Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "22930204",
    "label": "Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/22930204"
}

{
    "id": "22930204",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/22930204",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Republican National Committee - White House Accounts (2)",
    "description": "This file contains materials relating to Thomas B. Curtis.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/22930204",
    "collections": [
        "Benton L. Becker Papers",
        "General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Republican National Committee (U.S.)",
        "Federal Election Commission. Office of the Staff Directory. Office of the Commission Secretary. 1975-ca. 2005",
        "Campaign funds",
        "Presidential trips"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/22930204.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/22930204.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/22930204.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/22930204",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0238/649853/22930204.pdf",
    "mediaId": "82bf558ba646fc56",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Republican National Committee -\nWhite House Accounts (2)\" of the Benton L. Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Benton Becker donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\n-Views Inc. pocut look-q of at I the Pro\nclagett\nTraft with 2 changes\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee.\nMary Louise Smith\ncallupen\n<-\ntrass, our d\nThe Chairman\n\"why\nParty roles tolor\nspoke of\nSeptember 10, 1975\ntot\nexpenses assumed\nLand\nw\nparty.\ntravels telethone,\ndoe(ison) state\nparty functions staff\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\n-\nCongrassional\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nstaff bunkatek\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nFORD LIBRARY a OERALD\nDigitized from Box 2 of the Benton Becker Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican Party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the presidents' partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself.\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \"\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\n2/\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a \"state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1) ], and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C. 431(d)].\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan activity conducted\non an ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a specific office within\na specific geographical area. State and National party\norganizations engage in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for tributions to and/or expenditures by a National\ncontribution\nor State political party for these functions. The Act does\nlimit the amounts that National and State parties may con-\ntribute to individual candidates for office, but does not\nimpose a maximum monetary budget for the conduct of on-\ngoing party business.\nPolitical campaign committees accept contribu-\ntions and make expenditures that are identifiable with\nthat committee's support of its particular candidate for\na particular office. National political parties, conversely,\nare charged with the ongoing responsibility of creating\nvoter recognition of party identity and ideology, without\nreference to an individual candidate or election. A large\nmeasure of this function is performed by the President,\nVice President and their aides on behalf of their National\nand State parties. When these party functions are per-\nformed and costs result from same, the beneficiary of those\nfunctions, i.e., the National or State political parties,\nshould and does assume the cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentials, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nsi\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 5\nSeptember 10, 1975\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use\nPB\nof franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-\ndacy [2 U.S.C. 439 (b) ]. The legislative body that enacted\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legis-\nlator from continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine\nongoing business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-\ning privileges even when seeking reelection. To postu-\nlate a different rule for an incumbent President seeking\nreelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an\nincumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine\nongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly\nunfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-\ngested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen\nto fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and\ndealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nCongress further recognized Congressional office-\nholders' needs for supportive funds during the period of\ntheir incumbency. Section 439 (a) of the Act permits Con-\ngressional candidates to use olitical contributions\nreceived, in excess of expenditures incurred, to defray\nthe \"ordinary and necessary\" expenses associated with the\nactivities of a Federal officeholder, subject only to dis-\nclosure to the Federal Election Commission. The ordinary\nand necessary expenses associated with the activities of\nFederal legislative officeholders are not dissimilar to\nthose activities undertaken by a Presidential party head\nin furtherance of his National party's goals.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized\nand Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's\nordinary business. The purpose of the Federal Hatch Act\n(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political\nactivities by employees of the Executive Branch of the\nFederal government. That prohibition excludes employees\nof the Office of the President This statutory exclusion\nGREATO R.FORD\n3tt.\nWD\nPart 7 kendy\nConnors\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nSeptember 10, 1975\nthat\nis a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan\nnature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-\nsarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-\nical role of the President of the United States as head\nof his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in\nfulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical\nalternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that\npayment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary\n1\nof the acts, i.e., the President's National political\nparty.\nand\nIn 1975, the Republican National Committee\nstarty\nallocated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars\n($500,000) to support the activities of the President,\nthe Vice President and their aides when engaged in the\nrole as head of the National party. This budgetary allot-\nment is consistent with past years budgets, without regard to\nwhether\nthe year in question was an election or nonelection\nyear. On September 1, 1975 the Republican National\nCommittee had received bills totaling Three\nHundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual\nallotment. The Republican National Committee has filed\nquarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures\nwith the Federal Election Commission since the establish-\nment of that agency. The Republican National Committee\nbelieves that it is the proper body to assume these expen-\nditures, just as presumably, the Democratic National Com-\nmittee believed it was the proper body to pay the expenses\nincurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in their National\nparty affairs during the years 1960 through 1968.\nst\npaid reciev and or\nWhen the President, Vice President and their\naides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their\nparty.\nNational or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes\nthe cost of their travel and transportation, advance men\nto\nexpense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of\nreceptions incidental to those activities. In addition,\ntravely\nthe Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred\nfor films and photographs taken during such Presidential\nR FORD LIBRARY\nGERALD\n*\nis\nThe Not PB purpose Encomber Pres, to forther of this the candidamy\nof\nthe\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 7\nSeptember 10, 1975\nE'\ntravel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presi-\ndential gifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm\nbracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice Presidential\nseal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not\nassume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice\nPresidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential\nor Vice Presidential candidacy or travel associated with\nthe candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,\nthe candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,\nin accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election\nCampaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.\ndoes not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-\ndential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of\nthe United States, having no political overtones. That\nexception is the expenditures incurred by advance men\nduring Presidential official travel. These charges are\nincurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by\nTXX The\nthe Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-\nmental business. Although the National Committee is not,\nper se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel, it\nassumes the advance men cost on official trips in the\nbelief that such an expendi ture from the United States\nTreasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures\nincurred during the Presidential official travel are borne\nby the White House budget funds.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGERALD LIBRATY R FORD\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 8\nSeptember 10, 1975\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an equitable\ndisadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking re-election,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. We would appreciate very much any comments or\nsuggestions that the Commission may think appropriate to\nmake with respect to our treatment of the payment of\nexpenses incurred by the President, the Vice President\nand their aides when engaged in party promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\nSaturally the received of the INC\nreflecting 77 there post expenditures are\navailable for inspection by the F.E.C.,\nshould the Commission so desire.\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\nsubject Araff3 to with changes\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee.\nMary Louise Smith\nChairman\n15\nSeptember 10, 1975\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nGERALD A. LIBRARY FORD\n484-6500.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican Party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the presidents' partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party.\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself.\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \" 27\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\n1/\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\n2/\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nRath 1608\nTwo You todlier\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 10, 1975\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (1) ]m a \" state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1)], and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d)\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan acitvity conducted on\nan ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a sepcific office within\na specific geographical area. State and National party\norganizations engage in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\nPatend\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for expenditures by a National or State political party\nfor these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that\nNational and State parties may contribute to individual\ncandidates for office, but does not impose a maximum monetary\nbudget for the conduct of ongoing party business.\nPolitical campaign committees accept contributions\nand make expenditures that are identifiable with that comm-\nittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular\noffice. National political parties, conversely, are charged\nwith the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-\nnition of party identity and ideology, without reference to\nan individual candidate or election. A large measure of this\nfunction is performed by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides on behalf of their National and State parties.