Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1520867",
    "label": "PL (Political Affairs)/Reagan",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1520867"
}

{
    "id": "1520867",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1520867",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "PL (Political Affairs)/Reagan",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1520867",
    "collections": [
        "Barry N. Roth Files",
        "Barry Roth's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign funds",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0076/634262/1520867.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0076/634262/1520867.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0076/634262/1520867.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1520867",
    "naId": 1520867,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-05-31",
        "month": 5,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-02-01",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0076/634262/1520867.pdf",
    "mediaId": "9c26fcd9cf822a1d",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 26, folder \"PL (Political Affairs)/Reagan\" of the\nBarry N. Roth Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nfile\nMEMORANDUM\nFebruary 2, 1976\nTO:\nBo Callaway\nBob Mosbacher\nStu Spencer\nBob Odell\nBob Moot\nFROM: Bob Visser\nRev\nRE:\nReagan Report to January 10, 1976\nAttached please find the summary pages of the Report\nfor Receipts and Expenditures for Citizens for Reagan.\nWe have the complete copy available in our office.\nCC:\nFred Slight\nSkip Watts\nEd Terrell\nFund & LIBRARY DERALD\nSUMMARY PAGE\nName of Committee CITIZENS FOR REAGAN\nREPORT COVERING PERIOD FROM\nOctober 1, 1975\nTHRU December 31, 1975\nColumn A-\nColumn F-\nThis period\nCalendar year to date\nSECTION A- RECEIPTS:\nPart 1. Individual contributions:\na. Itemized (use schedule A*)\n$ 523,393.19\nb. Unitemized\n$869,501.52\nTotal individual contributions\n1,392,894.71\n$1,788,637.58\nPart 2. Sales and collections:\nItemized (use schedule B and as necessary schedule A*)\n$\n719.50\nS\n719.50\nPart 3. Loans received:\na. Itemized (use schedule A*)\n$\n-0-\nS\nb. Unitemized\n$\n1.00\nTotal loans received\n$\n1.00\nS\n1.00\nPart 4. Other receipts (refunds. rebates, interest, etc.):\na. Itemized (use schedule A) A/R Press\n$ 22,969.00\nb. Unitemized In Kind Contributions\n$\n2,023.71\nTotal other receipts\nS\n24,992.71\n$ 25,662.50\nPart 5. Transfers in:\nItemize all (use schedule A*)\n$ 110,500.00\n$ 110,500.00\n1,529,107.92\nTOTAL RECEIPTS\n$\n$ 1,925,570.58\nSECTION -EXPENDITURES:\nPart 6. Void: Use Part 9.\nPart 7. Expenditures for personal services, salaries, and reimbursed expenses:\na. Itemized (use schedule D*)\n$ 138,474.24\nb. Unitemized\n$\n2,386.28\nTotal expenditures for personal services,\nsalaries, and reimbursed expenses\n$ 140,860.52\n$ 161,433,24\nPart 8. Loans made:\na. Itemized (use schedule D*)\n$\nNone\n$\nb. Unitemized\n$\nNone\n$\nTotal loans made\n$\nNone\n$\nNone\nPart 9. Media and other expenses:\na. Itemized (use schedule C*)\n$ 953,879.89\nS\nb. Unitemized\n$\n5,713.61\n$\nTotal other expenditures\n$ 959,593.50\n$1,234,170.36\nPart 10. Transfers out:\na. transfers out\n110,500.00\nItemize all (use schedule D*) b.. in kind contributions\n$\n2,023.71\n$ 113,100.50\nTOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,212,977.73\n$ 1,508,847.10\nSECTION C-CASH BALANCES:\nCash on hand at beginning of reporting period\nS 100,593,29\nAdd total receipts (section A above)\n$ 1,529,107.92\nSubtotal\n$1,629,701.21\nR\nFORD\nSubtract total expenditures (section B above)\n$1,212,977.73\nCash on hand at close of reporting period\n$ 416,723.48\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nSECTION D-DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS:\nPart 11. Debts and obligations owed to the committee (use schedule E*)\n$\n6,914.00\nPart 12. Debts and obligations owed by the committee (use schedule E*)\nS 223,388.17\n*Schedules are to be used only when itemization is required. (See each Schedule for instructions.) When itemization is unnecessary for a given Part\nthe total of any amounts for that Part is to be entered as a lump sum on the \"Unitemized\" line of the appropriate Part of the Summary Report. The\nword \"None\" should be entered on any line of the Summary Report when no amount is being reported.\nGPO 893-667\nPL\nRonald Reagan\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20013\nFebruary 11, 1976\nMr. & Mrs. Edward F. Fry\n5315 First St. N.W.\nWashington, D. C. 20011\nDear Mr. E Mrs. Fry:\nI asked Congressman Vander Jagt, Chairman of the National\nRepublican Congressional Committee if I could write to you\ntoday about a serious and urgent matter.\nFrankly, the Republican Party needs your renewed financial\nsupport in the 1976 Congressional elections as never before.\nMake no mistake about it. Liberal Democratic candidates and\ntheir political allies such as the AFL-CIO's COPE, are al-\nready amassing a huge war chest in D. C. and across the\nnation for their drive to maintain their 2 to 1 control of\nCongress.\nUnion reports filed in Washington show big labor has already\nraised over $4,000,000 in ready cash. When their \"official\"\nelection fundraising drive begins later this year, they\nexpect to amass 29 millions of additional dollars. Most of\nwhich will be used against conservative Republican candidates.\nI don't believe we can break this liberal Democratic strangle-\nhold unless you help the Committee in it's effort to elect\nresponsible candidates who stand up for fiscal sanity, the\nfree market system and a strong U. S. military defense.\nAs you know, Democrats have controlled Congress lock, stock,\nand barrel for 40 of the past 44 years. There isn't one\npenny spent by your government that hasn't been mandated by\nthe Democrat majority. No bureaucrat has been hired, no\nrule or regulation has been issued without approval by the\nDemocrat majority in Congress.\nThey have caused galloping inflation which wipes out your\nsavings and your buying power. They have enthusiastically\nvoted for every spending bill that has produced the highest\nrunu\nFederal budget deficits in our history.\n&\nIn 1975, the Democrats introduced bills to nationalize our\noil industry, to allocate our energy supply and to sharply\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nreduce our military defenses that, in my opinion, would\njeopardize the very safety of this country.\n\"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.\"\nAbsolutely no taxpayers' funds have been used in the preparation or mailing of this correspondence.\nMr. E Mrs. Edward F. Fry\nIn order to return control of Congress to the Republicans,\nthe Congressional Committee has established a comprehensive\nprogram and launched a special emergency fund drive.\nThe immediate need for funds is critical because the Commit-\ntee must raise a minimum of $750,000 in early money to make\ncash contributions to candidates and fund political action\nprograms Republican candidates need for victory in 1976.\nThis emergency fund, if raised, will be used to defeat en-\ntrenched Democrats in Congress and to elect and reelect Re-\npublicans who will support the programs designed to stop\ninflation and recession.\nI know from talking with hundreds of Republicans at meetings\nacross the country, that the Committee's support is invalu-\nable. There are many Republicans sitting in Congress today\nwho owe their election to the efforts of this important and\nhard-hitting Committee.\nIt's time for a fundamental change in Washington that can\nonly come from a Republican Congress.\nThanks to the Democrats, welfare, like government spending,\nhas gotten out of hand; programs such as food stamps have\nbecome a national disgrace; a bloated government burea-\ncracy, with its endless rules and regulations, harasses our\ncitizens and threatens to bury business in a sea of red tape.