Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
22930204
label
Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
22930204
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (2)
description
This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.
citationUrl
collections
Benton L. Becker Papers
General Subject Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
Federal Election Commission. Office of the Staff Directory. Office of the Commission Secretary. 1975-ca. 2005
Campaign funds
Presidential trips
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
22930204
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-02-28
month
2
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
82bf558ba646fc56
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Republican National Committee -
White House Accounts (2)" of the Benton L. Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Benton Becker donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
-Views Inc. pocut look-q of at I the Pro
clagett
Traft with 2 changes
Republican
National
Committee.
Mary Louise Smith
callupen
<-
trass, our d
The Chairman
"why
Party roles tolor
spoke of
September 10, 1975
tot
expenses assumed
Land
w
party.
travels telethone,
doe(ison) state
party functions staff
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
-
Congrassional
Washington, D. C. 20005
staff bunkatek
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
FORD LIBRARY a OERALD
Digitized from Box 2 of the Benton Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 10, 1975
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican Party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 10, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the presidents' partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself.
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. "
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
2/
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 10, 1975
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a "state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1) ], and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C. 431(d)].
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan activity conducted
on an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a specific office within
a specific geographical area. State and National party
organizations engage in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for tributions to and/or expenditures by a National
contribution
or State political party for these functions. The Act does
limit the amounts that National and State parties may con-
tribute to individual candidates for office, but does not
impose a maximum monetary budget for the conduct of on-
going party business.
Political campaign committees accept contribu-
tions and make expenditures that are identifiable with
that committee's support of its particular candidate for
a particular office. National political parties, conversely,
are charged with the ongoing responsibility of creating
voter recognition of party identity and ideology, without
reference to an individual candidate or election. A large
measure of this function is performed by the President,
Vice President and their aides on behalf of their National
and State parties. When these party functions are per-
formed and costs result from same, the beneficiary of those
functions, i.e., the National or State political parties,
should and does assume the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentials, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
FORD
LIBRARY
si
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 5
September 10, 1975
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use
PB
of franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-
dacy [2 U.S.C. 439 (b) ]. The legislative body that enacted
the Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legis-
lator from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine
ongoing business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-
ing privileges even when seeking reelection. To postu-
late a different rule for an incumbent President seeking
reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an
incumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine
ongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly
unfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-
gested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen
to fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and
dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Congress further recognized Congressional office-
holders' needs for supportive funds during the period of
their incumbency. Section 439 (a) of the Act permits Con-
gressional candidates to use olitical contributions
received, in excess of expenditures incurred, to defray
the "ordinary and necessary" expenses associated with the
activities of a Federal officeholder, subject only to dis-
closure to the Federal Election Commission. The ordinary
and necessary expenses associated with the activities of
Federal legislative officeholders are not dissimilar to
those activities undertaken by a Presidential party head
in furtherance of his National party's goals.
Partisan political activity is a recognized
and Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's
ordinary business. The purpose of the Federal Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political
activities by employees of the Executive Branch of the
Federal government. That prohibition excludes employees
of the Office of the President This statutory exclusion
GREATO R.FORD
3tt.
WD
Part 7 kendy
Connors
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
September 10, 1975
that
is a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan
nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-
sarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-
ical role of the President of the United States as head
of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in
fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical
alternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that
payment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary
1
of the acts, i.e., the President's National political
party.
and
In 1975, the Republican National Committee
starty
allocated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) to support the activities of the President,
the Vice President and their aides when engaged in the
role as head of the National party. This budgetary allot-
ment is consistent with past years budgets, without regard to
whether
the year in question was an election or nonelection
year. On September 1, 1975 the Republican National
Committee had received bills totaling Three
Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual
allotment. The Republican National Committee has filed
quarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures
with the Federal Election Commission since the establish-
ment of that agency. The Republican National Committee
believes that it is the proper body to assume these expen-
ditures, just as presumably, the Democratic National Com-
mittee believed it was the proper body to pay the expenses
incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in their National
party affairs during the years 1960 through 1968.
st
paid reciev and or
When the President, Vice President and their
aides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their
party.
National or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes
the cost of their travel and transportation, advance men
to
expense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of
receptions incidental to those activities. In addition,
travely
the Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred
for films and photographs taken during such Presidential
R FORD LIBRARY
GERALD
*
is
The Not PB purpose Encomber Pres, to forther of this the candidamy
of
the
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 7
September 10, 1975
E'
travel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presi-
dential gifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm
bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice Presidential
seal.
The Republican National Committee does not
assume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice
Presidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential
or Vice Presidential candidacy or travel associated with
the candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,
the candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,
in accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election
Campaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.
does not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-
dential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of
the United States, having no political overtones. That
exception is the expenditures incurred by advance men
during Presidential official travel. These charges are
incurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by
TXX The
the Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-
mental business. Although the National Committee is not,
per se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel, it
assumes the advance men cost on official trips in the
belief that such an expendi ture from the United States
Treasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures
incurred during the Presidential official travel are borne
by the White House budget funds.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
GERALD LIBRATY R FORD
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 8
September 10, 1975
Government funds and the latter imposes an equitable
disadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking re-election,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. We would appreciate very much any comments or
suggestions that the Commission may think appropriate to
make with respect to our treatment of the payment of
expenses incurred by the President, the Vice President
and their aides when engaged in party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
Saturally the received of the INC
reflecting 77 there post expenditures are
available for inspection by the F.E.C.,
should the Commission so desire.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
subject Araff3 to with changes
Republican
National
Committee.
Mary Louise Smith
Chairman
15
September 10, 1975
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
GERALD A. LIBRARY FORD
484-6500.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 10, 1975
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican Party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 10, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the presidents' partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party.
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself.
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. " 27
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
1/
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
2/
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
Rath 1608
Two You todlier
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 10, 1975
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (1) ]m a " state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1)], and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d)
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan acitvity conducted on
an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a sepcific office within
a specific geographical area. State and National party
organizations engage in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
Patend
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for expenditures by a National or State political party
for these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that
National and State parties may contribute to individual
candidates for office, but does not impose a maximum monetary
budget for the conduct of ongoing party business.
Political campaign committees accept contributions
and make expenditures that are identifiable with that comm-
ittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular
office. National political parties, conversely, are charged
with the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-
nition of party identity and ideology, without reference to
an individual candidate or election. A large measure of this
function is performed by the President, Vice President and
their aides on behalf of their National and State parties.
When these party functions are performed and costs result
from same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the
National or State political parties, should and does assume
the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
GERALD FORD
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 5
September 10, 1975
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use of
franked mail privileges after a declaration of candidacy
[2 U.S.C. 439 (b) The legislative body that enacted the
Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator
from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-
going business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-
ing privileges even when seeking reelection. To postu-
late a different rule for an incumbent President seeking
reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an
incumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine
ongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly
unfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-
gested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen
to fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and
dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Partisan political activity is a recognized
and Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's
ordinary business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seg.) is to prohibit partisan political
activities by employees of the Executive Branch of the
Federal government. That prohibition excludes employees
of the Office of the President. This statutory exclusion
is a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan
nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-
sarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-
ical role of the President of the United States as head
of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in
fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical
alternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that
payment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary
of the acts, i.e., the President's National Political
party.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
September 10, 1975
In 1975, the Republican National Committee allocated
the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to support
the activities of the President, the Vice President and their
aides when engaged in the role as head of the National party.
This budgetary allotment is consistent with past years budgets,
without regard to whether the year in question was an election
or nonelection year. On September 1, 1975, the Republican
National Committee had paid and/or received bills totaling
Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual
allotment. The Republican National Committee has filed
quarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures with
the Federal Election Commission since the establishment of
that agency. The Republican National Committee believes that
it is the proper body to assume these expenditures, just as
presumably, the Democratic National Committee believed it
was the proper body to pay the expenses incurred by Democratic
Presidents engaged in their National party affairs during the
years 1960 through 1968.
When the President, Vice President and their
aides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their
National or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes
the cost of their travel and transportation, advance men
expense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of
receptions incidental to those activities. In addition,
the Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred
for films and photographs taken during such Presidential
travel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presidential
gifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm bracelets pic-
turing the Presidential or Vice Presidential seal.