\nWhen these party functions are performed and costs result\nfrom same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the\nNational or State political parties, should and does assume\nthe cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nGERALD FORD\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 5\nSeptember 10, 1975\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use of\nfranked mail privileges after a declaration of candidacy\n[2 U.S.C. 439 (b) The legislative body that enacted the\nFederal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator\nfrom continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-\ngoing business, and thereby allowed continued free mail-\ning privileges even when seeking reelection. To postu-\nlate a different rule for an incumbent President seeking\nreelection, and thereby mandating an abdication by an\nincumbent President of his continuing to conduct routine\nongoing National party obligations, would be manifestly\nunfair. He would be required, as President Kennedy sug-\ngested, to avoid the party's leadership role he was chosen\nto fulfill and thereby weakening his political party and\ndealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized\nand Federally codified facet of an incumbent President's\nordinary business. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act\n(5 U.S.C. 7321, et seg.) is to prohibit partisan political\nactivities by employees of the Executive Branch of the\nFederal government. That prohibition excludes employees\nof the Office of the President. This statutory exclusion\nis a Congressional recognition of the inherent partisan\nnature and duties of the Presidency. It does not neces-\nsarily follow that because Congress recognized the polit-\nical role of the President of the United States as head\nof his party, and authorized his aides to assist him in\nfulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, the more feasible and practical\nalternative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that\npayment of these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary\nof the acts, i.e., the President's National Political\nparty.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nSeptember 10, 1975\nIn 1975, the Republican National Committee allocated\nthe sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to support\nthe activities of the President, the Vice President and their\naides when engaged in the role as head of the National party.\nThis budgetary allotment is consistent with past years budgets,\nwithout regard to whether the year in question was an election\nor nonelection year. On September 1, 1975, the Republican\nNational Committee had paid and/or received bills totaling\nThree Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000) toward the annual\nallotment. The Republican National Committee has filed\nquarterly reports reflecting its quarterly expenditures with\nthe Federal Election Commission since the establishment of\nthat agency. The Republican National Committee believes that\nit is the proper body to assume these expenditures, just as\npresumably, the Democratic National Committee believed it\nwas the proper body to pay the expenses incurred by Democratic\nPresidents engaged in their National party affairs during the\nyears 1960 through 1968.\nWhen the President, Vice President and their\naides are engaged in political activity on behalf of their\nNational or State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes\nthe cost of their travel and transportation, advance men\nexpense, telephone and telegraph cost and the cost of\nreceptions incidental to those activities. In addition,\nthe Republican National Committee assumes the costs incurred\nfor films and photographs taken during such Presidential\ntravel and the expense of Presidential and Vice Presidential\ngifts such as cuff links, tie bars and charm bracelets pic-\nturing the Presidential or Vice Presidential seal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not\nassume the expenses resulting from Presidential and Vice\nPresidential travel incurred when engaged in Presidential\nor Vice Presidential candidacy or travel associated with\nthe candidacy of other individuals. In those instances,\nthe candidate's committee is required to pay all cost,\nin accordance with the strictures of the Federal Election\nCampaign Law. With one notable exception, the R.N.C.\ndoes not pay any of the expense associated with Presi-\ndential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of\nthe United States, having no political overtones. That\nexception is the expenditures incurred by advance men\nduring Presidential official travel. These charges are\nincurred by individuals, most frequently not employed by\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 7\nSeptember 10, 1975\nthe Government, and not engaged in any official Govern-\nment business. Although the National Committee is not,\nper se, a beneficiary of official Presidential travel,\nit assumes the advance men cost on official trips in the\nbelief that such an expenditure from the United States\nTreasury would be unjustified. All other expenditures\nincurred during the Presidential official travel are borne\nby the White House budget.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an equitable dis-\nadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting\nthese past expenditures are available for inspection by\nthe F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-\nciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-\nmission may think appropriate to make with respect to our\ntreatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-\ndent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in\nparty promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\nRepublican\nNational\n2\nCommittee.\nMary Louise Smith\nChairman\nSeptember 15, 1975\nw/ochange\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself.\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \"\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\n1/\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a \"state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1) ], and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) ].\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan activity conducted on\nan ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a specific office within\na specific geographical area. National and State party\norganizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for expenditures by a National or State political party\nfor these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that\nNational and State parties may contribute to, or spend on\nbehalf of, individuals seeking, \" Nomination for election,\nor for election, to Federal office.\n\" (18 U.S.C. 608),\nbut it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the\nconduct of ongoing party business.\nPolitical campaign committees accept contributions\nand make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-\nmittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular\noffice. National political parties, conversely, are charged\nwith the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-\nnition of party identity and ideology, without reference to\nan individual candidate or election. A large measure of this\nfunction is performed by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides on behalf of their National and State parties.\nWhen these party functions are performed and costs result\nfrom same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the\nNational or State political parties, should and does assume\nthe cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 5\nSeptember 15, 1975\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use\nof franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-\ndacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only\nfor,\n\"\n28 days immediately before the date of any\nprimary or general election\nin which such Member\nor Member-elect is a candidate for public office.\"\n[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) ]. The legislative body that enacted\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator\nfrom continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-\ngoing business, thereby allowing continued free mailing\nprivileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To\npostulate a different rule for an incumbent President\nseeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication\nby an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-\nducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would\nbe manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President\nKennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he\nwas chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political\nparty and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized and\nFederally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary\nbusiness. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.\n7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities\nby employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-\nment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of\nthe President and the President, himself. This statutory\nexclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent\npartisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not\nnecessarily follow that because Congress recognized the\npolitical role of the President of the United States as\nhead of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him\nin fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-\nnative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment\nof these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the\nacts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.\n7921\n750\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe obligation to assume a party role for one's\nNational Political Party is not restricted to the President\nof the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently\nare called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in\nfund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their\nown National Political Party. Such a party role if often\nundertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,\nafter announcing their candidacy for reelection to the\nposition they presently hold and/or after announcing their\ncandidacy to the Office of President of the United States.\nthe costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an\nannounced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a\nfund raising event for his National or State Party shall\nnot deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-\ndential primary effort. The party role performed by such\nindividuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,\nis identical to that party role of a President. Neither\nincurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-\ntherance of their quest, \" for nomination for elec-\ntion, or for election, to Federal office\n\" (18 U.S.C.\n608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'\nSeptember 5, 1975, press release postulates this very ques-\ntion. Labeling it as absurd, he stated:\n\"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratio\nParty, should name one of our presidentral\ncandidates, or four of them, or all of them,\nas party leaders and sent them around the\ncountry at D.N.C. expense, without limit,\nand without allocating charges against their\nspending limits?\"\nIt is both wrong and unjust to insist that the political\nstatus of an individual's candidacy automatically denies\nto the National Political Parties the party services of\nits party spokesmen.\n(hotdete\nIn 1975; the Republican National Committee allo-\ncated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)\nto support the activities of the President, the Vice Presi-\ndent and their aides when engaged in the role as head of\nthe National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent\nGERALD LIBRARY\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 7\nSeptember 15, 1975\nwith past years budgets, without regard to whether the year\nin question was an election or nonelection year. On September\n1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills\ntotaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)\nagainst the annual allotment. The National Party and various\nState Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.\nThe purpose of the travel associated with these payments by\nR.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent\nPresident, but rather to further Republican Party interest.\nThe Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports\nreflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-\ntion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The\nRepublican National Committee believes that it is the proper\nbody to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic\nNational Committee believed it was the proper body to pay\nthe expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in\ntheir National party affairs during the years 1960 through\n1968.