\nThe situation in Washington is critical. But no change can,\nor will, be made without your financial help and support.\nI hope, therefore, you will respond today to my spe-\ncial appeal by sending a contribution for as much as\n$25 or more.\nIf the Committee can reach this goal, it will help us defeat\nentrenched liberal Democrats and elect Republicans who will\noppose the shocking abuses I have mentioned.\nIf you want to help offset union domination of the upcoming\nCongressional election, I strongly urge you to support the\nCommittee's fund-raising effort.\nRonald Sincerely, Ronald W. Reagan Reagen\nP.S.\nAt my request Congressman Vander Jagt enclosed a\nQERALD R FORD LIBRARY\ncontribution form and a reply envelope for your use,\nMr. & Mrs. Fry. I have asked him to give me a list\nof donors who respond and I certainly hope your name\nis on this list.\nRANCIS\nISTORIAN\nUNITED STATES\nWASHINGTON 5e\nUNITED STATES\nWASHINGTON 5c\nMERICAN\nS.POSTAGE\nFOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF:\nRonald Reagan\nEMERGENCY CAMPAIGN FUND\nBox 2837\nWashington, D.C. 20013\nI want to help\nA Personal Reply to\nGov. Ronald Reagan\nDear Governor Reagan:\nI want to help break the liberal Democrat stranglehold on Congress and offset\nunion domination of the upcoming Congressional elections. To meet the immedi-\nate requirement for critically needed early money in the Congressional elections,\nI am enclosing my contribution of:\n$\n$100\n$75\n$50\n$25\n$15\n$10\nCHECK ATTACHED\nBILL ME $\nQUARTERLY\nOTHER:\nPlease make checks payable to the Emergency Campaign Fund.\nFROM:\nMr.\nMrs.\nMiss\nMs.\nPLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME HERE\nPLEASE PRINT YOUR ADDRESS HERE\nPLEASE PRINT YOUR CITY OR POST OFFICE\nSTATE\nZIP CODE\nOCCUPATION\nPLACE OF BUSINESS\nYour personal letter of acknowledgment (a valid tax-deductible receipt) will be sent by\nreturn mail. Please indicate changes of address necessary. Thank you!\nPlease return your check to Gov. Reagan in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.\nCorporate contributions are prohibited by law.\n\"A copy of our report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase\nfrom the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C.\" Absolutely no taxpayers' funds have been used\nin the preparation or mailing of this correspondence.\nNational Republican Congressional Committee\nU.S. House of Representatives\nBox 2837\nWashington, D.C. 20013\nGuy A. Vander Jagt, M.C., Chairman\nGeorge Olmsted, Treasurer\nFORD\nALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nBarry\nYou wanted to see this.\nTrudy\nRonald BOX 2837 Reagan\n-PM DC\nSER\nM.S.MAIL a\nAMERICA\n11 FEB 200\n1976\nUNITED STATES POSTAL SER\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20013\nSpiritof76\nadrian weiss productions\n186 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210\n(213) 274-9991\nCable: Weisspict\nquel\nMay 5, 1976\nRE\nThe President of the United States\nWhite House\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Mr. President:\nI would like to take this opportunity to sincerely\nthank you for waiving your rights to equal time under\nSection 315 of the Communications Act, relative to the\nbroadcasting of the Ronald Reagan films entitled \"CATTLE\nQUEEN OF MONTANA\" and \"TENNESSEE'S PARTNER\".\nYour decision has reassured my faith in the American\nway\nthat of a third party's right to use his\nprivately owned property without political involvement\nand consideration of the constitutional question of\ndeprivation of property without due process of law, with\nresulting loss of revenues without compensation to such\nthird party.\nFor your perusal, I have enclosed a copy of the Metro-\npolitan News (a daily legal newspaper in Los Angeles)\narticle pertaining to the waiver you extended to us.\nSincerely,\nADRIAN WEISS PRODUCTIONS\nAdrian Whise\nAdrian Weiss\nAW/k\nEnclosure\nFORD & LIBRARY CERALD\nWORLD WIDE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION\n205 SO. BROADWAY\npolitanTlems\nLOS ANGELES\nCALIFORNIA 90012\nALL\nDEPARTMENTS:\n628-4384\nDAILY LEGAL NEWSPAPER\ngeles, California\nTuesday, April 27, 1976\n12 Pages - 15 Per Copy\nWaiver\nPresident Waives Right to\n(Continued from Page 1)\nthe FCC will now become\nacademic on thise two films\nEqual Time From Showing of\nsince President Ford has con-\nsented to grant the waiver ap-\nplied for. on these two pictures\n2 Old Ronald Reagan Films\nonly. the only ones applied for.\nIt therefore follows that these\nBy a Press Correspondent\ntwo pictures are the only ones\nA precedental interpretation being deprived of the use of his\nof Reagan's old movies that can\nof the Equal Time Provision property without due of\nGERALD LIBRARY P FORD\nPL/7nd\nApril 16, 1976\nACTION\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nPHILIP W. BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for Equal Time Waiver\nAdrian Weiss Productions has requested that you waive your\nrights under Section 315 of the Communications Act to permit\nthe television broadcast of two of Ronald Reagan's old movies --\n\"Cattle Queen of Montana\" and \"Tennessee's Partner.\"\nRecommendation\nStu Spencer, Bob Visser and I recommend that you sign the\nattached waiver.\nPWB:BNR:ns\nGERALD LIBRARY ? FORD\nfile w/ yellow\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 20, 1976\nDear Mr. Weiss:\nIt is my understanding that Adrian Weiss Productions has\nrequested that I waive my rights for equal time under\nSection 315 of the Communications Act so that it may\nbroadcast a number of Mr. Ronald Reagan's old films.\nThis waiver would eliminate any claim for equal time that\nmight arise from the showing of \"Cattle Queen of Montana\"\nand \"Tennessee's Partner\".\nSince the nature and context of these two films do not relate\nto or affect the political process, I am willing to grant such\nwaiver of my rights to equal time provided under Section 315\nof the Communications Act.\nSincerely, Herald R. 7nd\nMr. Adrian Weiss\nAdrian Weiss Productions\n186 North Canon Drive\nBeverly Hills, California 90210\nFORD & LIBRARY QERALD\nPresident Ford Committee\n1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400\nApril 15, 1976\nMEMORANDUM\nFROM: TO: Legal Tim Philip Ryan Counsel Buchen TR\nRE: Request for Waiver -- Adrian Weiss Productions\nAfter conversations with Stu Spencer of this office\nand Mr. Adrian Weiss, we agree with your decision to\nrecommend a waiver of \"equal time\" under Section 315 of\nthe Communications Act for the two Reagan films noted on\nthe draft letter to the President. If you have any\ncomments or changes, please contact us.\nT.T.R.\nFORD is LIBRARY 07V830\nThe President Ford Committee, Rogers C.B. Morton, Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A copy of our Report is filed with\nthe Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.\nDRAFT OF LETTER TO\nADRIAN WEISS PRODUCTIONS\nMr. Adrian Weiss\nAdrian Weiss Productions\n186 North Canon Drive\nBeverly Hills, California 90210\nDear Mr. Weiss:\nIt is my understanding that Adrian Weiss Productions\nhas requested that I waive my rights for equal time under\nSection 315 of the Communications Act so that it may broad-\ncast a number of Mr. Ronald Reagan's old films. This waiver\nwould eliminate any claim for equal time that might arise\nfrom the showing of \"Cattle Queen of Montana\" and\n\"Tennessee's Partner\".\nSince the nature and context of these two films do\nnot relate to or affect the political process, I am willing\nto grant such waiver of my rights to equal time provided\nunder Section 315 of the Communications Act.\nSincerely,\nGerald R. Ford\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTim\nE\nMarch 30, 1976\nI\nDear Bob:\nAs I discussed with you over the telephone, Adrian Weiss\nProductions would like to receive a waiver from President\nFord of his rights under Section 315 of the Communications\nAct. The purpose of this waiver is to eliminate any claim\nto equal time on the part of the President that might arise\nfrom the use of broadcast facilities to show two of Ronald\nReagan's old movies which are owned by Adrian Weiss Productions.