The Republican National Committee does not
assume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice
Presidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential
or Vice Presidential candidacy or travel associated with
the candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,
the candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,
in accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election
Campaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.
does not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-
dential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of
the United States, having no political overtones. That
exception is the expenditures incurred by advance men
during Presidential official travel. These charges are
incurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 7
September 10, 1975
the Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-
ment business. Although the National Committee is not,
per se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel,
it assumes the advance men cost on official trips in the
belief that such an expenditure from the United States
Treasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures
incurred during the Presidential official travel are borne
by the White House budget.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
Government funds and the latter imposes an equitable dis-
advantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting
these past expenditures are available for inspection by
the F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-
ciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-
mission may think appropriate to make with respect to our
treatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-
dent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in
party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
Republican
National
2
Committee.
Mary Louise Smith
Chairman
September 15, 1975
w/ochange
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 15, 1975
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 15, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself.
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. "
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
1/
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 15, 1975
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a "state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1) ], and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) ].
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan activity conducted on
an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a specific office within
a specific geographical area. National and State party
organizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for expenditures by a National or State political party
for these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that
National and State parties may contribute to, or spend on
behalf of, individuals seeking, " Nomination for election,
or for election, to Federal office.
" (18 U.S.C. 608),
but it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the
conduct of ongoing party business.
Political campaign committees accept contributions
and make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-
mittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular
office. National political parties, conversely, are charged
with the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-
nition of party identity and ideology, without reference to
an individual candidate or election. A large measure of this
function is performed by the President, Vice President and
their aides on behalf of their National and State parties.
When these party functions are performed and costs result
from same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the
National or State political parties, should and does assume
the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 5
September 15, 1975
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use
of franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-
dacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only
for,
"
28 days immediately before the date of any
primary or general election
in which such Member
or Member-elect is a candidate for public office."
[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) ]. The legislative body that enacted
the Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator
from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-
going business, thereby allowing continued free mailing
privileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To
postulate a different rule for an incumbent President
seeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication
by an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-
ducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would
be manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President
Kennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he
was chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political
party and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Partisan political activity is a recognized and
Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary
business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.
7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities
by employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-
ment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of
the President and the President, himself. This statutory
exclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent
partisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not
necessarily follow that because Congress recognized the
political role of the President of the United States as
head of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him
in fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-
native to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment
of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the
acts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.
7921
750
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
September 15, 1975
The obligation to assume a party role for one's
National Political Party is not restricted to the President
of the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently
are called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in
fund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their
own National Political Party. Such a party role if often
undertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,
after announcing their candidacy for reelection to the
position they presently hold and/or after announcing their
candidacy to the Office of President of the United States.
the costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an
announced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a
fund raising event for his National or State Party shall
not deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-
dential primary effort. The party role performed by such
individuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,
is identical to that party role of a President. Neither
incurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-
therance of their quest, " for nomination for elec-
tion, or for election, to Federal office
" (18 U.S.C.
608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'
September 5, 1975, press release postulates this very ques-
tion. Labeling it as absurd, he stated:
"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratio
Party, should name one of our presidentral
candidates, or four of them, or all of them,
as party leaders and sent them around the
country at D.N.C. expense, without limit,
and without allocating charges against their
spending limits?"
It is both wrong and unjust to insist that the political
status of an individual's candidacy automatically denies
to the National Political Parties the party services of
its party spokesmen.
(hotdete
In 1975; the Republican National Committee allo-
cated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)
to support the activities of the President, the Vice Presi-
dent and their aides when engaged in the role as head of
the National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent
GERALD LIBRARY
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 7
September 15, 1975
with past years budgets, without regard to whether the year
in question was an election or nonelection year. On September
1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills
totaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)
against the annual allotment. The National Party and various
State Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.
The purpose of the travel associated with these payments by
R.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent
President, but rather to further Republican Party interest.
The Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports
reflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-
tion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The
Republican National Committee believes that it is the proper
body to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic
National Committee believed it was the proper body to pay
the expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in
their National party affairs during the years 1960 through
1968.
When the President, Vice President and their aides
are engaged in political activity on behalf of their National
or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of
their travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone
and telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to
those activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-
mittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs
taken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-
dential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie
bars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice
Presidential seal.
The Republican National Committee does not assume
the expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when
engaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-
ciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those
instances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible
for the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of
the Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,
the R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with
Presidential official travel, i.e. travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 8
September 15, 1975
United States, having no political overtones. That exception
relates to certain expenditures incurred by advance men in
the course of official travel by the President. These ex-
penditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed
by the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the
Chief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,
further party interest. All other expenditures incurred
during the Presidential official travel are borne from
appropriated funds.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
Government funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-
advantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting
these past expenditures are available for inspection by
the F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-
ciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-
mission may think appropriate to make with respect to our
treatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-
dent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in
party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
FORD
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
GERALD
Republican
National
Committee.
Mary Louise Smith
Chairman
September 15, 1975
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 184-6500.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 15, 1975
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 15, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself. "1/
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. "
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
1/
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 15, 1975
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a "state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1) 1, and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) 1.
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan activity conducted on
an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a specific office within
a specific geographical area. National and State party
organizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for expenditures by a National or State political party
for these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that
National and State parties may contribute to, or spend on
behalf of, individuals seeking,
"
Nomination for election,
or for election, to Federal office.
"
(18
U.S.C.
608),
but it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the
conduct of ongoing party business. promoting voter registration and
Political campaign committees accept contributions
and make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-
mittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular
office. National political parties, conversely, are charged
with the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-
nition of party identity and ideology, without reference to
an individual candidate or election. A large measure of this
function is performed by the President, Vice President and
their aides on behalf of their National and State parties.
When these party functions are performed and costs result
from same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the
National or State political parties, should and does assume
the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 5
September 15, 1975
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use
of franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-
dacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only
for, "
28 days immediately before the date of any
primary or general election
in which such Member
or Member-elect is a candidate for public office."
[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) The legislative body that enacted
the Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator
from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-
going business, thereby allowing continued free mailing
privileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To
postulate a different rule for an incumbent President
seeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication
by an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-
ducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would
be manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President
Kennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he
was chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political
party and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Partisan political activity is a recognized and
Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary
business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.
7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities
by employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-
ment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of
the President and the President, himself. This statutory
exclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent
partisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not
necessarily follow that because Congress recognized the
political role of the President of the United States as
head of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him
in fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-
native to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment
of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the
acts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
September 15, 1975
The obligation to assume a party role for one's
National Political Party is not restricted to the President
of the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently
are called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in
fund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their
own National Political Party. Such a party role is often
undertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,
after announcing their candidacy for reelection to the
position they presently hold and/or after announcing their
candidacy to the Office of President of the United States.
the costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an
announced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a
fund raising event for his National or State Party shall should
not deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-
dential primary effort. The party role performed by such
individuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,
is identical to that party role of a President. Neither
incurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-
therance of their quest,
for nomination for elec-
tion, or for election, to Federal office
"
(18 U.S.C.
608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'
September 5, 1975, press release postulates this very ques-
tion. Labeling it as abourd, he stated. reflected his disagreement
with this principle and arqued:
"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratic
Party, should name one of our presidential
candidates, or four of them, or all of them,
as party leaders and sent them around the
country at D.N.C. expense, without limit,
and without allocating charges against their
spending limits?"
It is both wrong and unjust to insist that the political
status of an individual's candidacy automatically denies
to the National Political Parties the party services of
its party spokesmen.
In 1975, the Republican National Committee allo-
cated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)
to support the activities of the President, Aarty the Vice Presi-
dent and their aides when engaged in a the role as head of
the National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent
GERALO & FORD LIGRARD
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 7
September 15, 1975
with past years budgets, without regard to whether the year
in question was an election or nonelection year. On September
1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills
totaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)
against the annual allotment. The National Party and various
State Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.
The purpose of the travel associated with these payments by
R.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent
President, but rather to further Republican Party interest.
The Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports
reflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-
tion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The
Republican National Committee believes that it is the proper
body to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic
National Committee believed it was the proper body to pay
the expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in
their National party affairs during the years 1960 through
1968.
When the President, Vice President and their aides
or Local
are engaged in political activity on behalf of their National
or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of
their travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone
and telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to
those activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-
mittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs
taken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-
dential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie
bars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice
Presidential seal.
The Republican National Committee does not assume
the expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when
engaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-
ciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those
instances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible
for the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of
the Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,
the R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with
Presidential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the
GERALD A FORD LIBERANT
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 8
September 15, 1975
United States, having no political overtones. That exception
relates to certain expenditures incurred by advance men in
the course of official travel by the President. These ex-
penditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed
by the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the
Chief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,
further party interest. All other expenditures incurred
during the Presidential official travel are borne from
appropriated funds.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
Government funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-
advantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting
these past expenditures are available for inspection by
the F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-
ciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-
mission may think appropriate to make with respect to our
treatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-
dent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in
party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
4562632
2803582
13
Republican
Committee.
Rase
Rummit FINAL
National
4846300
alraft
Mary Louise Smith
9\.3
Chairman
September 15, 1975
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
The Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Chairman Curtis:
As indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to
the President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National
Committee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain
expenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and
their aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-
ical party promotional activities. He correctly observed
that these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,
having been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal
Election Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This
correspondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,
to discuss the historical tradition associated with the
President's role and obligation as head of the Republican
Party, to consider alternative sources of payment for such
expenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items
paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded
to F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,
"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-
ager for Mr. Louis Wyman". Counsel's correspondence dis-
closed the method employed by the White House to allocate
the cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political
and mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice
President and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum
will not address itself to the apportionment formula con-
tained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.
FORD
R.
GERALD
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 2
September 15, 1975
The question to be considered is:
"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974
HAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION
OF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,
STATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?"
The question of the Federal Election Campaign
Law's application is restricted to expenses incurred for
acts of the President, Vice President and their aides when
engaged in Republican party political activities and is
not addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,
Vice President and their aides when engaged politically on
behalf of any individual political candidate, including the
candidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.
National political parties in the United States
arose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.
What had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-
stituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-
frage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-
cations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned
in the American Constitution, National political parties
have historically served to effectuate, organize and promote
the exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.
In the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-
dates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular
electorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served
by a primitive communication system and largely restricted
in its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-
fications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-
sively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-
vidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting
right restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,
to communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National
political parties evolved.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 3
September 15, 1975
The American President has traditionally served
as the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy
viewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following
manner:
"No President, it seems to me, can
escape politics. He has not only been
chosen by the nation--he has been chosen
by his party
if he neglects the
party machinery and avoids his party's
leadership--then he has not only weakened
the political party
he has dealt
a blow to the democratic process itself.
In the minds of the public, the programs of the President
are also the programs of his party; his personal success
or failure becomes the party's success or failure. The
Chief Executive is the embodiment of his party.
Thomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise
titled Political Parties in the United States, commented
on the President's role as head of the party:
"Frequently the party and the executive
constitute a sort of mutual accommodation
society
the executive uses the party
as a channel for interacting with other
elements in the political system, while
on other occasions the executive will
function as a vehicle for promoting party
goals. " 2
But, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive
so functions?
1/
Quoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:
Leadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.
2/
Mandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United
States, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 4
September 15, 1975
The Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974
reflects definitional distinctions between a "national
committee" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a "state committee" [2 U.S.C.
431 (1)], and a "political committee" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) 1.
These distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition
of the existence of general partisan activity conducted on
an ongoing basis by National political parties when
compared to those activities of a specific candidate's
organization seeking election to a specific office within
a specific geographical area. National and State party
organizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,
among other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,
telephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-
lications, research, travel, fund raising, convention
arrangements and voter education in both election and non-
election years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-
sion for expenditures by a National or State political party
for these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that
National and State parties may contribute to, or spend on
behalf of, individuals seeking,
Nomination for election,
or for election, to Federal office.
"
(18 U.S.C. 608),
but it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the
conduct of ongoing party business.
Promoting voter registration and
Political campaign committees accept contributions
and make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-
mittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular
office. National political parties, conversely, are charged
with the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-
nition of party identity and ideology, without reference to
voter
an individual candidate or election. A large measure of this
squsten-
function is performed by the President, Vice President and
From
their aides on behalf of their National and State parties.
absentee
When these party functions are performed and costs result
ballots
from same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the
National or State political parties, should and does assume
the cost incurred.
Obviously, some slight personal political divi-
dends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and
speaking on his National party's behalf simply by the
Presidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-
nition and constituency exposure, are not specifically
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 5
September 15, 1975
prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,
in fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent
United States Senators and Representatives seeking re-
election by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use
of franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-
dacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only
for, "
28 days immediately before the date of any
primary or general election
in which such Member
or Member-elect is a candidate for public office."
[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) 1. The legislative body that enacted
the Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that
a declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator
from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-
going business, thereby allowing continued free mailing
privileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To
postulate a different rule for an incumbent President
seeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication
by an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-
ducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would
be manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President
Kennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he
was chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political
party and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.
Partisan political activity is a recognized and
Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary
business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.
7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities
by employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-
ment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of
the President and the President, himself. This statutory
exclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent
partisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not
necessarily follow that because Congress recognized the
political role of the President of the United States as
head of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him
in fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred
should be borne by the Treasury of the United States.
As suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-
native to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment
of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the
acts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 6
September 15, 1975
The obligation to assume a party role for one's
National Political Party is not restricted to the President
of the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently
are called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in
fund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their
own National Political Party. Such a party role is often
undertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,
after announcing their candidacy for reelection to the
position they presently hold and/or after announcing their
candidacy to the Office of President of the United States.
the costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an
announced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a
fund raising event for his National or State Party shall
should
not deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-
dential primary effort. The party role performed by such
individuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,
is identical to that party role of a President. Neither
incurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-
therance of their quest,
"
for nomination for elec-
tion, or for election, to Federal office
"
(18 U.S.C.
608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'
replected
his
September 5, 1975, press release postulates this very queg
tion. habeling it as absurd, he stated:
with
"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratic
Party, should name one of our presidential
His party role
and argued:
candidates, or four of them, or all of them,
as party leaders and sent them around the
country at D.N.C. expense, without limit,
and without allocating charges against their
spending limits?"
Roth
It
is both wrong and unjust to insist that the political
status of an individual's candidacy automatically denies
to the National Political Parties the party services of
New
its party spokesmen.
New
In 1975, the Republican National Committee allo-
cated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)
to support the activities of the President, the Vice Presi-
dent and their aides when engaged in, the role as head of
the National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent
a party role.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
and lotherwise recieved
Page 7
September 15, 1975
with past years budgets, without regard to whether the year
in question was an election or nonelection year On September
1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills
totaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)
against the annual allotment. The National Party and various
State Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.
The purpose of the travel associated with these payments by
R.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent
President, but rather to further Republican Party interest.
The Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports
reflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-
tion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The
Republican National Committee believes that it is the proper
body to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic
National Committee believed it was the proper body to pay
the expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in
their National party affairs during the years 1960 through
1968.
Democrate
When the President, Vice President and their aides
are engaged in political activity on behalf of their National,
State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of
their travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone
and telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to
those activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-
mittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs
taken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-
dential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie
bars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice
Presidential seal.
The Republican National Committee does not assume
the expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when
engaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-
ciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those
instances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible
for the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of
the Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,
the R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with
Presidential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an
adjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the
by
the Pres m has and rola
Charl Exe.
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis
Page 8
September 15, 1975
was
United States, having no political overtones. That exception
new
IS
relates certain expenditures incurred by advance men in relationto
the course of official travel by the President. These ex-
penditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed
by the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the
Chief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,
further party interest. All other expenditures incurred
during the Presidential official travel are borne from
appropriated funds.
The differing roles of a Presidential candidate
and a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but
nonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.
The past and present system of payments by National polit-
ical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice
President and their aides for party promotional activity
has the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment
of Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers
or, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-
dent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.