\nWhen the President, Vice President and their aides\nare engaged in political activity on behalf of their National\nor State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of\ntheir travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone\nand telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to\nthose activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-\nmittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs\ntaken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-\ndential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie\nbars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice\nPresidential seal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not assume\nthe expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when\nengaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-\nciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those\ninstances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible\nfor the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,\nthe R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with\nPresidential official travel, i.e. travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 8\nSeptember 15, 1975\nUnited States, having no political overtones. That exception\nrelates to certain expenditures incurred by advance men in\nthe course of official travel by the President. These ex-\npenditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed\nby the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the\nChief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,\nfurther party interest. All other expenditures incurred\nduring the Presidential official travel are borne from\nappropriated funds.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-\nadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting\nthese past expenditures are available for inspection by\nthe F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-\nciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-\nmission may think appropriate to make with respect to our\ntreatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-\ndent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in\nparty promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nFORD\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\nGERALD\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee.\nMary Louise Smith\nChairman\nSeptember 15, 1975\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 184-6500.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself. \"1/\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \"\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\n1/\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a \"state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1) 1, and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) 1.\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan activity conducted on\nan ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a specific office within\na specific geographical area. National and State party\norganizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for expenditures by a National or State political party\nfor these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that\nNational and State parties may contribute to, or spend on\nbehalf of, individuals seeking,\n\"\nNomination for election,\nor for election, to Federal office.\n\"\n(18\nU.S.C.\n608),\nbut it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the\nconduct of ongoing party business. promoting voter registration and\nPolitical campaign committees accept contributions\nand make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-\nmittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular\noffice. National political parties, conversely, are charged\nwith the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-\nnition of party identity and ideology, without reference to\nan individual candidate or election. A large measure of this\nfunction is performed by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides on behalf of their National and State parties.\nWhen these party functions are performed and costs result\nfrom same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the\nNational or State political parties, should and does assume\nthe cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 5\nSeptember 15, 1975\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use\nof franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-\ndacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only\nfor, \"\n28 days immediately before the date of any\nprimary or general election\nin which such Member\nor Member-elect is a candidate for public office.\"\n[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) The legislative body that enacted\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator\nfrom continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-\ngoing business, thereby allowing continued free mailing\nprivileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To\npostulate a different rule for an incumbent President\nseeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication\nby an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-\nducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would\nbe manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President\nKennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he\nwas chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political\nparty and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized and\nFederally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary\nbusiness. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.\n7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities\nby employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-\nment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of\nthe President and the President, himself. This statutory\nexclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent\npartisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not\nnecessarily follow that because Congress recognized the\npolitical role of the President of the United States as\nhead of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him\nin fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-\nnative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment\nof these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the\nacts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe obligation to assume a party role for one's\nNational Political Party is not restricted to the President\nof the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently\nare called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in\nfund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their\nown National Political Party. Such a party role is often\nundertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,\nafter announcing their candidacy for reelection to the\nposition they presently hold and/or after announcing their\ncandidacy to the Office of President of the United States.\nthe costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an\nannounced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a\nfund raising event for his National or State Party shall should\nnot deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-\ndential primary effort. The party role performed by such\nindividuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,\nis identical to that party role of a President. Neither\nincurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-\ntherance of their quest,\nfor nomination for elec-\ntion, or for election, to Federal office\n\"\n(18 U.S.C.\n608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'\nSeptember 5, 1975, press release postulates this very ques-\ntion. Labeling it as abourd, he stated. reflected his disagreement\nwith this principle and arqued:\n\"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratic\nParty, should name one of our presidential\ncandidates, or four of them, or all of them,\nas party leaders and sent them around the\ncountry at D.N.C. expense, without limit,\nand without allocating charges against their\nspending limits?\"\nIt is both wrong and unjust to insist that the political\nstatus of an individual's candidacy automatically denies\nto the National Political Parties the party services of\nits party spokesmen.\nIn 1975, the Republican National Committee allo-\ncated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)\nto support the activities of the President, Aarty the Vice Presi-\ndent and their aides when engaged in a the role as head of\nthe National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent\nGERALO & FORD LIGRARD\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 7\nSeptember 15, 1975\nwith past years budgets, without regard to whether the year\nin question was an election or nonelection year. On September\n1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills\ntotaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)\nagainst the annual allotment. The National Party and various\nState Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.\nThe purpose of the travel associated with these payments by\nR.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent\nPresident, but rather to further Republican Party interest.\nThe Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports\nreflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-\ntion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The\nRepublican National Committee believes that it is the proper\nbody to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic\nNational Committee believed it was the proper body to pay\nthe expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in\ntheir National party affairs during the years 1960 through\n1968.\nWhen the President, Vice President and their aides\nor Local\nare engaged in political activity on behalf of their National\nor State political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of\ntheir travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone\nand telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to\nthose activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-\nmittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs\ntaken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-\ndential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie\nbars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice\nPresidential seal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not assume\nthe expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when\nengaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-\nciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those\ninstances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible\nfor the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,\nthe R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with\nPresidential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the\nGERALD A FORD LIBERANT\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 8\nSeptember 15, 1975\nUnited States, having no political overtones. That exception\nrelates to certain expenditures incurred by advance men in\nthe course of official travel by the President. These ex-\npenditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed\nby the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the\nChief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,\nfurther party interest. All other expenditures incurred\nduring the Presidential official travel are borne from\nappropriated funds.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-\nadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting\nthese past expenditures are available for inspection by\nthe F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-\nciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-\nmission may think appropriate to make with respect to our\ntreatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-\ndent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in\nparty promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\n4562632\n2803582\n13\nRepublican\nCommittee.\nRase\nRummit FINAL\nNational\n4846300\nalraft\nMary Louise Smith\n9\\.3\nChairman\nSeptember 15, 1975\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nThe Federal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20005\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nAs indicated by Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to\nthe President, on August 7, 1975, the Republican National\nCommittee (R.N.C.) has undertaken the payment of certain\nexpenditures incurred by the President, Vice President and\ntheir aides when engaged in National, state or local polit-\nical party promotional activities. He correctly observed\nthat these R.N.C. expenditures are within the public domain,\nhaving been filed quarterly by the R.N.C. with the Federal\nElection Commission, the Clerk of the House of Representa-\ntives and the Secretary of the United States Senate. This\ncorrespondence shall serve to further amplify those filings,\nto discuss the historical tradition associated with the\nPresident's role and obligation as head of the Republican\nParty, to consider alternative sources of payment for such\nexpenditures, and, finally, to briefly categorize the items\npaid for by the Republican National Committee.