\nEnclosed are copies of letters received from the Productions\nfirm. The information sheet describing the two pictures was\nnot enclosed, but I learned by telephone that the titles of\nthe two films are:\n\"Cattle Queen of Montana\"\n\"Tennessee's Partner\"\nI assume the titles say enough about the nature of the films.\nI would think it appropriate to grant the requested waiver,\nbut I think this is a matter for the President Ford Committee\nto dispose of by an appropriate recommendation to the President\nand, if a waiver is recommended, a form of letter for the\nPresident to sign.\nEnclosed also is a copy of a 1966 Federal Communication Commis-\nsion's letter which deals with the subject of Section 315 waivers.\nI believe Mr. Weiss would appreciate a prompt response from you.\nSincerely,\nThis\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nMr. Robert Visser\nGeneral Counsel\nPresident Ford Committee\n1828 L Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20036\nGERALD LIDRARY P FORD\nEnclosures\nThe National Broadcasting Company Presents\nMEET THE PRESS\nAmerica's Press Conference of the Air\nGuest: SENATOR PAUL D. LAXALT, (R., Nev.)\nNational Chairman, Citizens for Reagan\nVOLUME 20\nSUNDAY, MAY 16, 1976\nNUMBER 20\nMerkle Press Inc.\nPrinters and Periodical Publishers\nLubsidiary of Pubco Corporation\nBox 2111. Washingun, D. C. 20013\n25 cents per copy\nFORD & LIBRARY QERALD\nPanel: ToM PETTIT, NBC News\nGEORGE F. WILL, Syndicated columnist\nLOU CANNON, The Washington Post\nModerator: BILL MONROE\nггэяч ЭНТ T33M\nExecutive Producer: BILL MONROE\nProducer: BETTY COLE DUKERT\nPermission is hereby granted to news media and\nmagazines to reproduce in whole or in part. Credit\nto NBC's MEET THE PRESS will be appreciated.\nFORD is LIBRARY QERALD\nMEET THE PRESS\nMR. MONROE: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is\nSenator Paul Laxalt, Republican of Nevada. Senator Laxalt is the\nformer Governor of Nevada and is currently National Chairman\nof Citizens for Reagan. A lawyer, he is serving his first term in\nthe Senate.\nWe will have the first questions now from Tom Pettit of NBC\nNews.\nMR. PETTIT: Senator Laxalt, as a man with some interest in\nand experience in gambling, would you bet money that Ford is\nwashed up right now?\nSENATOR LAXALT: No, I don't think so at this point. I still\nthink we have a lot of question marks, and I harken back to the\nFlorida primary when a lot of people washed the Reagan can-\ndidacy out. In our case I am increasingly and continually con-\ncerned about resurrections, and I think this is the year of political\nsurprises.\nMR. PETTIT: You are afraid the President will be resurrected\nin Michigan?\nSENATOR LAXALT: It could happen. We don't have any\nsigns of that as yet. Everything looks good in Michigan. I can't\nbelieve that we are going to win the state, but it could happen.\nMR. PETTIT: That is kind of the party line though, isn't it;\nyou are just fooling us when you say you don't expect to win?\nSENATOR LAXALT: No, no, that is not the party line. We\nare campaigning in a state where we have an incumbent Presi-\ndent who is a resident of that state and has been for a long\nwhile, and I think that we would be less than realistic if we got\ninto a state of euphoria and thought we were going to win Michi-\ngan. I don't think we are going to win it.\nMR. PETTIT: What if you win it? Would you like that?\nSENATOR LAXALT: It would be a tremendous development.\nMR. PETTIT: Would that wash up Ford?\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think it would cause serious difficulties\nfor his campaign, unquestionably.\n(Announcements)\n1\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nMR. WILL: Senator, President Ford now has the worst record\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't perceive this year as being the\nin intra-party competition of any incumbent President since Taft\nleast bit the same as the conditions in '64 from several stand-\nin 1912. Why is the President SO weak?\npoints.\nFirst of all, we don't have a Lyndon Johnson who is the bene-\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think part of the problem is he is not\nficiary of the Kennedy myth in the picture.\nperceived as a legitimate incumbent. That is part of it. Secondly,\nI think the people generally are far more conservative in their\nI think that he has in Ronald Reagan probably one of the strong-\npolitical outlooks than they were in '64. In '64 there still was a\nest competitors anyone could possibly have in a primary. It is a\nfeeling that Washington could solve most of the problems in\ncombination of those factors, and I think it is becoming increas-\nthis country.\ningly apparent as this campaign goes on that the real strength\nThere isn't the strong divisive type of feeling between the\nof the Reagan candidacy is Ronald Reagan.\ncompeting factions, as we saw in '64 as between the Goldwater\nMR. WILL: Ronald Reagan decided to run against Ford when\nand the Rockefeller people. Uniformly around the country I find\nthe Ford presidency was barely a year old. Was there something\nnow that Ford people think well of Ronald Reagan and Ronald\nthat Ford could have done which would have either stopped\nReagan's people think well of Gerald Ford. They simply feel there\nReagan from making that decision to run or that would have\nare two strong candidates and they hope to produce the strongest\ntaken the steam out of a Reagan candidacy very early?\none of the two.\nCombined with that, is the fact that we see every week more\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think at least a couple of things come\nand more evidence that the Reagan candidacy is appealing to\nto mind. I think the designation of Nelson Rockefeller as Vice\nmany conservative Democrats and independents throughout the\nPresident didn't gladden the hearts of conservatives. I think that\ncountry, and I personally think that this year we have an entirely\nhad he vetoed the tax bill last year that that would have made a\ndifferent ballgame than we had in '64.\ngreat deal of difference and, in the judgment I think of many,\nmany Republicans, would have militated against the Reagan\nMR. CANNON: In the Texas campaign, Senator, there were\ncandidacy.\nsome very strong words on both sides. It seems to me as the\nprimaries have heated up it has become more divisive. You your-\nMR. WILL: Reagan really has begun to succeed with foreign\nself have said as much at one point.\npolicy issues to a degree, surprising to many people. Is it possible\nIsn't it going to be necessary, if Reagan were the nominee, to\nthat if President Ford had fired Kissinger instead of Schlesinger,\ntry to put the party back together again by getting a Vice Presi-\nor fired Kissinger as well as Schlesinger, that this would have\ndent, let's say, a runningmate who would be acceptable to the\ntaken the steam out of a Reagan candidacy?\nother side of the party?\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think it would have made a great deal\nSENATOR LAXALT: Perhaps. I think there is going to be\nof difference. It is increasingly apparent, as we progress with\nevery need, of course, to put the party back together again, but\nthis campaign, that Henry Kissinger is a strong issue as far as\nthat presupposes that the party is split. I have noticed in these\nthe Reagan candidacy is concerned. Each time that the Governor\nvarious states that just about the time that the situation in a\nmakes reference to the fact that he would not reappoint him or\ngiven primary state becomes difficult we have an election, and it\nkeep him on, that it meets with strong applause, and I rather\ncools off. I don't find any nationwide party divisiveness as such.