences for literally
millions of little children and their families.
Because it is so clearly in the public interest that
no child be neglected, I favor Federal appropriations to
expand and improve child day care services. Care should be
DRAFT
-13-
available without cost for children with employed mothers
in low income families. For those families with incomes
between low and moderate levels, and able to meet part of
the costs, subsidized fees should be scaled to the ability
to pay. I will, when if elected, recommend legislation to
implement my policy.
Putin
Another important adjustment needed to alleviate
employment
inequities in the job market and which I strongly encourage
section
is the availability of part time jobs and flexible work
schedules. I would support legislation which would increase
mention
such opportunities not only for housewives but others as
proposal in
commic paper
well, especially the elderly and the handicapped. It is
for mentined
important that the Federal Government itself, serve as a
pace setter and example to private employers in this area.
I have, on occasion, been asked by women whether I
strengthen
would sign the "Displaced Homemakers Act into law if it
language
were passed by the Congress. My answer is "yes." I am
firmly committed to equal opportunities for women and men
in all aspects of life. The "Displaced Homemakers Act"
would help end discrimination against a segment of our
national work force that makes valuable contributions to
the welfare and economic stability of the nation. I have
great concern for the women who chooses to stay home and
devote full time to caring for their families. They are
among the most vulnerable members of our society. With
divorce rates on the rise and frequent early widowhood,
DRAP
-14-
many homemakers without marketable skills are compelled to
go it on their own, and have a difficult time. Legal pro-
tection for them is almost nonexistent. This bill would
establish nationwide model program centers to provide
legal counselling and services for individuals who have
worked in the home for a substantial number of years and
are having difficulty in finding employment. Therefore,
I see the passage of the "Displaced Homemakers Act" as
valuable in helping to meet two of our national goals:
our priority to provide jobs for every American who wants
work and our national effort to end discrimination against
women.
Soul Security
Another highly important change necessary to eliminate
Wipe ant descrion
discrimination against women, and which I will strongly
mall govitaid recommend, is the amendment of the Social Security system
programs
to assure equitability of benefits to women and men.
When the Social Security system was adopted more than
40 years ago, only 14 percent of married women worked. Today
the majority of them are job holders and are no longer totally
dependent, economically, on their husbands.
The women in my family have almost always worked.
My mother was a registered nurse, and at the age of 68 joined
the Peace Corps. My mother-in-law was a seamstress and post-
mistress of our town. My wife has been the manager of our
family business. I am very much aware of the inequities of
-15-
the Social Security system, both in the high percentage
of a woman's income paid into the system, and the unequal
benefits received.
The payroll tax that finances Social Security takes
a larger slice out of the paycheck of the low-income worker
in relation to his or her ability to pay. Anyone earning
over $50 a quarter pays 5.85 percent to Social Security.
Since women are clustered at the lower wage levels, and
since women's earnings average so very much less than men's,
this has an adverse effect on women.
Another consequence of the disproportionate concentra-
tion of women in low paid and part time jobs, and of the
interruption of their employment by household responsibilities,
is that their Social Security benefits are much lower than
men's. The average monthly Social Security payment received
by retired women workers at the end of last year was $
in contrast with $
received by men. And
percent of
the women beneficiaries, as compared to
percent of the men,
received less than $130 a month--the minimum amount to which
an eligible person, without Social Security, is now entitled
under the Federal Welfare program.
These marked discrepancies are not caused by the Social
Security system itself but result (as I have emphasized) from
the relatively disadvantaged position of women in the labor
force. Greater access to jobs and an end to unemployment
discrimination is basic to correct this disadvantage.
-16-
DRAFT
But there are, nonetheless, clear inequities in the Social
Security system, some of which affect women and others
which discriminate against men, which can and should be
dealt with.
Let me cite a few illustrations. Working wives contri-
bute to the system and earn their own benefit rights. On
retirement, they are entitled to those benefits or to half
their husbands--whichever is larger. Often the earned
benefits are smaller and in such cases, their contributions
to the system over the years give them no greater entitle-
ments than wives who have never been employed. They have
reason to feel they are entitled to something for the con-
tributions they have paid. Further, even if a working wife's
earnings entitle her to a benefit somewhat larger than she
would have received as a dependent, she will have paid a
disproportionately high tax for that extra amount.