\nMr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975, responded\nto F.E.C. Notice 1975-38 (F.R. 80202) wherein the Commission,\n\"sought comments concerning a request from the Campaign Man-\nager for Mr. Louis Wyman\". Counsel's correspondence dis-\nclosed the method employed by the White House to allocate\nthe cost of operating Government-owned aircraft on political\nand mixed official-political trips by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides. Accordingly, this Memorandum\nwill not address itself to the apportionment formula con-\ntained in Mr. Buchen's letter of September 3, 1975.\nFORD\nR.\nGERALD\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 2\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe question to be considered is:\n\"DOES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW OF 1974\nHAVE APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL TRADITION\nOF A NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY'S PAYMENT OF\nEXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE\nUNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED\nSTATES AND THEIR AIDES WHILE ENGAGED IN NATIONAL,\nSTATE, OR LOCAL PARTY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES?\"\nThe question of the Federal Election Campaign\nLaw's application is restricted to expenses incurred for\nacts of the President, Vice President and their aides when\nengaged in Republican party political activities and is\nnot addressed to those expenses incurred by the President,\nVice President and their aides when engaged politically on\nbehalf of any individual political candidate, including the\ncandidacy of the President and Vice President themselves.\nNational political parties in the United States\narose in the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.\nWhat had been largely legislative parties evolved into con-\nstituency-based parties when the states expanded male suf-\nfrage by eliminating property-owning and taxpaying qualifi-\ncations for the voting franchise. Although not mentioned\nin the American Constitution, National political parties\nhave historically served to effectuate, organize and promote\nthe exercise of the franchise right by the electorate.\nIn the early days of the Republic, Federal candi-\ndates had no great need for funds to reach a vast popular\nelectorate. The electorate was widely scattered, served\nby a primitive communication system and largely restricted\nin its size by racial, sexual and property holding quali-\nfications. The typical campaign was waged, almost exclu-\nsively, in the newspapers and financed largely by the indi-\nvidual candidates themselves. With the abolition of voting\nright restrictions, a new electorate resulted. To service,\nto communicate and to persuade that new electorate, National\npolitical parties evolved.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 3\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe American President has traditionally served\nas the leader of his party. President John F. Kennedy\nviewed the Presidents' partisan role in the following\nmanner:\n\"No President, it seems to me, can\nescape politics. He has not only been\nchosen by the nation--he has been chosen\nby his party\nif he neglects the\nparty machinery and avoids his party's\nleadership--then he has not only weakened\nthe political party\nhe has dealt\na blow to the democratic process itself.\nIn the minds of the public, the programs of the President\nare also the programs of his party; his personal success\nor failure becomes the party's success or failure. The\nChief Executive is the embodiment of his party.\nThomas W. Madron and Carl P. Chelf, 1974 treatise\ntitled Political Parties in the United States, commented\non the President's role as head of the party:\n\"Frequently the party and the executive\nconstitute a sort of mutual accommodation\nsociety\nthe executive uses the party\nas a channel for interacting with other\nelements in the political system, while\non other occasions the executive will\nfunction as a vehicle for promoting party\ngoals. \" 2\nBut, who shall assume the cost incurred when the executive\nso functions?\n1/\nQuoted by Stuart G. Brown, The American Presidency:\nLeadership, Partisanship, and Popularity (New York: The\nMacmillan Co., 1966) Flyleaf.\n2/\nMandron and Chelf, Political Parties in the United\nStates, Holbrook Press, 1974, at page 286.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 4\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974\nreflects definitional distinctions between a \"national\ncommittee\" [2 U.S.C. 431(1)], a \"state committee\" [2 U.S.C.\n431 (1)], and a \"political committee\" [2 U.S.C. 431 (d) 1.\nThese distinctions are indicative of Congress' recognition\nof the existence of general partisan activity conducted on\nan ongoing basis by National political parties when\ncompared to those activities of a specific candidate's\norganization seeking election to a specific office within\na specific geographical area. National and State party\norganizations engaged in a day-to-day business which,\namong other things, includes maintaining offices, staffs,\ntelephones, registration drives, speaker programs, pub-\nlications, research, travel, fund raising, convention\narrangements and voter education in both election and non-\nelection years. The 1974 Act contains no limiting provi-\nsion for expenditures by a National or State political party\nfor these functions. The Act does limit the amounts that\nNational and State parties may contribute to, or spend on\nbehalf of, individuals seeking,\nNomination for election,\nor for election, to Federal office.\n\"\n(18 U.S.C. 608),\nbut it does not impose a maximum monetary budget for the\nconduct of ongoing party business.\nPromoting voter registration and\nPolitical campaign committees accept contributions\nand make expenditures that are identifiable with the com-\nmittee's support of its particular candidate for a particular\noffice. National political parties, conversely, are charged\nwith the ongoing responsibility of creating voter recog-\nnition of party identity and ideology, without reference to\nvoter\nan individual candidate or election. A large measure of this\nsqusten-\nfunction is performed by the President, Vice President and\nFrom\ntheir aides on behalf of their National and State parties.\nabsentee\nWhen these party functions are performed and costs result\nballots\nfrom same, the beneficiary of those functions, i.e., the\nNational or State political parties, should and does assume\nthe cost incurred.\nObviously, some slight personal political divi-\ndends may accrue to an incumbent President traveling and\nspeaking on his National party's behalf simply by the\nPresidential exposure. Such incidentals, as name recog-\nnition and constituency exposure, are not specifically\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 5\nSeptember 15, 1975\nprohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Law and are,\nin fact, reserved under the Act, itself, to incumbent\nUnited States Senators and Representatives seeking re-\nelection by virtue of the Act's allowed continuing use\nof franked mail privileges after a declaration of candi-\ndacy (39 U.S.C. 3210). The privilege is suspended only\nfor, \"\n28 days immediately before the date of any\nprimary or general election\nin which such Member\nor Member-elect is a candidate for public office.\"\n[32 U.S.C. 3210 (5) (D) 1. The legislative body that enacted\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law rightfully concluded that\na declaration of candidacy should not prohibit a legislator\nfrom continuing to conduct his or her usual, routine on-\ngoing business, thereby allowing continued free mailing\nprivileges even after an announcement of candidacy. To\npostulate a different rule for an incumbent President\nseeking reelection, and thereby mandating an abdication\nby an incumbent President of his continuing role of con-\nducting routine ongoing National party obligations, would\nbe manifestly unfair. He would be required, as President\nKennedy suggested, to avoid the party's leadership role he\nwas chosen to fulfill and thereby weakening his political\nparty and dealing a blow to the democratic process itself.\nPartisan political activity is a recognized and\nFederally codified facet of an incumbent President's ordinary\nbusiness. The purposes of the Federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.\n7321, et seq.) is to prohibit partisan political activities\nby employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern-\nment. That prohibition excludes employees of the Office of\nthe President and the President, himself. This statutory\nexclusion is a Congressional recognition of the inherent\npartisan nature and duties of the Presidency. It does not\nnecessarily follow that because Congress recognized the\npolitical role of the President of the United States as\nhead of his party, and authorized his aides to assist him\nin fulfilling that role, that the expenses thereby incurred\nshould be borne by the Treasury of the United States.\nAs suggested earlier, a more feasible and practical alter-\nnative to the taxpayer bearing these costs is that payment\nof these obligations be assumed by the beneficiary of the\nacts, i.e., the President's National Political Party.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 6\nSeptember 15, 1975\nThe obligation to assume a party role for one's\nNational Political Party is not restricted to the President\nof the United States. Senators and Congressmen frequently\nare called upon to function as spokesmen for, to aid in\nfund raising events of, and, generally, to represent their\nown National Political Party. Such a party role is often\nundertaken by members of Congress who are also party leaders,\nafter announcing their candidacy for reelection to the\nposition they presently hold and/or after announcing their\ncandidacy to the Office of President of the United States.\nthe costs incurred by a United States Senator, who is an\nannounced candidate for the Presidency, when attending a\nfund raising event for his National or State Party shall\nshould\nnot deplete his Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000) Presi-\ndential primary effort. The party role performed by such\nindividuals, acting as party spokesmen at party functions,\nis identical to that party role of a President. Neither\nincurs the expenditures associated with their role in fur-\ntherance of their quest,\n\"\nfor nomination for elec-\ntion, or for election, to Federal office\n\"\n(18 U.S.C.\n608). Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss'\nreplected\nhis\nSeptember 5, 1975, press release postulates this very queg\ntion. habeling it as absurd, he stated:\nwith\n\"Suppose I as Chairman of the Democratic\nParty, should name one of our presidential\nHis party role\nand argued:\ncandidates, or four of them, or all of them,\nas party leaders and sent them around the\ncountry at D.N.C. expense, without limit,\nand without allocating charges against their\nspending limits?\"\nRoth\nIt\nis both wrong and unjust to insist that the political\nstatus of an individual's candidacy automatically denies\nto the National Political Parties the party services of\nNew\nits party spokesmen.\nNew\nIn 1975, the Republican National Committee allo-\ncated the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000)\nto support the activities of the President, the Vice Presi-\ndent and their aides when engaged in, the role as head of\nthe National party. This budgetary allotment is consistent\na party role.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nand lotherwise recieved\nPage 7\nSeptember 15, 1975\nwith past years budgets, without regard to whether the year\nin question was an election or nonelection year On September\n1, 1975, the Republican National Committee had paid bills\ntotaling Three Hundred Nine Thousand Dollars ($309,000)\nagainst the annual allotment. The National Party and various\nState Parties have been substantially aided by this effort.\nThe purpose of the travel associated with these payments by\nR.N.C. was not to further the candidacy of the incumbent\nPresident, but rather to further Republican Party interest.\nThe Republican National Committee has filed quarterly reports\nreflecting its quarterly expenditures with the Federal Elec-\ntion Commission since the establishment of that agency. The\nRepublican National Committee believes that it is the proper\nbody to assume these expenditures, just as the Democratic\nNational Committee believed it was the proper body to pay\nthe expenses incurred by Democratic Presidents engaged in\ntheir National party affairs during the years 1960 through\n1968.