The former would constitute an improper expenditure of
Government funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-
advantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,
requiring them to deplete a significant amount of their
Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit
for expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.
Incumbency would then become a serious political liability
to an American President.
The Republican National Committee plans to con-
tinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-
nication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting
these past expenditures are available for inspection by
the F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-
ciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-
mission may think appropriate to make with respect to our
treatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-
dent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in
party promotional activities.
Sincerely yours,
MARY LOUISE SMITH
Chairman
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
EXPENSE ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY
AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1975
ACTIVITY: ACTIVITY 1 (PRESIDENT & FIRST FAMILY)
ACCOUNT
TITLE
Y-T-D EXPENDED
851.00
TRAVEL & TRANSPORTATION
$ 38,364.80
852.00
ADVANCEMEN
74,577.29
853.00
RECEPTIONS
12,424.05
854.00
GIFTS
76,767.20
855.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
18,309.84
856.00
OPINION POLLS
.00
857.00
FIELD OPERATIONS
54.50
859.00
BUDGET
.00
TOTALS
$220,497.68
WH accts
REQUEST FOR HEARING
On AOR 1975-72 (Pres. Travel)
DEMOCRATIC
Fiske
NATIONAL COMMITTEE 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 797-5900
Robert S. Strauss
Chairman
10:
12
KOV
November 18, 1975
in
Honorable Thomas B. Curtis, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, NW
to
Washington, DC 20463
Dear Chairman Curtis:
The Democratic National Committee hereby requests that the Federal Election
Commission schedule public hearings on AOR 1975-72 on presidential travel.
Due to the importance of the subject matter and its potential effect on the law
and the American political system, it is incumbent that the full range of views
from all interested parties be fully presented and discussed before any official
Commission action takes place. We therefore respectfully request that the
Commission schedule such public hearings, arranged with public notice and in
reasonable time, and pending the completion of such hearings, the Commission
withold action on AOR 1975-72.
Robert Sincerely S. Strause
Robert
S.
Strauss
CC: Commissioner Joan Aikens
Commissioner Thomas Harris
Commissioner Neil Staebler
Commissioner Vernon Thompson
Commissioner Robert Tiernan
Honorable Francis Valeo
Honorable Edmund Henshaw
FORD LISMARY & GERALD
2/8/nn
Republican
National
Ae
Committee.
February 7, 1977
Mr. Roy Hughes
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Roy:
Enclosed is an invoice from Alperstein Bros. Inc., dated October
7, 1976. This is for souvenirs for the White House.
It is my understanding that Benton Becker and you had an agreement
that any orders from the White House for items prior to November 2, 1976
should be paid by the President Ford Committee.
I am returning the invoice which we apparently received from the
White House on January 19, 1977 and paid in error. I am requesting that
you reimburse us for this amount.
Sincerely,
James Xin J. Grumley
JJG:sl
cc: Eddie Mahe, Jr.
Benton Becker
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.
VENDOR NUMBER
VENDOR NAME
CHECK DATE
CHECK
000026
ALPERSTEIN BROS INC
02/03/77 0382
INVOICE NO.
INVOICE AMOUNT
ADJUSTMENT
NET AMOUNT
EXPLANATION
00288
3,678.00
3,678.00
SOUVENIRS
CHECK
Republican National Committee.
NO.
03822
15.3
310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003.
540
THE RIGGS NATIONAL BANK
WASHINGTON. D.C.
DATE
CHEC
PAY EXACTLY 3.678 DOLLARS AND *NO* CENTS
02/03/77 038223
PAY TO
THE
ALPERSTEIN BROS INC
900 7TH ST NW
$
ORDER OF:
*****3,678.00
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
XANON THORIZED SIGNATURE
NON-NEGOTIABLE
GERALD LEBRARY A FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 20, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR:
HELEN ROGERS
FROM:
SARA EMERY
The attached invoice from Alperstein Bros. Inc. in the
3,678.00
Thanks.
amount of $3,776.50 is sent Should to you again for payment.
gBn
FORD a GERALD LIBRARY
$
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 20, 1977
FOR: Dr. James Connor
Thersone Wecklan
FROM: Marjorie Wicklein, Chief of the Gift Unit
May I pass on to you the attached request for payment from Alperstein
Bros., Inc., which was received this morning. The original invoice
#00288 in the amount of $3,776.50 was forwarded to your office on
November 10, 1976.
3,678.00
Thank you.
Encl: Memo re Unpaid Invoice #00288, Alperstein Bros., Inc.
$3,776.50. Memo dated 1/19/77 signed by Bruce Alperstein,
Credit Mgr.
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
FROM
WHITE HOUSE OFFICES
TO, 17th & PENN. AVE., N.W.
ALPERSTEIN BROTHERS, INC.
900 7th STREET N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
(202) 393-6970
SUBJECT: UNPAID INVOICE 00288 10-7-76 $3776.50 DATE: 1-19-77
FOLD
4 Dear Mrs. Wicklin:
The above invoice is still open $3,678.00 on our booles. If there
is any problem, please advise
This is for 5,106EA 900G pens at 25¢ea.
Thank you,
PLEASE REPLY TO
SIGNED credit Mgr.
REPLY
DATE:
SIGNED
GRAYARC CO., INC., BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11232
THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED
7
FORD LIBRARY GREATO
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 7, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Boston, Massachusetts)
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS GOP RECEPTION
LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
8:15 P.M. EST
Thank you very, very much, Ed. I am most grateful
for all that you have done for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and in the United States Senate. I am deeply grateful for
all you have done for the United States in the United States
Senate. You should be doggone proud you have a Senator like
Ed Brooke, and I am.
Let me say I feel better that John Volpe is our
Ambassador to Italy. Representing us in a tough situation,
John, we thank you for the fine work you are doing on behalf
of our country.
And I had the great privilege of serving in the
House of Representatives with this young fellow and this very
young lady and I can tell you that they are quality, real top-
notch fighting quality for what they represent in your State.
The only problem is we need a little more quantity. (Laughter)
So why don't you multiply the representation that Silvio and
Margaret give by giving us a couple, or more, representatives
in the House of Representatives from the great Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
I am honored and pleased to speak up on behalf of
an outstanding State Chairman and an outstanding young lady
who has done a superb job, Nancy Sinnott and John Sears.
I know a little bit about those people and the job they do and
they are first class and I hope you let them stay in there and
fight for us in 1976.
And then we have had some great Chairmen, Mrs. Cutler
and Mrs. Logan. I am grateful for what they have done and
I appreciate all of you being here. This is great to come to
Massachusetts and find this kind of a warm welcome and a
sizeable crowd and we should thank Mrs. Logan and Mrs. Cutler
for their part in it, too. Thank you very, very much.
MORE
GERALD FORD
Page 2
Now can I say a word or two to get the record
straight. A great Democratic Governor of New York once said,
"Let's look at the record."
I am not going to abandon the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in 1976 and I want that very clearly understood.
And let me give you some evidence of that. And I want you
way in the back to listen. The best evidence of the fact that
I want Massachusetts in and not out is the fact that in
the Cabinet of twelve we have four from Massachusetts.
We have Henry Kissinger, John Dunlop, Pat Moynihan and Elliot
Richardson --- very soon. That is not bad representation.
And, number two, I have been in the great
Commonwealth of Massachusetts twice in about the last four or
five months. I love it. I like the people and I am going to
come back in the spring of 1976 to win the primary.
Now, let me speak a little bit, if I might, about
1976. I know a fellow that is going to enter New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Florida and every other primary and I know he
is going to win. He is going to stick it out and he is going
to win, if he has any competition, right up to the end of
August of 1976. And don't forget it.
And then, I know a fellow that is going to win in
1976 -- in November. (Laughter) And I happen to think with
the kind of leadership you have in Ed, Silvio and Margaret
and John and Nancy and all of you out there, and millions like
you all throughout the Commonwealth, we are going to win in
Massachusetts in 1976.
You know, I am delighted, I am really delighted to be
in Massachusetts again tonight, the home of the world champion
Boston Red Sox.
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
Page 3
That is right, the world champion Boston Red Sox.