\nthink, looking back, that in the area of foreign policy, if Jim\nSchlesinger had been retained and Henry Kissinger had been let\nMR. CANNON: Do you think Reagan can win a general elec-\nout, it would have made a world of difference in this campaign.\ntion against Jimmy Carter?\nMR. CANNON: Senator, there are a lot of people out in your\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't think there is any question about\nhome state who think you might have made it to the Senate a.\nit. I think that we are finding here-and it is not a matter of\nlot sooner, in 1964 to be exact, except for the Barry Goldwater\njust semantics-we are finding in this country a re-emergence of\npresidential candidacy.\na new majority. We are finding that conservatives throughout\nAs I remember, you lost by 41 votes and Senator Goldwater\nthis country are going to marshal together and present, I think,\nlost something like 60-40 percent.\na formidable political challenge, and comes the general election,\nDoesn't the Republican Party face very much the same kind of\npersonally I think that Ronald Reagan has the potential of\na problem this year, no matter who wins the nomination? How\nputting together the same basic elements against Jimmy Carter\nthat Richard Nixon did in 1972.\nare you going to put the party back together again for the fall\nelection?\nMR. MONROE: Senator, some people think that Governor\n2\n3\nReagan is engaged in some demagoguery on the Panama Canal\nso the Panamanians aren't hurt, and I get back to step one: That\nissue.\nCanal is ours. It is sovereign United States territory, and I think\nFor example, is he not overdoing it when he talks of the\nit would be exceedingly harmful to this country to give it up.\nUnited States owning the Panama Canal? Considering, for ex-\nample, that William Howard Taft said in 1905 that the treaty\nMR. MONROE: What about the practicality of Governor\ndid not give us outright ownership of that zone?\nReagan's position in terms of not negotiating any lessening of\ncontrol over a period of decades in connection with that Canal,\nSENATOR LAXALT: There is every indication to the con-\nconsidering the fact that the value of the Canal is declining. Big\ntrary, starting with the Treaty itself. The fact is that we took\nships, both commercial and military, can't get through it any\nover that Canal at the time the French were not able to complete\nlonger, and the Panamanians are considered by experts quite able\nit. We negotiated with Colombia, insofar as the rights to the\nto sabotage that Canal if they want to and put it out of business\nground were concerned. We bought out the private landowners on\nif we don't bend some.\na fee simple basis. We went ahead and developed the Canal.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I can't believe that the threat of sabo-\nWe have had ruling after ruling on every official level indicat-\ning that we have sovereignty in the Canal. The Supreme Court of\ntage should cause us to give up the Canal. After all, we had\nsecurity measures there in that Canal in World War II and Korea\nthe United States ruled that we had sovereignty in the Canal. So\nwhat we are talking of basically in Panama, we are talking about\nthat were entirely satisfactory. That to me doesn't pose any\nparticular threat whatsoever.\npossibly being coerced out of our own property by the Panaman-\nian people and particularly by the dictator there. So I view this to\nGovernor Reagan has not advocated going to war over the\nbe a very, very strong issue, and certainly the American people\nCanal at all. He simply indicated that the matter of sovereignty,\ndo.\nof title, is not negotiable, and that comes straight from the rec-\nWe didn't initiate this issue. This issue came in the question\nord. It comes from statements that have been made by prominent\nand answer sessions that we had in all those primary states, and\npublic figures in this country for a long time, including the Presi-\nI found that to my great satisfaction the American people are\ndent, including Barry Goldwater, and so over the years it has\nfar ahead of Washington in describing and defining this type of\nbeen uniformly felt here with the exception of the State Depart-\nissue.\nment, which has been playing its own game in this thing, it has\nbeen uniformly felt that we had sovereign rights in the Panama\nMR. MONROE: Isn't the kind of control we are now exercising\nCanal.\nover the Canal a sort of relic of colonialism, when you consider\nthat the United States apparently had some hand in prompting\nMR. PETTIT: I am a little confused by that. If the Canal is,\nthe revolt of the Panamanians from Colombia and then signed\nsovereign and you believe the Canal is sovereign, would you, say,\nthis treaty with them, according to historians, at a time when\nadvocate statehood for the Canal Zone?\nPanama more or less was forced to sign the treaty, because they\nSENATOR LAXALT: Oh, I don't think it is the type of situa-\nhad nobody else to protect them against Colombia after that war\ntion which would call for-\nand considering the fact that all Latin American countries will be\nterribly hostile to us if we persist in maintaining complete control\nMR. PETTIT: Advocating full citizenship?\nover that Canal Zone?\nSENATOR LAXALT: No, I don't think so.\nSENATOR LAXALT: Let me answer your question in reverse\norder.\nMR. PETTIT: Then how can you say it is sovereign?\nI see no evidence of the Latin American countries being dis-\nSENATOR LAXALT: Well, it is sovereign from the standpoint\nturbed about this. I think this is rhetoric. I don't think any of\nthat from the first time that we went in there we were treated as\nthem have that kind of interest. Colonialism implies, to me at\na sovereign. We were given title to the property in fee simple,\nleast, exploitation, and if there is a country that hasn't been\nand we have since that time performed all the attributes of\nexploited at all in this situation, it is Panama. We have done\nsovereignty.\ntremendous things for the Panamanian economy ever since we\nbuilt that Canal, and I don't know of anybody who has profited\nMR. PETTIT: But you don't advocate giving the people who\nmore from the situation than the Panamanians themselves.\nlive there the same rights that people who live in the States do-\nAt the present time it is contemplated that eventually we will\nSENATOR LAXALT: They have basically at the present time\neven build a third canal there, which would result in an outlay,\nsome of the same rights as people in the States do. They have\nan addition to the Panamanian economy, of over $1 billion, and\nrights to citizenship under their special act. But the fact is, we\n4\n5\nhave within their country our property which distinguishes it as\ndent probably will come into the convention with delegates\nfar as I am concerned.\naround 950 each.\nMR. PETTIT: Why is Senator Goldwater avoiding Ronald\nMR. WILL: That is about 200 short of the needed total to\nReagan like the plague? I mean, he was Mr. Conservative. Reagan\nnominate. Doesn't the President have an enormous advantage\nlearned at his feet. It is like Socrates calling Plato a bum not to\nwith all his powers and prerequisites and plums in dickering in a\nendorse him.\nconvention? How do you propose to fight an incumbent Presi-\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't know that Senator Goldwater\ndent in bargaining?\nhas been avoiding Mr. Reagan like the plague.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I like to think that the delegates who\nattend Kansas City and who are looking for a nominee are not\nMR. PETTIT: Where has he been with him?\ngoing to be susceptible to goodies. I like to think that when they\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think he has been with him to the\ncome to Kansas City they are going to be thinking in terms of\nextent that there has been no endorsement, and from the be-\nthe interests of the party and the country, and, very frankly, I\nginning Barry Goldwater has indicated to me, as well as others,\nthink their principal consideration will be one of electability.