\nDemocrate\nWhen the President, Vice President and their aides\nare engaged in political activity on behalf of their National,\nState political parties, the R.N.C. assumes the cost of\ntheir travel and transportation, advance men expense, telephone\nand telegraph cost and the cost of receptions incidental to\nthose activities. In addition, the Republican National Com-\nmittee assumes the costs incurred for films and photographs\ntaken during such Presidential travel and the expense of Presi-\ndential and Vice Presidential gifts such as cuff links, tie\nbars and charm bracelets picturing the Presidential or Vice\nPresidential seal.\nThe Republican National Committee does not assume\nthe expenses resulting from Presidential travel incurred when\nengaged in Presidential candidacy or Presidential travel asso-\nciated with the candidacy of other individuals. In those\ninstances, the candidate's committee is primarily responsible\nfor the payment of cost, in accordance with the strictures of\nthe Federal Election Campaign Law. With one notable exception,\nthe R.N.C. does not pay any of the expense associated with\nPresidential official travel, i.e., travel occurring as an\nadjunct to the Chief Executive's role as President of the\nby\nthe Pres m has and rola\nCharl Exe.\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis\nPage 8\nSeptember 15, 1975\nwas\nUnited States, having no political overtones. That exception\nnew\nIS\nrelates certain expenditures incurred by advance men in relationto\nthe course of official travel by the President. These ex-\npenditures, which in most cases are for persons not employed\nby the Government, are assumed by the R.N.C. because the\nChief Executive's appearances, regardless of their purpose,\nfurther party interest. All other expenditures incurred\nduring the Presidential official travel are borne from\nappropriated funds.\nThe differing roles of a Presidential candidate\nand a Presidential party leader are sometimes subtle, but\nnonetheless real and subject to dispassionate analysis.\nThe past and present system of payments by National polit-\nical parties for expenses incurred by the President, Vice\nPresident and their aides for party promotional activity\nhas the virtue of fairness. The alternatives, full payment\nof Presidential party promotional expenses by the taxpayers\nor, in those years when applicable, by the incumbent Presi-\ndent's campaign committee, are simply not practicable.\nThe former would constitute an improper expenditure of\nGovernment funds and the latter imposes an inequitable dis-\nadvantage upon incumbent Presidents seeking reelection,\nrequiring them to deplete a significant amount of their\nTen Million Dollar ($10,000,000) primary election limit\nfor expenses unrelated to the primary campaign effort.\nIncumbency would then become a serious political liability\nto an American President.\nThe Republican National Committee plans to con-\ntinue to implement the procedures outlined in this commu-\nnication. Naturally, the records of the R.N.C. reflecting\nthese past expenditures are available for inspection by\nthe F.E.C., should the Commission so desire. We would appre-\nciate very much any comments or suggestions that the Com-\nmission may think appropriate to make with respect to our\ntreatment of the payment of expenses incurred by the Presi-\ndent, the Vice President and their aides when engaged in\nparty promotional activities.\nSincerely yours,\nMARY LOUISE SMITH\nChairman\nREPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE\nEXPENSE ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY\nAS OF OCTOBER 31, 1975\nACTIVITY: ACTIVITY 1 (PRESIDENT & FIRST FAMILY)\nACCOUNT\nTITLE\nY-T-D EXPENDED\n851.00\nTRAVEL & TRANSPORTATION\n$ 38,364.80\n852.00\nADVANCEMEN\n74,577.29\n853.00\nRECEPTIONS\n12,424.05\n854.00\nGIFTS\n76,767.20\n855.00\nMISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES\n18,309.84\n856.00\nOPINION POLLS\n.00\n857.00\nFIELD OPERATIONS\n54.50\n859.00\nBUDGET\n.00\nTOTALS\n$220,497.68\nWH accts\nREQUEST FOR HEARING\nOn AOR 1975-72 (Pres. Travel)\nDEMOCRATIC\nFiske\nNATIONAL COMMITTEE 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 797-5900\nRobert S. Strauss\nChairman\n10:\n12\nKOV\nNovember 18, 1975\nin\nHonorable Thomas B. Curtis, Chairman\nFederal Election Commission\n1325 K Street, NW\nto\nWashington, DC 20463\nDear Chairman Curtis:\nThe Democratic National Committee hereby requests that the Federal Election\nCommission schedule public hearings on AOR 1975-72 on presidential travel.\nDue to the importance of the subject matter and its potential effect on the law\nand the American political system, it is incumbent that the full range of views\nfrom all interested parties be fully presented and discussed before any official\nCommission action takes place. We therefore respectfully request that the\nCommission schedule such public hearings, arranged with public notice and in\nreasonable time, and pending the completion of such hearings, the Commission\nwithold action on AOR 1975-72.\nRobert Sincerely S. Strause\nRobert\nS.\nStrauss\nCC: Commissioner Joan Aikens\nCommissioner Thomas Harris\nCommissioner Neil Staebler\nCommissioner Vernon Thompson\nCommissioner Robert Tiernan\nHonorable Francis Valeo\nHonorable Edmund Henshaw\nFORD LISMARY & GERALD\n2/8/nn\nRepublican\nNational\nAe\nCommittee.\nFebruary 7, 1977\nMr. Roy Hughes\nPresident Ford Committee\n1828 L Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20036\nDear Roy:\nEnclosed is an invoice from Alperstein Bros. Inc., dated October\n7, 1976. This is for souvenirs for the White House.\nIt is my understanding that Benton Becker and you had an agreement\nthat any orders from the White House for items prior to November 2, 1976\nshould be paid by the President Ford Committee.\nI am returning the invoice which we apparently received from the\nWhite House on January 19, 1977 and paid in error. I am requesting that\nyou reimburse us for this amount.\nSincerely,\nJames Xin J. Grumley\nJJG:sl\ncc: Eddie Mahe, Jr.\nBenton Becker\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.\nVENDOR NUMBER\nVENDOR NAME\nCHECK DATE\nCHECK\n000026\nALPERSTEIN BROS INC\n02/03/77 0382\nINVOICE NO.\nINVOICE AMOUNT\nADJUSTMENT\nNET AMOUNT\nEXPLANATION\n00288\n3,678.00\n3,678.00\nSOUVENIRS\nCHECK\nRepublican National Committee.\nNO.\n03822\n15.3\n310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003.\n540\nTHE RIGGS NATIONAL BANK\nWASHINGTON. D.C.\nDATE\nCHEC\nPAY EXACTLY 3.678 DOLLARS AND *NO* CENTS\n02/03/77 038223\nPAY TO\nTHE\nALPERSTEIN BROS INC\n900 7TH ST NW\n$\nORDER OF:\n*****3,678.00\nWASHINGTON, DC 20001\nXANON THORIZED SIGNATURE\nNON-NEGOTIABLE\nGERALD LEBRARY A FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 20, 1977\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nHELEN ROGERS\nFROM:\nSARA EMERY\nThe attached invoice from Alperstein Bros. Inc. in the\n3,678.00\nThanks.\namount of $3,776.50 is sent Should to you again for payment.\ngBn\nFORD a GERALD LIBRARY\n$\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 20, 1977\nFOR: Dr. James Connor\nThersone Wecklan\nFROM: Marjorie Wicklein, Chief of the Gift Unit\nMay I pass on to you the attached request for payment from Alperstein\nBros., Inc., which was received this morning. The original invoice\n#00288 in the amount of $3,776.50 was forwarded to your office on\nNovember 10, 1976.\n3,678.00\nThank you.\nEncl: Memo re Unpaid Invoice #00288, Alperstein Bros., Inc.\n$3,776.50. Memo dated 1/19/77 signed by Bruce Alperstein,\nCredit Mgr.\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nFROM\nWHITE HOUSE OFFICES\nTO, 17th & PENN. AVE., N.W.\nALPERSTEIN BROTHERS, INC.\n900 7th STREET N. W.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20001\n(202) 393-6970\nSUBJECT: UNPAID INVOICE 00288 10-7-76 $3776.50 DATE: 1-19-77\nFOLD\n4 Dear Mrs. Wicklin:\nThe above invoice is still open $3,678.00 on our booles. If there\nis any problem, please advise\nThis is for 5,106EA 900G pens at 25¢ea.\nThank you,\nPLEASE REPLY TO\nSIGNED credit Mgr.\nREPLY\nDATE:\nSIGNED\nGRAYARC CO., INC., BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11232\nTHIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED\n7\nFORD LIBRARY GREATO\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nNOVEMBER 7, 1975\nOFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY\n(Boston, Massachusetts)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT\nAT THE\nMASSACHUSETTS GOP RECEPTION\nLOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT\n8:15 P.M. EST\nThank you very, very much, Ed. I am most grateful\nfor all that you have done for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts\nand in the United States Senate. I am deeply grateful for\nall you have done for the United States in the United States\nSenate. You should be doggone proud you have a Senator like\nEd Brooke, and I am.\nLet me say I feel better that John Volpe is our\nAmbassador to Italy. Representing us in a tough situation,\nJohn, we thank you for the fine work you are doing on behalf\nof our country.\nAnd I had the great privilege of serving in the\nHouse of Representatives with this young fellow and this very\nyoung lady and I can tell you that they are quality, real top-\nnotch fighting quality for what they represent in your State.\nThe only problem is we need a little more quantity. (Laughter)\nSo why don't you multiply the representation that Silvio and\nMargaret give by giving us a couple, or more, representatives\nin the House of Representatives from the great Commonwealth of\nMassachusetts.\nI am honored and pleased to speak up on behalf of\nan outstanding State Chairman and an outstanding young lady\nwho has done a superb job, Nancy Sinnott and John Sears.\nI know a little bit about those people and the job they do and\nthey are first class and I hope you let them stay in there and\nfight for us in 1976.\nAnd then we have had some great Chairmen, Mrs. Cutler\nand Mrs. Logan. I am grateful for what they have done and\nI appreciate all of you being here. This is great to come to\nMassachusetts and find this kind of a warm welcome and a\nsizeable crowd and we should thank Mrs. Logan and Mrs. Cutler\nfor their part in it, too. Thank you very, very much.\nMORE\nGERALD FORD\nPage 2\nNow can I say a word or two to get the record\nstraight. A great Democratic Governor of New York once said,\n\"Let's look at the record.\"\nI am not going to abandon the Commonwealth of\nMassachusetts in 1976 and I want that very clearly understood.\nAnd let me give you some evidence of that. And I want you\nway in the back to listen. The best evidence of the fact that\nI want Massachusetts in and not out is the fact that in\nthe Cabinet of twelve we have four from Massachusetts.\nWe have Henry Kissinger, John Dunlop, Pat Moynihan and Elliot\nRichardson --- very soon. That is not bad representation.\nAnd, number two, I have been in the great\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts twice in about the last four or\nfive months. I love it. I like the people and I am going to\ncome back in the spring of 1976 to win the primary.\nNow, let me speak a little bit, if I might, about\n1976. I know a fellow that is going to enter New Hampshire,\nMassachusetts, Florida and every other primary and I know he\nis going to win. He is going to stick it out and he is going\nto win, if he has any competition, right up to the end of\nAugust of 1976. And don't forget it.\nAnd then, I know a fellow that is going to win in\n1976 -- in November. (Laughter) And I happen to think with\nthe kind of leadership you have in Ed, Silvio and Margaret\nand John and Nancy and all of you out there, and millions like\nyou all throughout the Commonwealth, we are going to win in\nMassachusetts in 1976.\nYou know, I am delighted, I am really delighted to be\nin Massachusetts again tonight, the home of the world champion\nBoston Red Sox.\nMORE\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nPage 3\nThat is right, the world champion Boston Red Sox.\nLike any good Republican and Boston Red Sox fan, we are\nthinking of 1976. (Laughter)\nYou know, coming to Massachusetts --- now let's\nbe quiet back there (Laughter) -- it is great to come to\nMassachusetts again. I feel sorry for the Democrats in\nthe Commonwealth. They have 188 seats out of 240 in your\nlower House; they have 33 out of 40 in your upper House;\nthey have every Constitutional office and look where they\nhave left you. (Laughter)\nThey have nobody to blame but themselves and if\nwe don't win in 1976, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.\nNow let's talk a little practicality. The\nRepublican Party has the right philosophy but in order to\nwin you have to come in first. Coming in second doesn't\ndo any good. So I say to you we should open the doors to\neverybody that believes fundamentally in our philosophy.\nWe are not a rich man's party. We are not a\nfarmer's party. We are not a laborer's party. We are not\na big city party. We are not a small city party. We are\na party of people, and let me assure you when I come, or\nthis friend of mine comes back up here to campaign in 1976,\nhe is going to prove to you that between now and then he\nhad a great concern and compassion for the people in the\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts.\nWe don't like high unemployment. We don't like\nthe difficulties that you face economically. I don't like\nthem any better in Massachusetts than I do in my State of\nMichigan. But we are on the upgrade. We have turned the\nsituation around economically. We are going to have more\nemployment. We are going to have less unemployment. We\nare going to have far less in the rate of inflation. We\nare on the way in this country to a solid, cheaper, healthier\neconomy.\nBut more importantly, because it involves all\nthat we stand for, we are on the road to real progress\noverseas. We strengthened, as Ambassador Volpe knows,\nour relationships both militarily and economically in\nWestern Europe. We made headway despite a setback in Vietnam\nin strengthening our ties in Japan and elsewhere out in\nthe Pacific. We are making tremendous strides in the\nsteps towards a just and permanent peace in the Middle\nEast. We are moving forward in trying to find an answer to\nthe problems between those behind the Iron Curtain and\nthose on this side. We are going to push under proper\ncircumstances for a way to lower our arms burden without\ninterfering with our national security.\nMORE\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 4\nWe are on the road to making real progress at\nhome and abroad and this is what the American people want,\nan affirmative forward moving program, and that is what\nthe Republican Party stands for, and that is why we should\nopen our door to people from small towns, big cities, the\npeople from the working class, to the other people in our\nsociety who may be bankers or professional people -- we\nshould open our doors to people in all stratas of our\nsociety. We love people and we want them in the Republican\nParty.\nReally, it is just great to be in this great\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts. I was up here in April and\nhad the opportunity and the pleasure to speak at the Old\nNorth Church ceremony, to speak at Concerd and Lexington\nand to feel in that environment and that atmosphere and\nthose historic places a part of the great history of\nAmerica. Those people fought early and they fought well\nand they left us a great heritage and a great tradition,\nsomething that we should stand for. They stood for some-\nthing. They stood for freedom. They stood for what it\nis all about.\nSo our mission in 1976 and in the years ahead\nis to look forward, not backwards, to feel strongly about\nwhat is good at home and abroad, economically, within the\nrealm of our possibility of achieving for the betterment\nof the young, the old and all others. And one of the things\nthat impresses me about the strength of America and what\nwe need to make our party great -- when I was very young\nI had a Sunday school teacher who said something to me one\ntime that I will never forget, she said, \"The beauty of\nJoseph's coat is its many colors\" -- the strengths of the\nUnited States of America is its diversity.\nWe have the heritage of many peoples and many\nreligions and many nationalities in our blood, but that is\nwhat made America great. And we in the Republican Party\nwelcome each and every one of them, young and old and all\nother. That is what made our country great and that is\nwhat will make our party great, and I look forward to the\nopportunity of representing you and every one of the 50\nStates in 1976.\nThank you very much.\nEND (AT 8:27 P.M. EST)\nR FORD\nGERALD\nFebruary 25, 1977\nBarry Roth, Esquire\nGerald R. Ford Transition Office\nP. O. Box 2345\nWashington, D. C. 20013\nDear Barry:\nThe attached indebtedness of the RNC regarding the\nJanuary 7 and 14 White House functions was brought to\nChairman Brock's attention by me during a meeting of Feb-\nruary 23. After explaining the history of RNC's White\nHouse obligations during occupancy of that residence by\na Republican, Chairman Brock consented to payment. If\npayment is not received by March 15, please advise me\nand I will follow through.\nI further advised that RNC efforts to roust Ford\nrecords from your office (Cudlip to Winnecamp call) were\nuseless in that (1) Ford Committee has transmitted to the\nRNC all that it is obligated to transmit, and in fact has\ntransmitted more than it is obligated to do and (2) that\nthe balance of the materials are presently lodged at the\nLibrary at the University of Michigan and may be of little\nvalue to the RNC. I would hope that this would end fur-\nther requests to the former President and his staff for\nadditional transmittals.\nFondest personal regards,\nBENTON L. BECKER\nBLB:ps\nAttachment\nGERALD R. FORD\nFebruary 22, 1977\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBENTON BECKER\nFROM:\nBARRY ROTH Bary\nThe attached is self-explanatory. If the RNC\ncheck can be sent to me, I will make sure it\nis appropriately credited.\nThank you.\nGERALD\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 16, 1977\nMemorandum for: Barry Roth\nFrom: Rex Scouten #\nSubject: Reimbursement - RNC\nDuring the month of January 1977, two social functions\nwere held at the White House which require reimbursement from\nthe Republican National Committee.\n1/7 Dinner - Chowder & Marching Society\n$6,537.28\n1/14 Reception - Republican National Cmte.\n$2,928.09\nThe total reimbursement requested, $9,465.37, represents\nthe cost of food, beverage, flowers and extra labor.\nPlease make check payable to the Treasurer of the United\nStates.\nThank you.\nGERALD R. FORD\nOFFICE ACCTS\nATTACHMENT 1\nPART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING ACCOUNTS; EXCESS CAMPAIGN\nCONTRIBUTIONS\n§ 113.1 Definitions.\n$ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\nS 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\n§ 113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\n§ 113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\n§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\n$ 113.1 Definitions.\n(a) Commission. \"Commission\" means the Federal Election Commission,\"\n1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463, (202) 382-5162.\n(b) Excess campaign funds. \"Excess campaign funds\" means the surplus\nof campaign receipts, including all contributions, sales and income,\nover campaign expenditures.\n(c) Franking account. \"Franking account\" means an account which is\nused exclusively for the purpose of receiving and expending funds\npursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210. Such funds may not be transferred to\nany other account or political committee.\n(à) Office account. \"Office account\" means an account other than a\nfranking account which is used for the purpose of supporting the\nactivities of a federal officeholder.\n(e) Principal campaign committee. \"Principal campaign committee\" means\nthe political committee designated by a candidate as his or her\nprincipal campaign committee pursuant to 2 U.S.C.$432(f) (1).\n(f) Legislative activities. \"Legislative activities\" means those\nactivities which are paid for solely out of appropriations approved\nby either or both houses of Congress, for use by members and members-\nelect of Congress. Such appropriations include but are not limited\nFORD\nto those for salaries, constituent services, stationery, travel GERALE and LIBRA\nRY\n1.\ngeneral office expenses.\n2\n§ 113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\n(a) All Funds including but not limited to gifts, loans, advances,\ncredits or deposits of money or any other thing of value which are\nreceived or expended by an incumbent or elected holder of a federal\noffice for the purpose of supporting his or her activities as a\nholder of such office shall be considered contributions or expendi-\ntures subject to the limitations of 18 U.S.C. S§ 608, 610, 611, 613,\n614 and 615.\n(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section the limitations\nof 18 U.S.C. § 608 do not apply (1) when a contributor states in\nwriting that the contribution is to be used exclusively for\nexpenditures made pursuant to 39 U.S.C. $3210, provided that such\ncontributions shall be deposited in a franking account, or (2) when\nexpenditures are made from funds provided for legislative activities.\n§ 113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nExcept for funds appropriated for legislative activities, all funds\nreceived by or on behalf of a federal officeholder for the purpose\nof supporting his or her activities as a holder of such office shall\nbe deposited into one of the following accounts:\n(a) an account of the officeholder's principal campaign committee, or\npursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b, or\n(b) a franking account, or\n(c) an office account, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437b.\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\n(a) All individuals having franking accounts shall file reports\nwith the Commission on April 10 and October 10 of each year.\n(b) The April 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures\nFORD LIBRARY\n3\nmade from October 1 of the prior year to March 31 of each year.\nThe October 10 report shall include all receipts and expenditures made\nfrom April 1 to September 30 of each year. These reporting\nobligations shall be effective prospectively on the effective date\nof this regulation (designated Part 113).\n(c) Such reports shall include the name, address, occupation and\nprincipal place of business of all persons making contributions\naggregating in excess of $100 during the reporting period. Such\nreports shall include the name and address of all persons receiving\nexpenditures aggregating more than $100 during the reporting period.\n(a) Forms will be provided by the Commission to implement this section.\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\n(a) All individuals having office accounts shall report as if such\naccount is a political committee, and on forms provided for that\npurpose, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $434.\n(b) If the officeholder, former officeholder, or candidate has\ndesignated a principal campaign committee such officeholder's, former\nofficholder's or candidate's office account(s) shall file reports\nwith such principal campaign committee.\n(c) If the officeholder has not designated a principal campaign\ncommittee such officeholder's office account(s) shall file reports\nwith the Commission.\n§ 113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\n(a) A principal campaign committee may transfer excess campaign FORD\nfunds to an office account, a franking account, an organization\nLignany\n- 4 -\ndescribed in 26 U.S.C.$170(c), or for any other lawful purpose.\n(b) Excess campaign funds expended on or before December 31 in an\nelection year will be considered expenditures for the last election\nof that year. Excess campaign funds not expended or transferred by\nDecember 31 of an election year will be considered expenditures for\nthe next election when they are expended or transferred. Except\nfor transfers to a franking account, such expenditures, whether\nmade before or after December 31 of an election year, are subject\nto the expenditure limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).\nBERALD A. FORD License\nATTACHMENT 2\nEXPLANATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING\nACCOUNT; EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS\nThe following explanation of part 113 will follow the proposed\nregulation section by section, omitting only those sections which\nare self-explanatory.\n$113.1 Definitions.\n(b) Excess campaign funds. The terms \"contribution\" and \"expendi-\nture\" are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C.\n$431 et seq. The Commission, in regulations which are to follow this\nregulation, will further define these two terms. The term \"expenditures\"\nincludes, for the purposes of this regulation, goods or services ordered\nor received but not yet paid for. The term \"receipts\" includes all\nmoney or other things of value actually received. For example, if a\nprincipal campaign committee orders and receives $10,000 worth of\nbumper stickers but does not pay for them, the $10,000. nonetheless\ncounts as an expenditure. A pledge to make a $1,000 contribution does\nnot count for excess campaign funds purposes until actual receipt of\nthe monies pledged. In other words, excess campaign funds are the\ntotal assets of a campaign less debts and other commitments.\n(c) Franking account. A franking account can be used for all uses\nenumerated in 39 U.S.C. $3210 including, but not limited to:\n(1) mail matter regarding governmental programs, and actions\nof a past or current Congress,\nLISTANY\n-2-\n(2) newsietters,\n(3) press releases,\n(4) questionnaires.\nPersonal and political letters can not be sent under the frank.\nMass mailings can not be sent under the frank less than 28 days\nbefore an election.\nExpenditures can be made from a franking account for the prepar-\nation and printing of materials sent under the frank.