Another type of inequity is this: A retired man and
wife, both of whom have worked, may receive less in benefits
than a single earner family in which the breadwinner had the
same total earnings and paid no more in social security taxes.
Still another: A retired man and wife, both of whom have worked,
may have paid more in social security taxes and nevertheless
receive less in social security benefits than a single family
which had lower total earnings.
whom
DRAFT
-17-
Men, too, have a stake in needed Social Security changes.
Elderly husbands and widowers are not eligible for benefits
unless their wives were furnishing half or more of their
support at the time of their wives' retirement or death,
whereas widows and wives are presumed to have been dependents
and hence to be eligible for benefits.
Many other examples might be offered which further
illustrate the need for a careful review of our Social Security
system to eliminate discriminatory elements. These are not
easy issues to resolve and have been under active study for
many years by numerous Congressional Committees and experts
in this field.
A candidate for the Presidency should not be expected
to offer technical solutions to each and every complicated,
technical problem which confronts our nation. What should
be expected of him is awareness of problems, concern for
their solution and commitment to action at the earliest
opportunity
I am fully aware, I am deeply concerned, and
I am strongly committed to action on the basis of the soundest
recommendations I can obtain from the most competent experts
I can bring together in this highly specialized field.
After taking office, I will appoint a Commission of such
experts to present specific recommendations with respect to
needed improvements in our social security system so that we
7
may move speedily ahead toward income adequacy and equity
with respect to our senior citizens.
MART
-18-
Time does not permit me to deal today with many addi-
tional issues of special concern to women. There are many,
and I will speak to them on other occasions. But there is
one of great moment on which I wish to make my position
entirely clear. I am firmly committed to the ratification
of the Equal Rights Amendment.
ERA
The Equal Rights Amendment reads, "Equality of rights
under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of sex." " It is strange,
indeed, that there should be any opposition to SO clear, so
straightforward, and so just a principle. The Amendment was
approved by the House of Representatives in October 1971 by
a vote of 354 to 23, and by the Senate by an 84 to 8 margin,
and was sent to the States for ratification. It has now been
ratified by 34 States and requires the approval of only 4 more
to become part of the Constitution. My wife and I have been
strong supporters of the ERA. As Governor of Georgia
I promoted unged its passage. I have, throughout my campaign
consistently and unhestitatingly advocated its ratification.
I will use my every influence as President to spur action on
the part of the states where approval is still required.
Equal rights and equal opportunities for women- for men-
are imperative national goals. I will continue to work with
all the power at my command for their realization.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS . 02138
May 27, 1976
To: Mr. Steven Stark
Jimmy Carter for President
Box 1976
Atlanta, Georgia
From: Charles M. Haar
Chmn., Jimmy Carter Task Force on Housing,
Land Use and the Environment
Re: California Proposition 15: A Middle Ground
Theme: A leader owes the electorate data and debate in advance
of fear.
A citizen's initiative would have never been necessary
had the California constituency some sense that its
government was proceeding to develop nuclear energy
as a safe resource.
The proposition grew out of political disillusionment
as well as scientific disagreement. The public does
not trust its leadership in terms of technological
candor or sound energy policy.
The chore of translating scientific data into reassur-
ing human terms is, by definition, a leadership job.
A California governor could have done that job but did
not.
CH
MEMORANDUM
May 28, 1976
TO:
Stu Eizenstat
FROM:
Mike Chanin
RE:
Crime Task Force
Apparently Ham Jordan wants to put Dr. Edward J. Rouse
of the National Justice Committee on your crime task force,
if you have one. Although Dr. Rouse is black, I am not sure
from his resume that he has any real expertise and I believe
that he is just looking for a job later on. However, if you
do have a crime task force, then he might be considered.
MHC
/mm
MEMORANDUM
May 28, 1976
TO:
Stu Eizenstat
FROM:
Mike Chanin
RE:
Bill vanden Heuvel's recommendation of
Jerry Miller for a corrections and juvenile
justice task force
I do not know if you have a crime task force. Although
the crime issue is off the front pages somewhat, the question
of dealing with crime and the failure of the correctional
system is still a hot one.
To my knowledge, Ford has not done anything and doesn't
even have a policy. Maybe you should set up a crime task
force to see if some sort of a policy can be developed for the
Governor. If you do, then Jerry Miller, who is Commissioner
of Office of Children and Youth, Department of Public Welfare,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (717-787-6010) ought to be on
it.