\nthat in this race he is between a rock and a hard place, which\nThey are going to take a look at these two candidates and say to\nhe is.\nthemselves: Which of these two will make the strongest candi-\nOn the one hand, he owes an allegiance, he thinks, to an in-\ndate in a general election, and it is my view that when they make\ncumbent President who has been a friend of his for a long while.\nthat determination, at that time in August it will be Ronald\nOn the other hand, there is nobody who helped Barry Gold-\nReagan.\nwater more in 1964 than Ronald Reagan, so it is a very difficult\nMR. WILL: The Democrats already will have chosen their\nposition for him, and the only difference I have been able to\nnominee, and it looks at this point as though it may very well\ndiscern so far has been on the Panamanian issue.\nbe Jimmy Carter, and it looks as though he may very well be\na very strong candidate in the South. Might it not make sense\nMR. PETTIT: Otherwise Ronald Reagan is just like Gold-\nthen for the Republican Party to pick a candidate who might\nwater?\nrun tougher in the north and in the east than Ronald Reagan\nSENATOR LAXALT: In what respect?\nwho, of course, didn't even run in the New York and Pennsyl-\nvania primaries?\nMR. PETTIT: You just said that the only difference is on the\nCanal Zone.\nSENATOR LAXALT: Possibly, but I think that when you are\nlooking at Carter, his principal strength, as I have been able to\nSENATOR LAXALT: The only difference between the two\ndiscern it, is the fact that he is non-Washington. That is the\nthat I perceive in this particular election has been over the Pana-\nthrust of the Carter candidacy, and to me a Carter-Ford race\nma Canal issue.\nwould be a difficult one, extremely difficult for the Republicans\nbecause you would have Carter, who is non-Washington, running\nMR. PETTIT: Then in this election the two of them are alike?\nagainst the establishment. In that type of scenario, it is my view\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think basically their approach is alike,\nRonald Reagan would be a far stronger candidate against a\nyes.\nJimmy Carter than Gerald Ford.\nMR. WILL: Senator, June 8th is the date of the last three\nMR. CANNON: Doesn't a Carter candidacy also blunt Ronald\nprimaries. How many delegates will Ronald Reagan have com-\nReagan's main point? He has been talking against Washington.\nmitted to him publicly on that day?\nHe has been giving, as you know, that same speech for many\nyears. How is that speech going to help him against Jimmy\nSENATOR LAXALT: After the California primaries? It de-\nCarter?\npends entirely on what happens in Michigan. We have already\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think that the speech, as you call it-\nexperienced unpredictable results as a result of the momentum\nperhaps it gets a little boring to the people who hear it often, but\nof the Texas primary. If Michigan should come to us, I don't\nI don't think that it is the least bit boring for people who are ex-\nthink we could predict at all what is going to happen in some of\nposed to it for the first time.\nthese other primary states. Assuming that Michigan goes to the\nPresident and assuming that California stays with Ronald\nIt is my view that as the Carter candidacy progresses and as\nReagan, I would assume that Governor Reagan and the Presi-\nhe is made to take positions on issues, that it is going to be\ndemonstrated that he is of rather liberal persuasion. By the time\n6\n7\nthis general election comes along I think you will find that Ronald\nReagan will be running basically as the conservative and Jimmy\nno federal income tax in 1970, this, after an examination of the\nCarter wil be running basically as a liberal.\nlimited material he publicized about his own tax returns. Also\nMR. CANNON: You and other spokesmen for Reagan have\nthat he paid very light income taxes in subsequent years com-\nconsistently said that you think the former Governor would run\npared with the size of his income.\na better race against Carter than Ford would.\nThere is no indication here that anything illegal was done. Ap-\nWhat evidence is there of this? All of the polls that I have\nparently it was entirely legal.\nseen show Carter winning, and they don't show Reagan doing any\nOn the other hand, isn't it a political drawback for the Gover-\nbetter. Is there any objective evidence that Reagan would in fact\nnor to be shown to have made this kind of use of the tax laws,\ndo better?\nto pay little or no taxes on his income?\nSENATOR LAXALT: Yes. I think the best objective evidence\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't know the details concerning that\nis the results of the primaries so far. As I have indicated here,\nexcept that I know it was rather strongly discussed in the State\nthe strength of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, I think, prin-\nof California when it arose, and apparently it arose through some\ncipally is that they are non-Washington. The polls at this point,\nbusiness losses that the Governor had incurred, and through some\nMr. Cannon, don't mean anything. I have never seen a year\nshelters too.\nwhere polls have less validity than they do this year.\nI don't know that a Governor, any other public official, has to\nAs an example, in Nebraska, our surveys indicated a couple of\nbe treated on any other different basis than any other taxpayer.\nweeks before that election that we were down 15 to 20 points, and\nThe fact that he had business losses and paid a lesser tax, to me,\nyet we won that election by ten points. That means that there\ndoesn't present a problem.\nwas a swing in that state of 25 to 30 points, which leads me to\nthe conclusion that any early polls trying to describe the relative\nMR. MONROE: Wouldn't he be stronger as a presidential can-\nstrengths of a Reagan or a Carter or a Ford are almost meaning-\ndidate, in the climate of these times, to make public the full de-\nless at this point.\ntails of his recent tax records, the way President Ford has done,\nSO that everybody would know exactly what the tax situation was\nMR. CANNON: Why, if Ronald Reagan is as acceptable as you\nin regard to Governor Reagan?\nclearly think he is, have SO few Republican Congressmen-I think\nthere are three Senators and maybe half a dozen House members\nSENATOR LAXALT: It was my impression that within the\nwho have backed him-why doesn't he have any more support\nlast few weeks that a general disclosure concerning his tax rec-\nthan that?\nords has been made and is available.\nSENATOR LAXALT: He is not part of the \"buddy\" system,\nMR. MONROE: I think it was made available in much less de-\nthat is all. It is not complicated. He is not part of the Washing-\ntail than the information that came from President Ford.\nton establishment, and when he announced his candidacy we\nSENATOR LAXALT: That I am not privy to comment on,\nfound the great majority, the vast majority of the people in the\nreally. That is a matter he would have to decide, I guess, with\nHouse and the Senate were with the President because they have\nhis accountants. But it is my understanding that he has made a\nknown him over the years, and many of them felt, perhaps with\ndisclosure which would be adequate, I think, by most standards.\njustification, that they should continue to support an incumbent\nPresident.\nMR. MONROE: Would you like to see Governor Reagan as a\nBut Ronald Reagan is not a member of the club, and that to me\npolitical matter make this kind of material available in the same\npresents the greatest strength that he has in this candidacy be-\nfull detail that we have gotten from President Ford?