\n(d) Office account. Examples of expenditures which would be\nmade from an office account are travel expenses, expenditures for\nprinting non-frankable matter (e.g., newsletters and questionnaires\nsent less than 28 days before an election) and telephone expenses\nover and above Congressional allowances.\n(f) Legislative activities. Activities paid for by donations,\nover and above Congressional allowances, are deemed not to be\nlegislative activities.\n$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions.\nAll contributions and expenditures from an office account are\ntreated as political contributions and expenditures. A person can\ntherefore make only a $1,000 contribution per election to either a\ncandidate's office account or to his or her principal campaign\ncommittee, or can split the $1,000 between the two accounts. 18\nU.S.C. $608(b). Similarly, a candidate and his immediate family\ncan personally spend only $25,000, if a Member of the House of\nLIBRARY\n-3-\nRepresentatives, or $35,000 if a Senator, for office expenses\nand campaign expenditures combined. 18 U.S.C. $608(a).\nThe above contribution and expenditure limitations do not apply\nto contributions \"earmarked\" for a franking account or expended by\nsuch an account. However, contributions to a franking account\nfrom corporate and union treasuries are prohibited (18 U.S.C. §610),\nas are contributions by government contractors (18 U.S.C. $611)\ncontributions by foreign nationals (18 U.S.C. §613), contributions\nin the name of another (18 U.S.C. $614) and cash contributions of\nmore than $100 (18 U.S.C. $615).\n$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nThis section provides for the deposit of funds into three segre-\ngated accounts: 1) principal campaign committee, 2) office, and 3)\nfranking. An officeholder is not required to set up any of these\naccounts if he or she does not receive contributions or make expendi-\ntures over and above Congressional allowances for legislative activities.\nFurther, even if an officeholder receives contributions to support\nhis or her activities as a holder of such office, the officeholder\nneed not establish a principal campaign committee. An officeholder,\nnot wishing to establish a campaign organization, can set up an\noffice account and not designate a principal campaign committee.\nOffice accounts, inasmuch as they are treated as political\ncommittees, must designate depository pursuant to 2 U.S.C. $437(b).\nGENALD GENALOR TOMD\n-4-\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts.\nFranking accounts are required to file two six month reports per\nyear with the Commission on April 10 and October 10. These reports\nwill include the same type of information that is required on reports\nof political committees. The October 10 report will include expendi-\ntures for mass mailings made prior to the general election, since a:\nfranking account can not be used for such mailings 28 days before an\nelection.\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts.\nOffice accounts are required to file quarterly reports of receipts\nand expenditures in the same manner as political committees. If the\nofficeholder has designated a principal campaign committee the office\naccount will file reports with the principal committee. If the\nofficeholder has not designated a principal campaign committee the\nofficeholder's office accounts will file reports directly with the\nCommission.\n$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds.\nIf, after a campaign and after meeting all debts and other\nobligations, a principal campaign committee has funds left over, the\nexcess can be given to charity, to an office account, a franking\naccount or for any other lawful purpose. For example, if asuccessful\n-5-\ncandidate for the House of Representatives raises $100,000 in contri-\noutions for the general election and expends only $60,000, he or she\nhas $40,000 in excess campaign funds. This member-elect of Congress\nhas until December 31 to expend the $40,000 surplus. Only $10,000\ncan be expended out of an office account during this period because.\nof the $70,000 expenditure limit imposed by 18 U.S.C. $608. However,\nthe remaining $30,000 can be expended by a franking account without\naffecting the $70,000 limitation. More than $10,000 can be put in\nthe office account. However, no more than $10,000 can be expended\nbefore December 31 of the election year. Expenditures by the office\naccount in January of the next year will count toward the member's\nlimit for the next election, either a special election or a primary\nelection.\nBURALD R. FORD\nATTACHMENT 3\nJUSTIFICATION OF PART 113 - OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND FRANKING\nACCOUNT: EXCESS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS\nThis statement will provide justification for the proposed\noffice account regulation on a section-by-section basis.\n$113.2 Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and\nProhibitions.\nContributions to and expenditures by an office account\nare treated as political contributions and expenditures\nsubject to the limitations and prohibitions on such trans-\nactions. There are two exceptions: Matter sent under the\nfrank and monies appropriated by Congress to fulfill the\nfunctions of a Member of Congress.\nThe Commission, pursuant to its duty to formulate\ngeneral policy with respect to the administration of the\nFederal Election Campaign Act, as amended (the Act) [See\n2 U.S.C. $437d(a)(9)], and to its authority under 2 U.S.C.\n$437d (d) (8), has determined that expenditures and\ncontributions over and above the two exceptions should be\ntreated as political in nature. This determination is\nbased on recent legislation concerning the frank and the\ntax treatment of newsletter accounts.\nCongress has determined that the cost of preparing\nand pointing frankable matter should not be considered a\ncontribution or an expenditure for the purpose of determining\nany limitation on expenditures or contributions. 39 U.S.C.\n$3210(f). The Commission has followed this precedent in\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n- 2 -\nits treatment of frankable matter. Congressman Frenzel,\nin supporting the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments\nof 1974, stated:\nQuestions have been raised as to whether or\nnot congressional newsletters and other similar\npublications would be considered expenditures\nunder the provisions of this bill. The\ncongressional franking law passed last spring\nclearly states that such newsletters and other\nsimilar publications are legitimate expenses\nand can be sent under the frank. In general,\nI believe the Commission should follow the\nfollowing guideline: If any item or publica-\ntion can be sent under the frank, it should not\nbe counted as an expenditure for the purpose\nof influencing an election. Hence,\ncongressional newsletters and other similar\npublications need not be credited to the\ncontribution or expenditures limits of\ncongressional candidates.\n120 Cong. Rec.\nH 10333 (Daily Ed., October 10, 1974)\nIt logically follows at the very least that a newsletter and\nother matter not sent under the frank should be considered\npolitical and therefore funds contributed and expended to\nsupport such newsletters and other matter should be subject\nto the limitations of 18 U.S.C. 608(c).\nSeveral other laws deal with franked matter which suggest\nits use should be non-political. See 39 U.S.C. $3210 (a) (5) (C).\nFor example, no franked mass mailings are permitted less\nthan 28 days before an election. Activities such as soliciting\ncontributions and mass mailings within four weeks of an\n- 3 -\nelection are clearly political and funds used for these\npurposes should clearly be treated as expenditures and\ncontributions subject to all limitations in the Federal\nElection Campaign Act.\nRecent tax legislation reflects the intimate relationship\nbetween newsletter funds and campaign funds. The conference\nreport to the Opholstery Regulator Act states: \"Generally\nnewsletter committees (and separate funds are to be treated\nfor tax purposes in the same manner as political campaign\ncommittees.\" H. Rept. 93-1642, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 22.\nDuring the debate on this legislation, several Members further\nnoted the similarity between these two types of funds:\nMR. SCHNEEBELI. Another change of importance\nwould make individual contributions to candidates\nfor public office which are used for newsletters\nto be eligible for the above-mentioned income tax\ncredit for deductions.\nMr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker these provisions\nplace in the law the procedures outlining how\nwe can use funds we have collected for political\npurposes, for newsletter purposes. We think this\navoids the necessity for having a separate news-\nletter fund for Members who have a continuing\ncampaign fund (emphasis added). (Congressional\nRecord, daily edition December 20, 1974,\npage H12597.)\nThis exchange and the quoted report seem to the Commission\nto be a statement of Congressional awareness of the political\nand campaign nature of some newsletters.\nThe Upholstery Regulator Act permits individual tax-\npayers to take a tax deduction or a tax credit for money\n- 4 -\ngiven to a newsletter account. 26 U.S.C. §§41 and 218.\nThese sections of the Internal Revenue Code treat newsletter\nfund contributions and political contributions in the same\nmanner; lumping the two together to allow an aggregate tax\naeduction or credit. Following this precedent, the Commission\nwill treat funds contributed to support a non-frankable\nnewsletter as a political contribution and expenditures made\nin connection with such newsletter as an expenditure subject\nto the limitations of the Act.\nThe Commission is of the opinion, however, that Congres-\nsional appropriations for staff salaries, newsletters, stationery\nand travel are for presumptively non-political, legislative\nactivities and, therefore, not subject to the limitations\nand prohibitions of the Act. One may assume that Congress\nhas provided or will provide sufficient funds for the non-\npolitical functions of the Membership. Accordingly,\nadditional monies not appropriated by Congress but rather\nraised independently by the Members themselves or their\nsupporters should be viewed as political and not legislative\nfunds. Congress is, of course, always free to appropriate\nany additional funds deemed necessary to enable Members to\ncarry out their legislative functions. Indeed, the point\nwas recently emphasized by the Honorable Wayne L. Hays,\nwhen he indicated that such additional money should come from\nLIBRARY\nARY\n-5-\nthe public treasury and not from contributions to Members\n1\nor from the Members' own pocket.\n$113.3 Deposits of Funds into Office and Franking Accounts.\nThis section was drafted to implement 2 U.S.C. 439a.\nThe provision of separate accounts facilitates reporting so\nthat different accounts are not commingled. Members of\nCongress will have the option of using a principal campaign\ncommittee or an office account to make certain expenditures,\nsuch as for a non-frankable newsletter or questionnaire.\n$113.4 Reports of Franking Accounts and\n$113.5 Reports of Office Accounts\n2 U.S.C. 439a provides that contributions to a federal\nofficeholder for the purpose of supporting his or her\nactivities as an officeholder and expenditures thereof \"shall\nas\nbe fully disclosed in accordance with rules promulgated by\nca,\nthe Commission.\" The Commission determined that office\nwas\naccounts, since they are treated for most purposes as politic\nwhen\n(See Section 113.2, supra), should file in the same manner a\nat the same time as political committees. Franking accounts\nare required to file less often, twice a year, so as not to\n1. \"Bearing the Costs of Government\" by the Honorable\nwayne L. Hays, Washington Post at A14 (July 19, 1975).\n-6-\nbe unduly burdensome to legislators. The times for filing\nwere established so that the franking account reports would\nwe available for public inspection prior to the general\nelections.\n$113.6 Excess Campaign Funds\nThis section has been proposed pursuant to the Commission's\nrulemaking authority under 2 U.S.C. 439a.\nWH Expenses\nLorn 223 Smith 8560 } Renger for V.P.\nMatwith GRF A\n(1) Political lound trip\nie. side trip to SANTAN\ndecision IC to SAN from # bact\nfrom LA trip\n(2) Cost to travel- - seat and on Date\n-1.l. officia 9\nSee Service\n14\n{\nPhysicial, of Civial Aid\nWHard shot for 10 pagle\ntraveling with Ire on\nPres' trip.\ncost has freen allocated at\n44.00 94 hour per person\n2200. 00 per have to ply Fir lance Fer Once\nI.e. WH is changed by DOTI\napprox 14 of those seats cost\nwill the absorbelby Lot\n- 10 seats for political /\n26 bA lance for press of $44.00\nqu st per gerson\nCINCIN Clev. trip - $6600 if xx\nan Road trip bases - 4400. -\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nSalaries of flying staff\nW.H. staff is examp f from All\nHach act so ther Fre there is\npersonal engaged me polities\nstatemy recognition of WH\n- WH views this as proper expendition\n- Same as Congressional staffers\nof appropriated funds.