Like any good Republican and Boston Red Sox fan, we are
thinking of 1976. (Laughter)
You know, coming to Massachusetts --- now let's
be quiet back there (Laughter) -- it is great to come to
Massachusetts again. I feel sorry for the Democrats in
the Commonwealth. They have 188 seats out of 240 in your
lower House; they have 33 out of 40 in your upper House;
they have every Constitutional office and look where they
have left you. (Laughter)
They have nobody to blame but themselves and if
we don't win in 1976, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Now let's talk a little practicality. The
Republican Party has the right philosophy but in order to
win you have to come in first. Coming in second doesn't
do any good. So I say to you we should open the doors to
everybody that believes fundamentally in our philosophy.
We are not a rich man's party. We are not a
farmer's party. We are not a laborer's party. We are not
a big city party. We are not a small city party. We are
a party of people, and let me assure you when I come, or
this friend of mine comes back up here to campaign in 1976,
he is going to prove to you that between now and then he
had a great concern and compassion for the people in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We don't like high unemployment. We don't like
the difficulties that you face economically. I don't like
them any better in Massachusetts than I do in my State of
Michigan. But we are on the upgrade. We have turned the
situation around economically. We are going to have more
employment. We are going to have less unemployment. We
are going to have far less in the rate of inflation. We
are on the way in this country to a solid, cheaper, healthier
economy.
But more importantly, because it involves all
that we stand for, we are on the road to real progress
overseas. We strengthened, as Ambassador Volpe knows,
our relationships both militarily and economically in
Western Europe. We made headway despite a setback in Vietnam
in strengthening our ties in Japan and elsewhere out in
the Pacific. We are making tremendous strides in the
steps towards a just and permanent peace in the Middle
East. We are moving forward in trying to find an answer to
the problems between those behind the Iron Curtain and
those on this side. We are going to push under proper
circumstances for a way to lower our arms burden without
interfering with our national security.
MORE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 4
We are on the road to making real progress at
home and abroad and this is what the American people want,
an affirmative forward moving program, and that is what
the Republican Party stands for, and that is why we should
open our door to people from small towns, big cities, the
people from the working class, to the other people in our
society who may be bankers or professional people -- we
should open our doors to people in all stratas of our
society. We love people and we want them in the Republican
Party.
Really, it is just great to be in this great
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I was up here in April and
had the opportunity and the pleasure to speak at the Old
North Church ceremony, to speak at Concerd and Lexington
and to feel in that environment and that atmosphere and
those historic places a part of the great history of
America. Those people fought early and they fought well
and they left us a great heritage and a great tradition,
something that we should stand for. They stood for some-
thing. They stood for freedom. They stood for what it
is all about.
So our mission in 1976 and in the years ahead
is to look forward, not backwards, to feel strongly about
what is good at home and abroad, economically, within the
realm of our possibility of achieving for the betterment
of the young, the old and all others. And one of the things
that impresses me about the strength of America and what
we need to make our party great -- when I was very young
I had a Sunday school teacher who said something to me one
time that I will never forget, she said, "The beauty of
Joseph's coat is its many colors" -- the strengths of the
United States of America is its diversity.
We have the heritage of many peoples and many
religions and many nationalities in our blood, but that is
what made America great. And we in the Republican Party
welcome each and every one of them, young and old and all
other. That is what made our country great and that is
what will make our party great, and I look forward to the
opportunity of representing you and every one of the 50
States in 1976.
Thank you very much.
END (AT 8:27 P.M. EST)
R FORD
GERALD
February 25, 1977
Barry Roth, Esquire
Gerald R. Ford Transition Office
P. O. Box 2345
Washington, D. C. 20013
Dear Barry:
The attached indebtedness of the RNC regarding the
January 7 and 14 White House functions was brought to
Chairman Brock's attention by me during a meeting of Feb-
ruary 23. After explaining the history of RNC's White
House obligations during occupancy of that residence by
a Republican, Chairman Brock consented to payment. If
payment is not received by March 15, please advise me
and I will follow through.
I further advised that RNC efforts to roust Ford
records from your office (Cudlip to Winnecamp call) were
useless in that (1) Ford Committee has transmitted to the
RNC all that it is obligated to transmit, and in fact has
transmitted more than it is obligated to do and (2) that
the balance of the materials are presently lodged at the
Library at the University of Michigan and may be of little
value to the RNC. I would hope that this would end fur-
ther requests to the former President and his staff for
additional transmittals.
Fondest personal regards,
BENTON L. BECKER
BLB:ps
Attachment
GERALD R. FORD
February 22, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BENTON BECKER
FROM:
BARRY ROTH Bary
The attached is self-explanatory. If the RNC
check can be sent to me, I will make sure it
is appropriately credited.
Thank you.
GERALD
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1977
Memorandum for: Barry Roth
From: Rex Scouten #
Subject: Reimbursement - RNC
During the month of January 1977, two social functions
were held at the White House which require reimbursement from
the Republican National Committee.
1/7 Dinner - Chowder & Marching Society
$6,537.28
1/14 Reception - Republican National Cmte.
$2,928.09
The total reimbursement requested, $9,465.37, represents
the cost of food, beverage, flowers and extra labor.
Please make check payable to the Treasurer of the United
States.
Thank you.
GERALD R. FORD
OFFICE ACCTS
ATTACHMENT 1
PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING ACCOUNTS; EXCESS CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS
§ 113.1 Definitions.
$ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
S 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
§ 113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
§ 113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
$ 113.1 Definitions.
(a) Commission. "Commission" means the Federal Election Commission,"
1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 382-5162.
(b) Excess campaign funds. "Excess campaign funds" means the surplus
of campaign receipts, including all contributions, sales and income,
over campaign expenditures.
(c) Franking account. "Franking account" means an account which is
used exclusively for the purpose of receiving and expending funds
pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210. Such funds may not be transferred to
any other account or political committee.
(à) Office account. "Office account" means an account other than a
franking account which is used for the purpose of supporting the
activities of a federal officeholder.
(e) Principal campaign committee. "Principal campaign committee" means
the political committee designated by a candidate as his or her
principal campaign committee pursuant to 2 U.S.C.$432(f) (1).
(f) Legislative activities. "Legislative activities" means those
activities which are paid for solely out of appropriations approved
by either or both houses of Congress, for use by members and members-
elect of Congress. Such appropriations include but are not limited
FORD
to those for salaries, constituent services, stationery, travel GERALE and LIBRA
RY
1.
general office expenses.
2
§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
(a) All Funds including but not limited to gifts, loans, advances,
credits or deposits of money or any other thing of value which are
received or expended by an incumbent or elected holder of a federal
office for the purpose of supporting his or her activities as a
holder of such office shall be considered contributions or expendi-
tures subject to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. S§ 608, 610, 611, 613,
614 and 615.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section the limitations
of 18 U.S.C. § 608 do not apply (1) when a contributor states in
writing that the contribution is to be used exclusively for
expenditures made pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210, provided that such
contributions shall be deposited in a franking account, or (2) when
expenditures are made from funds provided for legislative activities.
§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
Except for funds appropriated for legislative activities, all funds
received by or on behalf of a federal officeholder for the purpose
of supporting his or her activities as a holder of such office shall
be deposited into one of the following accounts:
(a) an account of the officeholder's principal campaign committee, or
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b, or
(b) a franking account, or
(c) an office account, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b.
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
(a) All individuals having franking accounts shall file reports
with the Commission on April 10 and October 10 of each year.
(b) The April 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures
FORD LIBRARY
3
made from October 1 of the prior year to March 31 of each year.
The October 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures made
from April 1 to September 30 of each year. These reporting
obligations shall be effective prospectively on the effective date
of this regulation (designated Part 113).
(c) Such reports shall include the name, address, occupation and
principal place of business of all persons making contributions
aggregating in excess of $100 during the reporting period. Such
reports shall include the name and address of all persons receiving
expenditures aggregating more than $100 during the reporting period.
(a) Forms will be provided by the Commission to implement this section.
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
(a) All individuals having office accounts shall report as if such
account is a political committee, and on forms provided for that
purpose, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $434.