\ncause when he comes to this town as President he is not going to\nowe any obligations in either the House or the Senate, and he is\nSENATOR LAXALT: I think it is the year of disclosure, and\ngoing to be able to call the shots as he sees them. I have a sus-\nit is simply a question of whether or not he has made the type of\npicion if he has the type of hostility and obstruction that other\ndisclosure that would meet that standard, and it is my impression\nPresidents have seen in Congress that he will do as he did in\nthat he has.\nCalifornia and go over their heads to the people, and you are go-\nMR. MONROE: We have about two minutes.\ning to see some congressional changes made very quickly up here.\nMR. PETTIT: I hate to burden you with the Canal Zone, but\nMR. MONROE: Senator Laxalt, Eileen Shanahan reports in\nthe candidate has made a major issue of it, of course. Does he\nThe New York Times that Governor Reagan almost certainly paid\nbelieve that residents of the Canal Zone have the right to self-\ngovernment?\n8\n9\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't know that I have ever heard him\ncampaign law for reasons such as this. How do you charge this\ncomment on that.\ntype of expense? It probably should be charged, but I don't know\nhow to do it as a practical matter.\nMR. PETTIT: Do you?\nMR. CANNON: You have got the only state where all three\nSENATOR LAXALT: I do.\nDemocrats, Church, Brown and Carter, are on the ballot. Who is\nMR. PETTIT: That they should have self-government?\ngoing to win in Nevada?\nSENATOR LAXALT: Yes.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I understand that Governor Brown is\nrunning very well there, and that is principally because he is a\nMR. PETTIT: What form would that take?\nneighboring governor.\nSENATOR LAXALT: What form would it take?\nMR. MONROE: Thank you, Senator Laxalt, for being with us\nMR. PETTIT: Yes.\ntoday on MEET THE PRESS.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't understand. Do you mean differ-\nent than what they presently have? I would like to see them have\nmore democratic rule within Panama.\nMR. PETTIT: I am talking about the Zone.\nSENATOR LAXALT: You are talking about the Zone, itself?\nMR. PETTIT: Yes. Is there any local government in the Zone?\nSENATOR LAXALT: At the present time?\nMR. PETTIT: Yes.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I am not that familiar with the form of\ngovernment in Panama to comment on it, personally.\nMR. PETTIT: I am not talking about Panama, I am talking\nabout the Panama Canal Zone.\nSENATOR LAXALT: I am not that familiar with the type of\ngovernment that you have in the Zone, and if I tried to answer\nthat question I would be bluffing, and I don't think I should.\nMR. PETTIT: Does the candidate know?\nSENATOR LAXALT: I assume he does, yes.\nMR. WILL: Does the Reagan campaign plan to insist in some\nway or another that Secretary Kissinger's domestic speaking\ntrips within the United States be charged against President\nFord's campaign expenditures?\nSENATOR LAXALT: It hasn't been discussed.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nMR. WILL: What if he plans to go to California prior to the\nCalifornia primary?\nSENATOR LAXALT: I don't know how that should be treated.\nIt is increasingly apparent that the charging of expenses under\nthis new law is extremely difficult to calculate, and I am coming\nfast to the impression that we have created a monster in this new\n10\n11\nThe Proceedings of\nMEET THE PRESS\nas broadcast nationwide by the National Broadcasting Company,\nInc., and printed and made available to the public to further in-\nterest in impartial discussions of questions affecting the public\nwelfare. Transcripts may be obtained by sending a stamped,\nself-addressed envelope and twenty-five cents for each copy to:\nMerkle Press Inc. Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013\nSubsidiary of Pubco Corporation\nMEET THE PRESS is telecast every\nSunday over the NBC Television Net-\nwork. This program originated from\nNBC in Washington, D.C.\nTelevision Broadcast 12:30-1:00 P.M. EDT\n17 17\nGERALD LIBRARY ? FORD\nREAGAN CALIFORNIA FUND\nA Project of:\nYoung America's Campaign Committee\nDear Friend:\nYour assistance on a most urgent project could mean the difference between\nvictory and defeat for Ronald Reagan in the June 8th primary in California--\nthe most important primary of the campaign.\nThat is why I am writing to you today.\nGerald Ford and Ronald Reagan are in a virtual dead heat for convention\ndelegates coming into the California primary. The winner of the California\nprimary will take an extra 167 delegates to the convention.\nThese 167 delegates will mean the margin of victory for the Republican\npresidential nominee. More delegates are at stake in California than New\nHampshire, Florida, Vermont, and North Carolina combined!\nRonald Reagan's stunning defeat of Gerald Ford in the North Carolina\nprimary was a result of his aggressive media campaign in that state prior to\nthe voting.\nThat is why the Reagan California Fund has been established by the Young\nAmerica's Campaign Committee. We intend to place spot radio advertisements\nthroughout California a week prior to the primary.\nWe have entered into an agreement with the nation's top producer of radio\nadvertisements.\nEfrem Zimbalist, Jr., the star of the television series The FBI, has agreed\nto do the narration for the ads.\nThey will be targeted in communities across California with the precision\nthat was apparent in the media blitz that brought Ronald Reagan victory in\nNorth Carolina.\nProduction costs, distribution fees, etc., will be $25,000 and that amount\nis needed at once. Unless we receive that amount by May 25, 1976, the ads by\nEfrem Zimbalist, Jr., cannot be run.\nThese ads are the most economical and effective method for reaching the\nmillions of California voters. Ronald Reagan's chances of victory in California\nwill be severely set back without them. As a result, his chances for the\nRepublican nomination could be lost.\nThat is why it is vital that you send what you can today. Please send at\nleast $20 today. If you cannot send $20, we will be grateful for whatever you\ncan contribute. But we must have whatever your generous contribution by May 25.\nFORD is LIBRARY QERALD\n919-18th Street, N.W.\nSuite 800\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n-2-\nIt is important to consider what Ronald Reagan's defeat could mean for\nthe Republican Party.\nConsider the record of the Ford administration and the possibility of\nits continuing should Ronald Reagan lose the California primary:\n1. There would be more appointments of left-liberals into the\nadministration such as Charles Goodell and Nelson Rockefeller.\n2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would remain, throughout\nFord's term, continuing the policy of one-way-street detente.\n3. The United States would continue its second-rate military posture\nand perhaps slip to third rate or fourth rate.\n4. The United States would continue its policy of surrender of\nAmerican possessions such as the Panama Canal Zone.\n5. Deficit spending would continue unabated, without a voice of\nleadership coming from the White House.\nBefore you decide how much to give, I should explain that the Reagan\nCalifornia Fund is an independent organization, entirely separate from the\nCitizens for Reagan campaign committee.\nBecause it is an independent committee, the Reagan California Fund may\nsolicit funds from individuals beyond the $1000 limit. Thus, if you have al-\nready contributed the maximum $1000 to the official Citizens for Reagan cam-\npaign committee, you may contribute up to an additional $24,000 to the Reagan\nCalifornia Fund.\nIn addition, while the official Reagan effort in California is limited in\nwhat it can spend on behalf of Ronald Reagan, our committee can wage an all-out\neffort to win in California without government-enforced spending restrictions.