\nBLD sugget so beginest. recemberement of\nsafacies to the 10 to the\nof U.S.\nOn going patize af penent\nofficial trips\ni.e. Kavance office etc efpenson\nWH suggests:\n(a) allocation between RNC-PFC-WH\nreason : will account (00 each\nbetween campaign of ongony\nWH\nwill cut beek expanses\nMotreades\n- drink. in the from\nFORD H. LISRA\nHyreny pinion\n©tell that RNC is\nw\nls. ongony bus of questic & between\nconsentions\n(3) 2 in that lote (agaug party bos)\nthere is is leg for\n-look to + years as well\nresearch are on (east\npublicalio\nTravel\npolitical support Coutit\nfeed & party.\nFill of which is \"ongong Port.(bus\"\nJim Convors - Pres\nstaff See to Ruan\n78116\nto\nFrank Pegunda - U.P.\nauthorizes the of the occount\nRNC thems writes the check\nRo by Commons or FP to ZNC\n- Nor disclosure l purpose of billing\nGERALD\nR FORD TIL\nBox pl on GRF\nreceptive Next ag a At\n- would help\nPlu add\nover or certain 15 smound (10,000.)\nConnor of Pag should attent\nto a 317 quity (Rummy etc)\nfor further attastestion and\nauthorization to pty by either\nPFC, RNC or WF.\n1/ or committee of 3 from\n-\ncounsel from all 3\nNote 2m convention problem\n- Question to FBC from\nRNC or PFC aboth ve\n$25000 to RNC we one year 1975\nand $2000 to PFC for 1976\nbut given in 1975\nCall Viser re\nym GERALD 30 FORD\nRNC\nBudgetary-RNC\n- RNC holds 4 writes checks\nexamant for attl.\n1/2-3/4 Mill dnnum\nexpenses (titular head of party = -Pres)\n(Connoxe)\nRNC-goy tings\nLy\n5-6-519 step\nCh\nJune = Presentel\nlete\nJ\n2\nProceedures Employed\nMT\npd by RNC\nwhich Hothy\n4\nApplicable had\nnot 5k limit\n5\nunworks ble Atternstive\nR FORD LIBRES\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nElection Panel\nEyes Billing\nFor Ford Trips\nBy Douglas Watson\nWashington Post Staff Writer\nA spokesman for the Fed- White House says that as long\neral Election Commission said\nas Mr. Ford goes to that state\nTHIS COVER SHEET MUST BE AFFIXED TO ANY AND ALL INVOICES, EXPENSE REPORTS, AIR\nTRAVEL REQUEST, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHECK REQUEST AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT WHICH IS\nOR MIGHT BECOME A FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OF THE RNC.\nI certify that I have reviewed this invoice in detail and that no portion or\npart of it except as indicated below was incurred in support of a Federal Election\nand/or Presidential Nominating Convention as defined under the Federal Election\nCampaign Act Amendment of 1974. This is a legitimate obligation of the Republican\nNational Committee. The Accounting Division is instructed to pay this bill in the\nnormal course of business making the appropriate allocations as indicated below.\nApproval Signature\nThe purpose of this expenditure is:\n(A) Campaign and/or Convention Support\nAccount Number\nCampaign Name\nAmount\n$\nCampaign Sub-Total\n$\n(B) Non-Campaign and/or Convention Support\nAccount Number\nAccount Name\nAmount\n$\nNon-Campaign Sub-Total\n$\nTOTAL INVOICE\n$\nGERALD R FORD\nchip Andre\nof Tool\nSmith's Number\nre ongoing on\nParty expenses\nWaynethy's\n484-6500\nOn-going\nRool Smith\nMemo\nThe Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 has given important new\nfinancial responsibilities to the National and State Committees ob both major\npolitical parties. These new responsibilities are in addition to the traditional\non-going functions of the parties. It seems clear that one of the intents of\nCongress was to strengthen, not weaken, the two-party system in this country.\nBoth the Republican and Democratic National Committees want to do everything\npossible to see that the regulations formulated and/or adopted by the Federal\nElection Commission clearly recognize the intent of Congress, and do not\nintentionally or unintentionally weaken the two-party structure in this country.\nIn this regard, both parties feel that the FEC should clearly recognize and adopt\nthe following two concepts:\n1. FEC recognition of the concept of \"on-going Party business\".\n2. FEC recognition that expenditures in the area of \"on-going Party\nbusiness\" are generally not chargeable to any federal candidates.\nThe concept of \"on-going Party business\" is relatively easy to discuss in general\nterms. However, the problem of defining \"on-going Party business\" in specifics\nis/mych more difficult. To understand \"on-going Party business\" in specifics,\nit is necessary to understand the structure and traditional functions of both\nParties.\nThe Party structure of both parties at the State and Local level is essentially\ncreated by State law. However, the National Committees of both parties are re-\ncreated every four years by their respective national conventions. The traditional\nfunctions of Party organizations have traditionally included such things as\nFORD\nregistration, voter turnout, providing speakers, organizing volunteers, publice\ntions, research, field work, travel, Presidential (or Titular Head of the Party\nsupport, fund raising, administration, auxiliary support, convention arrange-\nments, committee meetings, voter education, etc.\nBoth political parties feel very strongly that expenditures in the area of\n\"on-going Party business\" are not generally not chargeable to any candidate.\nIn this regard, both Parties recommend that the FEC adopt the following guide-\nlines:\n1. Expenditures for 11 on-going Party business\" functions which are\nperformed by a Party organization year in and year out in non-election\nyears are not candidate-related expenditures and are not chargeable to\nthat organization's expenditure limit for any federal candidate.\n2. Expenditures for 11 off-going Party\" functions which are preformed\nperiodically or sporadically by Party organizations which are not\ngeneral election period (i.e., after the primary) related activities\nsuch as conventions, committee meetings, registration drives, etc. are\nnot candidate related expenditures and are not chargeable to that\norganization's expenditure limit for any federal candidate.\n3. Expenditures for \"on-going Party\" functions which are general\nelection period functions and are performed specifically for a federal\ncandidate and/or for two or more federal candidates are expenditures\nchargeable to the organization's expenditure limit for that federal\ncandidate and/or candidates on a \"direct cost\" basis -- that is that\nthe value of the expenditure chargeable to to the organization candidate\nlimit is the incremental cost specifically incurred by the Party organ-\nzation specifically because that organization is actively supporting\nthat specific candidate.\n4. That candidates are allowed to purchase goods and services from\nofficial Party organizations at a price calculated on a direct cost\nbasis -- that is that the candidate is to reimburse the Party organization\nfor the specific incremental cost incurred by the Party organization\nto provide said goods and/ or services to the candidate and that such\nreimbursement in no way affects that Party organization's contribution\nand/or expenditure limitation for that candidate.\n5. That direct cash outlays during the general election period specifically\nfor one or more federal candidate are expenditures fully chargeable to\nthe Party organization's expenditure limitation for that federal candidate\nand/or candidates\n6. That direct cash contributions by a Party organization to a federal\ncandidate are fully chargeable to that Party organization contribution\nlimitation for that federal candidate.\nRARY\nworch\nQUESTION PRESENTED:\nMay the payment of expenditures incurred by the\nPresident, Vice President and their aides while engaged in\ntheir national political party's behalf, be assumed by the\nnational political party without consequence to (several\ncites) of the Federal Election Campaign Law of 1974?\nFor informal purposes this memorandum is segregated\ninto the following categories:\n1. Historical background.\ndi\nHowe Aect office\nGERALD & FORD\nnew totals\nPRESIDENTIAL TRIP TO:\nTOTAL EXPENSES\nAlaska\n527.80\nArizona, Phoenix\n2210.46\nBoy Scout Banquet\n35.00\nCalifornia, Bakersfield, San Diego, Oakland, Fresno,\nand San Francisco\n16627.63\nCalifornia, San Diego (Mrs. Ford)\n2093.94\nColorado 6/75 (Susan Ford?)\n93.10\nColorado, Vail\n1702.33\nConnecticut, New Haven (Yale)\n445.41\nEurope\n221.59\nFar East\n92.12\nFlorida\n4568.47\nGeorgia, Atlanta\n5491.91\nGeorgia, Fort Benning\n4081.56\nIllinois, Chicago\n2343.13\nIndiana, Indianapolis\n623.95\nIndiana, South Bend (Notre Dame)\n4117.67\nIowa, Des Moines\n1399.14\nIowa, Sioux City and Colorado, Grand Junction\n2002.01\nJordan\n321.17\nKansas, Topeka\n2345.63\nKansas, Wichita\n1167.65\nKentucky, Louisville\n269.28\nKorea\n377.83\nLouisiana, New Orleans\n2009.15\nMartinique\n839.57\nMassachusetts, Boston, Concord, Lexington\n3282.44\nA FORD LIBRARY\nPRESIDENTIAL TRIP TO:\nTOTAL EXPENSES\nMexico\n1114.15\nMichigan, Detroit\n1175.84\nMichigan, Grand Rapids\n1408.56\nMissouri, Kansas City\n2249.67\nNevada, Las Vegas\n2730.90\nNew Hampshire\n1556.53\nNew York, New York City 6/75\n190.71\nNew York, New York City 12/74, 2/75\n5359.32\nNew York (Mrs. Ford)\n85.22\nNew York, West Point\n1377.08\nNorth Carolina, Charlotte\n1967.57\nNorth Carolina, Greensboro\n3215.09\nOhio, Cincinnati\n108.92\nOhio, Cleveland\n2989.43\nOklahoma, Oklahoma City\n616.18\nOregon, Portland\n5250.76\nPennsylvania, Philadelphia\n1538.85\nPennsylvania, Philadelphia (Army-Navy Game)\n1047.52\nSouth Carolina, Greenville\n1143.30\nSouth Dakota, Sioux Falls\n378.86\nTennessee, Nashville\n371.17\nTexas, Houston\n5992.60\nTokyo\n729.38\nUtah\n1716.18\nVermont, Burlington\n152.74\nVirginia, Fredericksburg, Winchester, Norfolk\n3389.12\nLIBRAST\nJanuary\n*\nPditical Trips\nWashington, D.C.\nColorado, Vail\nFebruary\nGeorgia, Atlanta\nKansas, Topeka\n*\nNew York City, N.Y. (13th)\nTexas, Houston\nMarch\nCalifornia, Bakersfield, San Diego, Oakland, Fresno, San Francisco\nFlorida,\nTennessee, Nashville\n*\nWashington, D.C.\nWashington, D.C.\nIndiana, South Bend\nApril\nLouisiana, New Orleans\nMassachusetts, Boston, Concord, Lexington\nNevada, Las Vegas\nNew Hampshire\nConnecticut, New Haven (Yale) (25th)\n*\nVirginia, Arlington\nMay\nCalifornia, San Diego (Mrs. Ford)\nEurope\nNew York, West Point\nNorth Carolina, Charlotte\nPennsylvania, Philadelphia\nVirginia, Fredericksburg, Winchester, Norfolk\nWashington, D.C. (Iranian Embassy)\nJune\nColorado (Susan Ford)\nGeorgia, Fort Benning (14th)\nNew York, New York City, Poughkeepsie\nNew York (Mrs. Ford)\nOhio, Cincinnati\nEurope (end of trip)\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nJuly\n* 3\nOhio, Cuyahoga\nOhio, Cincinnati\n4\nMaryland, Ft. McHenry, Baltimore\n11\nMichigan\nIllinois\n12\nIllinois\n13\nMichigan, Traverse City, Mackinaw\n26 - 31\nEurope\nAugust\n1 - 4\nEurope\n10\nArkansas, Fort Smith,\n10 - 17\nColorado, Vail\n* 18\nIowa, Des Moines\n*\n18 - 19\nMinnesota, Minneapolis\n19\nIllinois, Pekin, Peoria\n19 - 24\nColorado, Vail\n24\nMontana, Libby Dam\n24 - 25\nIllinois, Chicago\n25\nWisconsin, Milwaukee\n* 30\nMaine, Brunswick, Augusta, Portland\n*\n30\nRhode Island, Newport\n* Political trip. On trips of more than one stop, the political stop is\nunderlined.\nkp\nSeptember 2, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nRepublican National\nCommittee Members\nFROM:\nMary Louise Smith\nOn March 17th I wrote you concerning the Republican National Committee's\nnew role in processing all political invitations extended to the President\nand Vice President. As I pointed out, this is necessary due to the change\nin the new campaign finance law.\nIn my letter I also explained the policy as it relates to the costs involved\nin Presidential and Vice Presidential travel. However, we have encountered\nnumerous complaints and problems with this policy and accordingly have\ndecided to make the following changes:\n1. The cost of the President's transportation will be charged to more\nclosely reflect actual cost: $5.00 per air mile and a flat fee of\n$2500 to cover all additional expenses which includes advancemen,\nhotel, rental cars, etc.\n2. The cost of the Vice Presidential's transportation will be changed\nto $4.00 per air mile and a flat fee of $1500 to cover all additional\nexpenses which includes advancemen, hotel, rental cars, etc..\n3. Under the existing policy The Republican National Committee is to\nreceive 10% of the gross proceeds from any fund raising event which\ninvolves White House participation. Under the new policy we will no\nlonger require that 10% of the gross proceeds be forwarded to the\ncontinued-\nFORD LIBRARY\nMemo Continued - Page 2\nNational Committee. Thus we are simply going to try to recover\nactual cost - no more - no less!\nIf you have any questions please feel free to call Charlie Peckham,\n( 202 - 484 - 6767 ), whose office is the liason with the President and\nVice President for political clearance of executive travel.\nWe look forward to working with you and your associates and are enthus-\niastic about the opportunities that await us through mutual cooperation and\nwillingness to work together."
}