(b) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has
designated a principal campaign committee such officeholder's, former
officholder's or candidate's office account(s) shall file reports
with such principal campaign committee.
(c) If the officeholder has not designated a principal campaign
committee such officeholder's office account(s) shall file reports
with the Commission.
§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
(a) A principal campaign committee may transfer excess campaign FORD
funds to an office account, a franking account, an organization
Lignany
- 4 -
described in 26 U.S.C.$170(c), or for any other lawful purpose.
(b) Excess campaign funds expended on or before December 31 in an
election year will be considered expenditures for the last election
of that year. Excess campaign funds not expended or transferred by
December 31 of an election year will be considered expenditures for
the next election when they are expended or transferred. Except
for transfers to a franking account, such expenditures, whether
made before or after December 31 of an election year, are subject
to the expenditure limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).
BERALD A. FORD License
ATTACHMENT 2
EXPLANATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING
ACCOUNT; EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
The following explanation of part 113 will follow the proposed
regulation section by section, omitting only those sections which
are self-explanatory.
$113.1 Definitions.
(b) Excess campaign funds. The terms "contribution" and "expendi-
ture" are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C.
$431 et seq. The Commission, in regulations which are to follow this
regulation, will further define these two terms. The term "expenditures"
includes, for the purposes of this regulation, goods or services ordered
or received but not yet paid for. The term "receipts" includes all
money or other things of value actually received. For example, if a
principal campaign committee orders and receives $10,000 worth of
bumper stickers but does not pay for them, the $10,000. nonetheless
counts as an expenditure. A pledge to make a $1,000 contribution does
not count for excess campaign funds purposes until actual receipt of
the monies pledged. In other words, excess campaign funds are the
total assets of a campaign less debts and other commitments.
(c) Franking account. A franking account can be used for all uses
enumerated in 39 U.S.C. $3210 including, but not limited to:
(1) mail matter regarding governmental programs, and actions
of a past or current Congress,
LISTANY
-2-
(2) newsietters,
(3) press releases,
(4) questionnaires.
Personal and political letters can not be sent under the frank.
Mass mailings can not be sent under the frank less than 28 days
before an election.
Expenditures can be made from a franking account for the prepar-
ation and printing of materials sent under the frank.
(d) Office account. Examples of expenditures which would be
made from an office account are travel expenses, expenditures for
printing non-frankable matter (e.g., newsletters and questionnaires
sent less than 28 days before an election) and telephone expenses
over and above Congressional allowances.
(f) Legislative activities. Activities paid for by donations,
over and above Congressional allowances, are deemed not to be
legislative activities.
$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.
All contributions and expenditures from an office account are
treated as political contributions and expenditures. A person can
therefore make only a $1,000 contribution per election to either a
candidate's office account or to his or her principal campaign
committee, or can split the $1,000 between the two accounts. 18
U.S.C. $608(b). Similarly, a candidate and his immediate family
can personally spend only $25,000, if a Member of the House of
LIBRARY
-3-
Representatives, or $35,000 if a Senator, for office expenses
and campaign expenditures combined. 18 U.S.C. $608(a).
The above contribution and expenditure limitations do not apply
to contributions "earmarked" for a franking account or expended by
such an account. However, contributions to a franking account
from corporate and union treasuries are prohibited (18 U.S.C. §610),
as are contributions by government contractors (18 U.S.C. $611)
contributions by foreign nationals (18 U.S.C. §613), contributions
in the name of another (18 U.S.C. $614) and cash contributions of
more than $100 (18 U.S.C. $615).
$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
This section provides for the deposit of funds into three segre-
gated accounts: 1) principal campaign committee, 2) office, and 3)
franking. An officeholder is not required to set up any of these
accounts if he or she does not receive contributions or make expendi-
tures over and above Congressional allowances for legislative activities.
Further, even if an officeholder receives contributions to support
his or her activities as a holder of such office, the officeholder
need not establish a principal campaign committee. An officeholder,
not wishing to establish a campaign organization, can set up an
office account and not designate a principal campaign committee.
Office accounts, inasmuch as they are treated as political
committees, must designate depository pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437(b).
GENALD GENALOR TOMD
-4-
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.
Franking accounts are required to file two six month reports per
year with the Commission on April 10 and October 10. These reports
will include the same type of information that is required on reports
of political committees. The October 10 report will include expendi-
tures for mass mailings made prior to the general election, since a:
franking account can not be used for such mailings 28 days before an
election.
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.
Office accounts are required to file quarterly reports of receipts
and expenditures in the same manner as political committees. If the
officeholder has designated a principal campaign committee the office
account will file reports with the principal committee. If the
officeholder has not designated a principal campaign committee the
officeholder's office accounts will file reports directly with the
Commission.
$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.
If, after a campaign and after meeting all debts and other
obligations, a principal campaign committee has funds left over, the
excess can be given to charity, to an office account, a franking
account or for any other lawful purpose. For example, if asuccessful
-5-
candidate for the House of Representatives raises $100,000 in contri-
outions for the general election and expends only $60,000, he or she
has $40,000 in excess campaign funds. This member-elect of Congress
has until December 31 to expend the $40,000 surplus. Only $10,000
can be expended out of an office account during this period because.
of the $70,000 expenditure limit imposed by 18 U.S.C. $608. However,
the remaining $30,000 can be expended by a franking account without
affecting the $70,000 limitation. More than $10,000 can be put in
the office account. However, no more than $10,000 can be expended
before December 31 of the election year. Expenditures by the office
account in January of the next year will count toward the member's
limit for the next election, either a special election or a primary
election.
BURALD R. FORD
ATTACHMENT 3
JUSTIFICATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING
ACCOUNT: EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
This statement will provide justification for the proposed
office account regulation on a section-by-section basis.
$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and
Prohibitions.
Contributions to and expenditures by an office account
are treated as political contributions and expenditures
subject to the limitations and prohibitions on such trans-
actions. There are two exceptions: Matter sent under the
frank and monies appropriated by Congress to fulfill the
functions of a Member of Congress.
The Commission, pursuant to its duty to formulate
general policy with respect to the administration of the
Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (the Act) [See
2 U.S.C. $437d(a)(9)], and to its authority under 2 U.S.C.
$437d (d) (8), has determined that expenditures and
contributions over and above the two exceptions should be
treated as political in nature. This determination is
based on recent legislation concerning the frank and the
tax treatment of newsletter accounts.
Congress has determined that the cost of preparing
and pointing frankable matter should not be considered a
contribution or an expenditure for the purpose of determining
any limitation on expenditures or contributions. 39 U.S.C.
$3210(f). The Commission has followed this precedent in
FORD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
its treatment of frankable matter. Congressman Frenzel,
in supporting the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments
of 1974, stated:
Questions have been raised as to whether or
not congressional newsletters and other similar
publications would be considered expenditures
under the provisions of this bill. The
congressional franking law passed last spring
clearly states that such newsletters and other
similar publications are legitimate expenses
and can be sent under the frank. In general,
I believe the Commission should follow the
following guideline: If any item or publica-
tion can be sent under the frank, it should not
be counted as an expenditure for the purpose
of influencing an election. Hence,
congressional newsletters and other similar
publications need not be credited to the
contribution or expenditures limits of
congressional candidates.
120 Cong. Rec.
H 10333 (Daily Ed., October 10, 1974)
It logically follows at the very least that a newsletter and
other matter not sent under the frank should be considered
political and therefore funds contributed and expended to
support such newsletters and other matter should be subject
to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).
Several other laws deal with franked matter which suggest
its use should be non-political. See 39 U.S.C. $3210 (a) (5) (C).
For example, no franked mass mailings are permitted less
than 28 days before an election. Activities such as soliciting
contributions and mass mailings within four weeks of an
- 3 -
election are clearly political and funds used for these
purposes should clearly be treated as expenditures and
contributions subject to all limitations in the Federal
Election Campaign Act.
Recent tax legislation reflects the intimate relationship
between newsletter funds and campaign funds. The conference
report to the Opholstery Regulator Act states: "Generally
newsletter committees (and separate funds are to be treated
for tax purposes in the same manner as political campaign
committees." H. Rept. 93-1642, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 22.