\nIf any contribution could tip the scale for a Reagan victory, your contri-\nbution to the Reagan California Fund could be it. Please be generous, and soon.\nThank you.\nSincerel)\nRon Robinson, National Chairman\nReagan California Fund\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nDid you receive more than one copy of this appeal?\nPlease accept our apology if you did. We try to eliminate\nduplications, but they sometimes do occur. If you do receive\na duplicate copy please help us spread the word by passing\nit along to a friend. Thank you. We appreciate your under-\nstanding and cooperation.\nMake necessary corrections in address shown below\nRF10\nONE PERCENT FUND\nWASHINGTON 1255 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE\nDC 20036\nFIRST CLASS\nPermit No.\n70140\nWashington, D.C.\nBUSINESS REPLY MAIL\nNo Postage Stamp Necessary if Mailed in the United States\nPOSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY:\nYoung America's Campaign Committee\n919-18th Street, N.W., Suite 800\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nPlease make necessary changes if label attached\nto reverse side is incorrect.\nThe REAGAN CALIFORNIA FUND is an independent committee unrestricted by\nthe $1000 individual limitation. Thus, even though you already may have contributed\n$1000, you may still contribute as much as $24,000 to the Reagan California Fund.\nPlease note: Individual political donations are tax-deductible\nup to a total of $100 per year.\nI agree that vital radio ads for Ronald Reagan in California can make the\ndifference in the campaign. My check to help with those ads is enclosed:\n$5,000\n$1,000\n$500\n$250\n$100\n$50\n$\nOther\n(Make all checks payable to: Young America's Campaign Committee and return in this prepaid envelope)\nA federal statute requires us to request the following information from you:\nOCCUPATION\nBUSINESS ADDRESS\nCITY\nSTATE\nZIP\nA copy of our report(Young America's Campaign Committee) will be filed with the Federal Election Commission and will\nbe available for purchase from that office in Washington, D.C.\nTHE REAGAN CALIFORNIA FUND OF YOUNG AMERICA'S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY RONALD\nREAGAN & RONALD REAGAN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE.\nYOUNG AMERICA'S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE\nAir Date\nRadio Spot Number\n#2\nTitle\n60 SECONDS\nNarrator\nEFREM ZIMBALIST, JR.\n60 SECOND RADIO SPOT\nI, LIKE YOU, AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY. I, LIKE\nYOU, HAD HOPED THAT AFTER WATERGATE GERALD FORD WOULD LEAD US AWAY\nFROM DEFICIT SPENDING, APPEASEMENT ABROAD, AND MILITARY WEAKNESS. I\nHAVE CONCLUDED HE HAS NOT DONE THIS. INSTEAD HE HAS FIRED A SECRETARY\nOF DEFENSE WHO DISAGREED WITH KISSINGER'S DETENTE, ACCEPTED AMERICA'S\nSTATUS AS THE SECOND STRONGEST NATION IN THE WORLD, IS ACQUIESCING IN\nTHE GIVE-AWAY OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, AND HAS PRESIDED OVER $100\nBILLION IN DEFICITS IN JUST TWO YEARS. RONALD REAGAN IS MY CHOICE FOR\nPRESIDENT BECAUSE HE PROMISES A NEW SECRETARY OF STATE, THE RESTORATION\nOF AMERICAN MILITARY SUPERIORITY, NO GIVE-AWAYS OF AMERICAN TERRITORY\nSUCH AS THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE TO LEFTIST DICTATORS, AND, HE PROMISES\nA BALANCED BUDGET. IF YOU BELIEVE AS I DO THAT STRONG LEADERSHIP IS\nNEEDED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS WE ENTER OUR TWO-HUNDREDTH YEAR, THEN I\nURGE YOU TO VOTE FOR RONALD REAGAN IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. THIS IS\nEFREM ZIMBALIST, JR. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nThe\nfor radio sample\ntranscip transe is a\nPrimary before the one\nweek catifornia the\nPlanning\nFORD is LIBRARY CERVID\nCLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON\n1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20036\nTHE\n69 I Wd 61 IVAI 9661\nBarry Roth, Esq.\nThe White House\nBy Hand:\n17th St. door,\nEOB mailroom\nCooper\nCOMMISSION\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION\n1325 K STREET N.W.\nAARKIL\nWASHINGTON,D.C. 20463\nFebruary 23, 1976\nSTATES\nE\nOC 1975-121\nRonald Robinson, Chairman\nYoung America's Campaign Committee\n919 18th Street, Suite 800\nWashington, D. C. 20006\nDear Mr. Robinson:\nThis responds further to your letter of November 25,\n1975, requesting an advisory opinion, on whether the\nYoung America's Campaign Committee (YACC), may approve a\nproject entitled \"Citizens Against Kennedy.\" The project\nis designed to raise funds through mailings, and\nadvertisements placed in newspapers throughout the\ncountry, for the purpose of adversely influencing any\npresidential ambitions Senator Kennedy may entertaim. You\nstate that the project has neither sought nor obtaimed the\nconsent or approval of any person seeking nomination or\nelection to the Office of President or Vice President of\nthe United States, and ask whether the contribution and\nindependent expenditure limitations under the Federal\nElection Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act) H are\napplicable.\nThe Supreme Court recently held in Buckley V. Valeo,\n44 U.S.L.W. 4127 (S.C. January 30, 1976), that the\nCommission as constituted could not be given statutory\nauthority to issue advisory opinions. Although this part\nof the Court's judgment was stayed for 30 days, the\nCommission has determined that it will not issue further\nadvisory opinions under 2 U.S.C. $437£ during the sitay\nperiod. Thus, this letter should be regarded as am\nopinion of counsel, rather than an advisory opiniom.\nRegarding independent expenditure limitations, the\nCourt held in Buckley, inter alia, that §608 (e) of Title 18,\nUnited State Code, is unconstitutional. Thus, the YACC, may\nmake unlimited expenditures on behalf of the \"Citizens\nAgainst Kennedy\" project from funds contributed to the\nCommittee. Of course, since YACC is a \"political committee\"\nAMERICAN\n1776-1376\nGERALD LIDEARY R FORD\n- 2 -\nunder the Act, these independent expenditures will have to\nbe reported. See 2 U.S.C. $434.\nThe Supreme Court opinion did, however, lay down a\ntest for what constitutes an independent expenditure and\nwhat would be considered a contribution in kind to a\ncandidate and therefore subject to the limits of 18 U.S.C.\n$608(b). See Buckley, supra, fn. 53 at pp. 40-41 of the\nSlip Opinion. Under that test, inter alia, cooperation\nwith or consent of any candidate (not just the candidate\nor persons mentioned in the project) would make the cost\nof the project a contribution in kind to the candidate\nwhose cooperation or consent was obtained and therefore\nsubject to the limits of 18 U.S.C. $608(b).\nWith regard to contribution limitations, I am of the\nopinion that only the $25,000 aggregate calendar year\nlimit on individuals under 18 U.S.C. §608 (b) (3) is\napplicable since the money received is intended to\ninfluence the course of a Federal election. Thus, an\nindividual could contribute as much as $25,000 to the\nYACC for the described project, provided he or she made\nno other contributions with respect to the 1976 elections.\nThe foregoing constitutes an opinion of counsel\nwhich the Commission has noted without objection.\nSincerely yours,\nJohn G. Murphy,\nGeneral Counsel\nFORD & LIBRARY DERALD\n128\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 25, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBARRY ROTH\nFROM:\nDAVE GERGEN\nSUBJECT:\nReagan Solicitation\nTwo friends of mine have recently received the attached\nsolicitation from the Reagan California Fund. The letter\nsays the Fund is an independent committee and because of\nthat status, a donor who has already given $1000 directly\nto Ronald Reagan can now give an additional $24,000 to\nthe Fund.\nI am informed that the size of the requested contribution\nappears to be in violation of the law. Can this be quickly\nchecked?\nMany thanks.