MHC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Staff
FROM: Vicki
Vinhi
DATE: May 31, 1976
We are accepting NO invitations after June 8th until
the primaries on that day are over. If you have requests for
the Governor's time, they should be given to the following
people:
Marcel Veilleux - invitations after June 8 but before
called bunch 1500
Jody said ok.
convention on July 12.
Becky Hopkins - invitations during convention week.
Judy Nadler - invitations after the convention.
Some people have been taking invitation files from my
office and not returning them. If you have some reason to
use them, see Judy Nadler. These files are not to leave 1795
Peachtree and must be returned the same day you get them.
The schedule through June 8 is finalized. I have attached
a schedule of cities. If you have any questions, contact the
following (each person is in charge of the schedule for that
entire state):
California
Kent Brownrich
San Francisco
(415) 421 1641
New Jersey
Scott Douglass
East Orange
(201) 678 9054
Ohio
Ellis Woodward
Columbus
(614) 221 4814
If any changes have to be made, they must go through those
people.
Remember all telephone calls for Governor should go to
Landon Butler.
MONDAY, MAY 31, 1976
Providence, Rhode Island
Cleveland, Ohio
(This information is not for
Sacramento, California
the public -- requests for
the schedule should be referred
to press office)
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1976
Sacramento, California
Oakland (Berkeley)
/ Long Beach
San Diego
Los Angeles
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976
Los Angeles, California
San Francisco
Fresno
Cleveland
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1976
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga Falls
Akron
Canton
Dayton
FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1976
Dayton, Ohio
Columbus
Toledo
Newark, New Jersey
SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1976
Paterson, New Jersey
Union City
Newark
Union (not Union City)
New Brunswick
Scotch Plains
Princeton
Newark
SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 1976
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Union
Englewood
Youngstown, Ohio
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1976
Cleveland, Ohio
Los Angeles, California
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976
Atlanta, Georgia
IN HOUSE MEMOS
44M
TO: Steve Stark
FROM: Patt Derian
FOR: Jimmy Carter
April 30
RE: Georgia Indigent Legal Services/ Georgia Legal Services
1- They're suing the state Medicaide program.
(It charges 25¢ per persription; $2 a clinic visit; $25 per hospital
admission to people who get $34 per month welfare payments. This ab-
surd procedure costs as much to administer, accounting, etc as it
collects; more importantly, it has a chilling effect on eligible poor
people who then delay recieving early or timely treatment and hold off
til they are seriously or fatally ill. As a consequence the program is
underutilized and contributing to the health problems of the poor.)
2- The Georgia Medicaide program was allowed to try the payment method
under a section of the legislation that allows an "innovative" program
to "improve" services. The suit contends that it does not improve them.
3- In response to the suit- the Georgia legislature's appropriations bill
withdrew its annual contribution to the legal services agency. (Under
Title XX, 25% of the legal services funding has come from the legisla-
ture as matching money.)
4- While the intent of the legislature was to end the legal services progra
the legislation drawn was defective and it is possible for private fund-
ing sources to supply the matching money. This effort is in the works.
(Only needed til end of Sept. when national legal services will be fund
5- John Cromartie, director of Georgia Legal services, needs support and
encouragement. A call from Gov. Carter would be very important. And any
assistance he can give is needed.
6- They're not asking the campaign for money.
w
May 28, 1976
to
TO:
Stuart Eisenstat
FROM:
Zbigniew Brzozinski
SUBJECT: Two Urgent Action Items
1. Interview with Maariv. 1 enclose herewith Maariv's
questions and proposed responses by Jimmy Cartor, Could you please
clear these with him, call me back as soon as you can, and I will
then give to Manriv the authorized responses.
2. Speech on U.S.-Japanese relations. There is a real
need for the Governor to become more specific On issues. Accordingly,
Gardnor and I are recommending that the enclosed draft on U.S.-Japaness
relations (prepared by Charles Stevens, who taught formerly at Harvard
and Columbia, and which was revised by me) be used by the Governor
as & speech, to be delivered in the course of the California primary
campaign. The speech contains neveral newsworthy items. Noreover,
it would be well-received in Japan and hence later on we will get
a positive feedback from there as well.
Finally, the speech would foreshadow the major speech on
trilateral relations to be delivered later in June in New York.
3. let me know finly about June 23rd