During the debate on this legislation, several Members further
noted the similarity between these two types of funds:
MR. SCHNEEBELI. Another change of importance
would make individual contributions to candidates
for public office which are used for newsletters
to be eligible for the above-mentioned income tax
credit for deductions.
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker these provisions
place in the law the procedures outlining how
we can use funds we have collected for political
purposes, for newsletter purposes. We think this
avoids the necessity for having a separate news-
letter fund for Members who have a continuing
campaign fund (emphasis added). (Congressional
Record, daily edition December 20, 1974,
page H12597.)
This exchange and the quoted report seem to the Commission
to be a statement of Congressional awareness of the political
and campaign nature of some newsletters.
The Upholstery Regulator Act permits individual tax-
payers to take a tax deduction or a tax credit for money
- 4 -
given to a newsletter account. 26 U.S.C. §§41 and 218.
These sections of the Internal Revenue Code treat newsletter
fund contributions and political contributions in the same
manner; lumping the two together to allow an aggregate tax
aeduction or credit. Following this precedent, the Commission
will treat funds contributed to support a non-frankable
newsletter as a political contribution and expenditures made
in connection with such newsletter as an expenditure subject
to the limitations of the Act.
The Commission is of the opinion, however, that Congres-
sional appropriations for staff salaries, newsletters, stationery
and travel are for presumptively non-political, legislative
activities and, therefore, not subject to the limitations
and prohibitions of the Act. One may assume that Congress
has provided or will provide sufficient funds for the non-
political functions of the Membership. Accordingly,
additional monies not appropriated by Congress but rather
raised independently by the Members themselves or their
supporters should be viewed as political and not legislative
funds. Congress is, of course, always free to appropriate
any additional funds deemed necessary to enable Members to
carry out their legislative functions. Indeed, the point
was recently emphasized by the Honorable Wayne L. Hays,
when he indicated that such additional money should come from
LIBRARY
ARY
-5-
the public treasury and not from contributions to Members
1
or from the Members' own pocket.
$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.
This section was drafted to implement 2 U.S.C. 439a.
The provision of separate accounts facilitates reporting so
that different accounts are not commingled. Members of
Congress will have the option of using a principal campaign
committee or an office account to make certain expenditures,
such as for a non-frankable newsletter or questionnaire.
$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts and
$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts
2 U.S.C. 439a provides that contributions to a federal
officeholder for the purpose of supporting his or her
activities as an officeholder and expenditures thereof "shall
as
be fully disclosed in accordance with rules promulgated by
ca,
the Commission." The Commission determined that office
was
accounts, since they are treated for most purposes as politic
when
(See Section 113.2, supra), should file in the same manner a
at the same time as political committees. Franking accounts
are required to file less often, twice a year, so as not to
1. "Bearing the Costs of Government" by the Honorable
wayne L. Hays, Washington Post at A14 (July 19, 1975).
-6-
be unduly burdensome to legislators. The times for filing
were established so that the franking account reports would
we available for public inspection prior to the general
elections.
$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds
This section has been proposed pursuant to the Commission's
rulemaking authority under 2 U.S.C. 439a.
WH Expenses
Lorn 223 Smith 8560 } Renger for V.P.
Matwith GRF A
(1) Political lound trip
ie. side trip to SANTAN
decision IC to SAN from # bact
from LA trip
(2) Cost to travel- - seat and on Date
-1.l. officia 9
See Service
14
{
Physicial, of Civial Aid
WHard shot for 10 pagle
traveling with Ire on
Pres' trip.
cost has freen allocated at
44.00 94 hour per person
2200. 00 per have to ply Fir lance Fer Once
I.e. WH is changed by DOTI
approx 14 of those seats cost
will the absorbelby Lot
- 10 seats for political /
26 bA lance for press of $44.00
qu st per gerson
CINCIN Clev. trip - $6600 if xx
an Road trip bases - 4400. -
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Salaries of flying staff
W.H. staff is examp f from All
Hach act so ther Fre there is
personal engaged me polities
statemy recognition of WH
- WH views this as proper expendition
- Same as Congressional staffers
of appropriated funds.
BLD sugget so beginest. recemberement of
safacies to the 10 to the
of U.S.
On going patize af penent
official trips
i.e. Kavance office etc efpenson
WH suggests:
(a) allocation between RNC-PFC-WH
reason : will account (00 each
between campaign of ongony
WH
will cut beek expanses
Motreades
- drink. in the from
FORD H. LISRA
Hyreny pinion
©tell that RNC is
w
ls. ongony bus of questic & between
consentions
(3) 2 in that lote (agaug party bos)
there is is leg for
-look to + years as well
research are on (east
publicalio
Travel
political support Coutit
feed & party.
Fill of which is "ongong Port.(bus"
Jim Convors - Pres
staff See to Ruan
78116
to
Frank Pegunda - U.P.
authorizes the of the occount
RNC thems writes the check
Ro by Commons or FP to ZNC
- Nor disclosure l purpose of billing
GERALD
R FORD TIL
Box pl on GRF
receptive Next ag a At
- would help
Plu add
over or certain 15 smound (10,000.)
Connor of Pag should attent
to a 317 quity (Rummy etc)
for further attastestion and
authorization to pty by either
PFC, RNC or WF.
1/ or committee of 3 from
-
counsel from all 3
Note 2m convention problem
- Question to FBC from
RNC or PFC aboth ve
$25000 to RNC we one year 1975
and $2000 to PFC for 1976
but given in 1975
Call Viser re
ym GERALD 30 FORD
RNC
Budgetary-RNC
- RNC holds 4 writes checks
examant for attl.
1/2-3/4 Mill dnnum
expenses (titular head of party = -Pres)
(Connoxe)
RNC-goy tings
Ly
5-6-519 step
Ch
June = Presentel
lete
J
2
Proceedures Employed
MT
pd by RNC
which Hothy
4
Applicable had
not 5k limit
5
unworks ble Atternstive
R FORD LIBRES
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Election Panel
Eyes Billing
For Ford Trips
By Douglas Watson
Washington Post Staff Writer
A spokesman for the Fed- White House says that as long
eral Election Commission said
as Mr. Ford goes to that state
THIS COVER SHEET MUST BE AFFIXED TO ANY AND ALL INVOICES, EXPENSE REPORTS, AIR
TRAVEL REQUEST, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHECK REQUEST AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT WHICH IS
OR MIGHT BECOME A FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF THE RNC.
I certify that I have reviewed this invoice in detail and that no portion or
part of it except as indicated below was incurred in support of a Federal Election
and/or Presidential Nominating Convention as defined under the Federal Election
Campaign Act Amendment of 1974. This is a legitimate obligation of the Republican
National Committee. The Accounting Division is instructed to pay this bill in the
normal course of business making the appropriate allocations as indicated below.
Approval Signature
The purpose of this expenditure is:
(A) Campaign and/or Convention Support
Account Number
Campaign Name
Amount
$
Campaign Sub-Total
$
(B) Non-Campaign and/or Convention Support
Account Number
Account Name
Amount
$
Non-Campaign Sub-Total
$
TOTAL INVOICE
$
GERALD R FORD
chip Andre
of Tool
Smith's Number
re ongoing on
Party expenses
Waynethy's
484-6500
On-going
Rool Smith
Memo
The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 has given important new
financial responsibilities to the National and State Committees ob both major
political parties. These new responsibilities are in addition to the traditional
on-going functions of the parties. It seems clear that one of the intents of
Congress was to strengthen, not weaken, the two-party system in this country.
Both the Republican and Democratic National Committees want to do everything
possible to see that the regulations formulated and/or adopted by the Federal
Election Commission clearly recognize the intent of Congress, and do not
intentionally or unintentionally weaken the two-party structure in this country.
In this regard, both parties feel that the FEC should clearly recognize and adopt
the following two concepts:
1. FEC recognition of the concept of "on-going Party business".
2. FEC recognition that expenditures in the area of "on-going Party
business" are generally not chargeable to any federal candidates.
The concept of "on-going Party business" is relatively easy to discuss in general
terms. However, the problem of defining "on-going Party business" in specifics
is/mych more difficult. To understand "on-going Party business" in specifics,
it is necessary to understand the structure and traditional functions of both
Parties.