\n5/25/76\nDave )\nI've been working with Usser on\nthis for a is clear that the\nmaximum contribution they can receive\nunder the new law ( effective date:\nmay 11) is $5,000 Unsser is\nargering to FEC that lemit for\n6 named candidate should\nhe $1,000 even if it is an unauthould\ncommittee Bob will probably lose on\nthis point, but at is worth Barr a try.\nQERALD FORD LIBRARY\nREAGAN CALIFORNIA FUND\nA Project of:\nYoung America's Campaign Committee\nGERALD 8 FORD\nDear Friend:\nYour assistance on a most urgent project could mean the difference between\nvictory and defeat for Ronald Reagan in the June 8th primary in California--\nthe most important primary of the campaign.\nThat is why I am writing to you today.\nGerald Ford and Ronald Reagan are in a virtual dead heat for convention\ndelegates coming into the California primary. The winner of the California\nprimary will take an extra 167 delegates to the convention.\nThese 167 delegates will mean the margin of victory for the Republican\npresidential nominee. More delegates are at stake in California than New\nHampshire, Florida, Vermont, and North Carolina combined!\nRonald Reagan's stunning defeat of Gerald Ford in the North Carolina\nprimary was a result of his aggressive media campaign in that state prior to\nthe voting.\nThat is why the Reagan California Fund has been established by the Young\nAmerica's Campaign Committee. We intend to place spot radio advertisements\nthroughout California a week prior to the primary.\nWe have entered into an agreement with the nation's top producer of radio\nadvertisements.\nEfrem Zimbalist, Jr., the star of the television series The FBI, has agreed\nto do the narration for the ads.\nThey will be targeted in communities across California with the precision\nthat was apparent in the media blitz that brought Ronald Reagan victory in\nNorth Carolina.\nProduction costs, distribution fees, etc., will be $25,000 and that amount\nis needed at once. Unless we receive that amount by May 25, 1976, the ads by\nEfrem Zimbalist, Jr., cannot be run.\nThese ads are the most economical and effective method for reaching the\nmillions of California voters. Ronald Reagan's chances of victory in California\nwill be severely set back without them. As a result, his chances for the\nRepublican nomination could be lost.\nThat is why it is vital that you send what you can today. Please send at\nleast $20 today. If you cannot send $20, we will be grateful for whatever you\ncan contribute. But we must have whatever your generous contribution by May 25.\n-2-\nIt is important to consider what Ronald Reagan's defeat could mean for\nthe Republican Party.\nConsider the record of the Ford administration and the possibility of\nits continuing should Ronald Reagan lose the California primary:\n1. There would be more appointments of left-liberals into the\nadministration such as Charles Goodell and Nelson Rockefeller.\n2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would remain, throughout\nFord's term, continuing the policy of one-way-street detente.\n3. The United States would continue its second-rate military posture\nand perhaps slip to third rate or fourth rate.\n4. The United States would continue its policy of surrender of\nAmerican possessions such as the Panama Canal Zone.\n5. Deficit spending would continue unabated, without a voice of\nleadership coming from the White House.\nBefore you decide how much to give, I should explain that the Reagan\nCalifornia Fund is an independent organization, entirely separate from the\nCitizens for Reagan campaign committee.\nBecause it is an independent committee, the Reagan California Fund may\nsolicit funds from individuals beyond the $1000 limit. Thus, if you have al-\nready contributed the maximum $1000 to the official Citizens for Reagan cam-\npaign committee, you may contribute up to an additional $24,000 to the Reagan\nCalifornia Fund.\nIn addition, while the official Reagan effort in California is limited in\nwhat it can spend on behalf of Ronald Reagan, our committee can wage an all-out\neffort to win in California without government-enforced spending restrictions.\nIf any contribution could tip the scale for a Reagan victory, your contri-\nbution to the Reagan California Fund could be it. Please be generous, and soon.\nThank you.\nSincerely\nRon Robinson, National Chairman\nReagan California Fund\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nYOUNG AMERICA'S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE\nAir Date\nRadio Spot Number\n#2\nTitle\n60 SECONDS\nNarrator\nEFREM ZIMBALIST, JR.\n60 SECOND RADIO SPOT\nI, LIKE YOU, AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY. I, LIKE\nYOU, HAD HOPED THAT AFTER WATERGATE GERALD FORD WOULD LEAD US AWAY\nFROM DEFICIT SPENDING, APPEASEMENT ABROAD, AND MILITARY WEAKNESS. I\nHAVE CONCLUDED HE HAS NOT DONE THIS. INSTEAD HE HAS FIRED A SECRETARY\nOF DEFENSE WHO DISAGREED WITH KISSINGER'S DETENTE, ACCEPTED AMERICA'S\nSTATUS AS THE SECOND STRONGEST NATION IN THE WORLD, IS ACQUIESCING IN\nTHE GIVE-AWAY OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, AND HAS PRESIDED OVER $100\nBILLION IN DEFICITS IN JUST TWO YEARS. RONALD REAGAN IS MY CHOICE FOR\nPRESIDENT BECAUSE HE PROMISES A NEW SECRETARY OF STATE, THE RESTORATION\nOF AMERICAN MILITARY SUPERIORITY, NO GIVE-AWAYS OF AMERICAN TERRITORY\nSUCH AS THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE TO LEFTIST DICTATORS, AND, HE PROMISES\nA BALANCED BUDGET. IF YOU BELIEVE AS I DO THAT STRONG LEADERSHIP IS\nNEEDED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS WE ENTER OUR TWO-HUNDREDTH YEAR, THEN I\nURGE YOU TO VOTE FOR RONALD REAGAN IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. THIS IS\nEFREM ZIMBALIST, JR. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nEND\nThis is\nfor sample\nweek\nradio transe california a planned the\nGERALD R FORD LIBRARY\ntype 3\nPL/ Rengan\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR: DAVE GERGEN\nFROM:\nBARRY ROTH\nBR\nReferencing our conversations concerning contributions to\npolitical committees making independent expenditures in\nsupport of Ronald Reagan, the FEC is issuing today a general\nstatement of policy in this regard. The FEC policy permits\nan individual to give $1,000 to Reagan or his authorized\ncommittee (Citizens for Reagan) and up to $5,000 to any\nunauthorized committee, as long as the individual does not\ngive to that committee with knowledge that the money will\nin turn be contributed to the candidate. Such contributions\nto candidates and political committees remain subject to the\n$25,000 annual limit on political contributions.\nFor your information, Bob Visser had argued the position\nwith the FEC staff that an individual who had contributed\n$1,000 to a candidate or his authorized committees could\nnot contribute at all to a committee making independent\nexpenditures, or else could only contribute up to $1,000 to\neach such unauthorized committee. However, the FEC's\nposition is the better interpretation of the law.\nThis policy does not appear to affect independent expenditures\nmade by an individual or group of individuals, e.g., fifteen\npersons join together and pay for a political advertisement in\na newspaper. In such cases, the individual has a direct control\nover the expenditure, which he surrenders when he contributes\nto a political committee. To the extent an individual's expenditures\nexceed $100 per calendar year on behalf of a clearly identifiable\ncandidate, the individual must file expenditure reports with the FEC.\nFORD & LIBRARY QERALD\n2\nWith respect to the independent Reagan California Fund that\nwe discussed, they are being contacted by the FEC to insure\nthat they do not cash any checks in excess of $5,000 which\nwere received after May 11, and instead that they return the\nchecks to the contributors. Bob Visser will follow up with\nthe FEC compliance personnel to make sure this is being\ndone.\nCC: Philip W. Buchen\nEdward Schmults\nFORD & LIBRARY"
}