The Party structure of both parties at the State and Local level is essentially
created by State law. However, the National Committees of both parties are re-
created every four years by their respective national conventions. The traditional
functions of Party organizations have traditionally included such things as
FORD
registration, voter turnout, providing speakers, organizing volunteers, publice
tions, research, field work, travel, Presidential (or Titular Head of the Party
support, fund raising, administration, auxiliary support, convention arrange-
ments, committee meetings, voter education, etc.
Both political parties feel very strongly that expenditures in the area of
"on-going Party business" are not generally not chargeable to any candidate.
In this regard, both Parties recommend that the FEC adopt the following guide-
lines:
1. Expenditures for 11 on-going Party business" functions which are
performed by a Party organization year in and year out in non-election
years are not candidate-related expenditures and are not chargeable to
that organization's expenditure limit for any federal candidate.
2. Expenditures for 11 off-going Party" functions which are preformed
periodically or sporadically by Party organizations which are not
general election period (i.e., after the primary) related activities
such as conventions, committee meetings, registration drives, etc. are
not candidate related expenditures and are not chargeable to that
organization's expenditure limit for any federal candidate.
3. Expenditures for "on-going Party" functions which are general
election period functions and are performed specifically for a federal
candidate and/or for two or more federal candidates are expenditures
chargeable to the organization's expenditure limit for that federal
candidate and/or candidates on a "direct cost" basis -- that is that
the value of the expenditure chargeable to to the organization candidate
limit is the incremental cost specifically incurred by the Party organ-
zation specifically because that organization is actively supporting
that specific candidate.
4. That candidates are allowed to purchase goods and services from
official Party organizations at a price calculated on a direct cost
basis -- that is that the candidate is to reimburse the Party organization
for the specific incremental cost incurred by the Party organization
to provide said goods and/ or services to the candidate and that such
reimbursement in no way affects that Party organization's contribution
and/or expenditure limitation for that candidate.
5. That direct cash outlays during the general election period specifically
for one or more federal candidate are expenditures fully chargeable to
the Party organization's expenditure limitation for that federal candidate
and/or candidates
6. That direct cash contributions by a Party organization to a federal
candidate are fully chargeable to that Party organization contribution
limitation for that federal candidate.
RARY
worch
QUESTION PRESENTED:
May the payment of expenditures incurred by the
President, Vice President and their aides while engaged in
their national political party's behalf, be assumed by the
national political party without consequence to (several
cites) of the Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974?
For informal purposes this memorandum is segregated
into the following categories:
1. Historical background.
di
Howe Aect office
GERALD & FORD
new totals
PRESIDENTIAL TRIP TO:
TOTAL EXPENSES
Alaska
527.80
Arizona, Phoenix
2210.46
Boy Scout Banquet
35.00
California, Bakersfield, San Diego, Oakland, Fresno,
and San Francisco
16627.63
California, San Diego (Mrs. Ford)
2093.94
Colorado 6/75 (Susan Ford?)
93.10
Colorado, Vail
1702.33
Connecticut, New Haven (Yale)
445.41
Europe
221.59
Far East
92.12
Florida
4568.47
Georgia, Atlanta
5491.91
Georgia, Fort Benning
4081.56
Illinois, Chicago
2343.13
Indiana, Indianapolis
623.95
Indiana, South Bend (Notre Dame)
4117.67
Iowa, Des Moines
1399.14
Iowa, Sioux City and Colorado, Grand Junction
2002.01
Jordan
321.17
Kansas, Topeka
2345.63
Kansas, Wichita
1167.65
Kentucky, Louisville
269.28
Korea
377.83
Louisiana, New Orleans
2009.15
Martinique
839.57
Massachusetts, Boston, Concord, Lexington
3282.44
A FORD LIBRARY
PRESIDENTIAL TRIP TO:
TOTAL EXPENSES
Mexico
1114.15
Michigan, Detroit
1175.84
Michigan, Grand Rapids
1408.56
Missouri, Kansas City
2249.67
Nevada, Las Vegas
2730.90
New Hampshire
1556.53
New York, New York City 6/75
190.71
New York, New York City 12/74, 2/75
5359.32
New York (Mrs. Ford)
85.22
New York, West Point
1377.08
North Carolina, Charlotte
1967.57
North Carolina, Greensboro
3215.09
Ohio, Cincinnati
108.92
Ohio, Cleveland
2989.43
Oklahoma, Oklahoma City
616.18
Oregon, Portland
5250.76
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
1538.85
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Army-Navy Game)
1047.52
South Carolina, Greenville
1143.30
South Dakota, Sioux Falls
378.86
Tennessee, Nashville
371.17
Texas, Houston
5992.60
Tokyo
729.38
Utah
1716.18
Vermont, Burlington
152.74
Virginia, Fredericksburg, Winchester, Norfolk
3389.12
LIBRAST
January
*
Pditical Trips
Washington, D.C.
Colorado, Vail
February
Georgia, Atlanta
Kansas, Topeka
*
New York City, N.Y. (13th)
Texas, Houston
March
California, Bakersfield, San Diego, Oakland, Fresno, San Francisco
Florida,
Tennessee, Nashville
*
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Indiana, South Bend
April
Louisiana, New Orleans
Massachusetts, Boston, Concord, Lexington
Nevada, Las Vegas
New Hampshire
Connecticut, New Haven (Yale) (25th)
*
Virginia, Arlington
May
California, San Diego (Mrs. Ford)
Europe
New York, West Point
North Carolina, Charlotte
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Virginia, Fredericksburg, Winchester, Norfolk
Washington, D.C. (Iranian Embassy)
June
Colorado (Susan Ford)
Georgia, Fort Benning (14th)
New York, New York City, Poughkeepsie
New York (Mrs. Ford)
Ohio, Cincinnati
Europe (end of trip)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
July
* 3
Ohio, Cuyahoga
Ohio, Cincinnati
4
Maryland, Ft. McHenry, Baltimore
11
Michigan
Illinois
12
Illinois
13
Michigan, Traverse City, Mackinaw
26 - 31
Europe
August
1 - 4
Europe
10
Arkansas, Fort Smith,
10 - 17
Colorado, Vail
* 18
Iowa, Des Moines
*
18 - 19
Minnesota, Minneapolis
19
Illinois, Pekin, Peoria
19 - 24
Colorado, Vail
24
Montana, Libby Dam
24 - 25
Illinois, Chicago
25
Wisconsin, Milwaukee
* 30
Maine, Brunswick, Augusta, Portland
*
30
Rhode Island, Newport
* Political trip. On trips of more than one stop, the political stop is
underlined.
kp
September 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Republican National
Committee Members
FROM:
Mary Louise Smith
On March 17th I wrote you concerning the Republican National Committee's
new role in processing all political invitations extended to the President
and Vice President. As I pointed out, this is necessary due to the change
in the new campaign finance law.
In my letter I also explained the policy as it relates to the costs involved
in Presidential and Vice Presidential travel. However, we have encountered
numerous complaints and problems with this policy and accordingly have
decided to make the following changes:
1. The cost of the President's transportation will be charged to more
closely reflect actual cost: $5.00 per air mile and a flat fee of
$2500 to cover all additional expenses which includes advancemen,
hotel, rental cars, etc.
2. The cost of the Vice Presidential's transportation will be changed
to $4.00 per air mile and a flat fee of $1500 to cover all additional
expenses which includes advancemen, hotel, rental cars, etc..
3. Under the existing policy The Republican National Committee is to
receive 10% of the gross proceeds from any fund raising event which
involves White House participation. Under the new policy we will no
longer require that 10% of the gross proceeds be forwarded to the
continued-
FORD LIBRARY
Memo Continued - Page 2
National Committee. Thus we are simply going to try to recover
actual cost - no more - no less!
If you have any questions please feel free to call Charlie Peckham,
( 202 - 484 - 6767 ), whose office is the liason with the President and
Vice President for political clearance of executive travel.
We look forward to working with you and your associates and are enthus-
iastic about the opportunities that await us through mutual cooperation and
willingness to work together.