Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Document outlining the necessary steps for "Strengthening White House Liaison With Important Californians." 6 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145067
label
WHSF: Contested, 7-16
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145067
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 7-16
description
This file contains:
Document outlining the necessary steps for "Strengthening White House Liaison With Important Californians." 6 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Report], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145067
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
90374cad7cdac67d
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
7
16
Domestic Policy
Report
Document outlining the necessary steps for
"Strengthening White House Liaison With
Important Californians." 6 pgs.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
STRENGTHENING WHITE HOUSE LIAISON
WITH IMPORTANT CALIFORNIANS
In developing a master list of major California Presidential supporters,
meetings were held with several knowledgeable individuals, including
Holmes Tuttle, Justin Dart, Leonard Firestone, Taft Schreiber,
Asa Call, and Jaquelin Hume. In addition, Leland Kaiser was
contacted by telephone. While discussing the list, these men mentioned
incidents of White House oversight and unresponsiveness in dealings
with important California Presidential supporters.
Such incidents can severely limit the President's ability to fully tap
the potential support in California for his re-election. For example,
Dart and Tuttle indicated they would not work for the President in 1972.
Kaiser said he would support the President's opponent. This paper,
therefore, reviews the incidents cited, discusses the causes of the
problem, and recommends a solution.
INCIDENTS OF OVERSIGHTS AND UNRESPONSIVENESS
While incidents were mentioned by each of the above named individuals,
Dart, Tuttle, and Kaiser were the most vocal, and their examples are
cited most often. The criticisms fall into two areas: (1) White House
recognitions and responsiveness and (2) policy questions.
Recognitions and Responsiveness
The main criticism is that major California Presidential supporters
are sometimes treated rudely and are not receiving appropriate recog-
nition. The Astronaut Dinner was the primary example cited by Dart
and Tuttle. They were led to believe certain individuals whom they
proposed would be invited, and they SO informed the prospective invitees.
When the invitations did not come, Dart and Tuttle were very embarrassed,
and the affected individuals felt slighted. (Interestingly, Firestone and
Schreiber also erroneously thought certain individuals they suggested
were assured invitations. However, they were prudent enought not to
inform those individuals.) Another criticism by Tuttle and Dart was
that the Astronaut Dinner guest list included many marginal and
non-Presidential supporters and that many who substantially supported
the President were ignored. The problem with Dart was compounded
when one of the President's close personal staff hung up on him during
a discussion of the matter.
2
Kaiser is quite irritated about a letter he sent to Roger Johnson who
had been identified as the President's liaison with Californians. This
letter, along with some pleasantries, outlined his deep concern about
the budget deficits. It was not even acknowledged. Recently Asa Call
was hospitalized for a serious illness. It was five weeks before the
President sent him a get well letter.
Jack Hume indicates Shermer Sibley, the President of Pacific Gas and
Electric, is extremely influential within the San Francisco community,
and, if handled properly, could be a significant contributor and fund
raiser. Sibley is on the White House Business B List, but apparently
has never had a White House invitation or been contacted by the White
House Staff. Hume also reports H. J. Haynes will soon become the
chief executive officer of Standard Oil of California and thereby "one
of the most powerful men in California. 11 He has received no invitations
and is not even on the White House list. Interestingly, in 1968 there
were only seven $25,000 plus contributors from the Bay Area -- less
than one-fifth the total from the Los Angeles area. Oversights such
as the above will have to be corrected to improve the President's
financial support from the Bay Area.
Moreover, the general criticism that some major Presidential supporters
have been slighted appears warranted. Approximately 175 California
couples not associated with the Administration or the space program
were invited to the Astronaut Dinner. Yet, 44 California $10,000 plus
contributors to the President in 1968 -- one-half the total -- were
excluded. Similarly, one-half of the California $10,000 plus contributors
have received two or fewer White House invitations -- for an average of
one since the inauguration.
Also, it should be recognized that invitations to the White House in
Washington are generally valued much more highly by Californians than
White House functions in California, such as the Mexican and Korean state
dinners. Yet, it appears that relatively few of the $10,000 California
contributors have been given this most valued recognition. For example,
Mrs. Tuttle has never been invited to the White House, and the only time
Mr. Tuttle has been invited socially was the dinner he organized on behalf
of Murphy.
These statements are indicative of the recognitions effort needed. They
should not be construed as being critical of the Social Office since it has
previously had inadequate information on the California major contributors.
For example, the Tuttles were credited with a $5,000-$10,000 contribution
- 3 -
according to the Republican National Finance Committee list. However,
they actually gave closer to $30,000 as shown on the master list just
completed.
Policy Questions
In addition to the above incidents, concerns about Administration policy
were expressed by Dart and Kaiser. Dart discussed the United States'
competitiveness in the international economy. Mentioning Dart Industries
has world-wide business dealings, he cited statistics indicating that
various foreign countries have considerably lower manpower costs per
unit of production. His general concern is that the United States is losing
its competitiveness in the foreign marketplace. Although obviously
knowledgeable and interested in international economic policy, he seemed
to be unaware of Pete Peterson's work in the area.
Somewhat similarly, Lee Kaiser is very concerned about the budget
deficits. He feels the President has renigged on his "promise to balance
the budget" given during the 1968 campaign. Also, Kaiser was aghast
at the President's statement about being a Keynesian. Apparently, Kaiser
has not been briefed on the practical difficulties of balancing the budget
or the reasons why the President's economic policies are valid. As
mentioned earlier, when he wrote a letter expressing his concerns, it
was not even acknowledged.
CAUSES OF PROBLEM
As a rough measure of the overall liaison problem, about one-half of
the major California Presidential supporters on the master list need
cultivation or are overdue for recognition. So close to 1972, this
percentage is too high for a State which alone accounted for over ten
percent of the President's 1968 campaign contributions and which is
critical for his re-election.
The primary cause of the problem has been the lack of intelligence about
important Californians. This weakness has been partially overcome by
the compilation of the master list. However, it should be expanded to
include others important to the President, such as influential businessmen,
Party officials, and campaign workers. Also, it should be updated
periodically.
A second cause to the problem is that there is a division of responsibilities
for handling the various liaison activities. For example, the Social
Office handles invitations; George Bell's office handles staff calls and
- 4 -
Presidential letters to important people; Peter Flanigan's office arranges
briefings for key people; and the White House Personnel Operation, in
coordination with Peter Flanigan and George Bell, handles trips and
Commission appointments. Without someone orchestrating these various
activities, oversights such as the above could occur, even if the proper
information is available.
RECOMMENDATION
Given California's importance to the President's re-election and its
large share of total campaign contributions, an individual should be
assigned on a part-time basis to gather the needed information and to
orchestrate the various White House liaison activities with important
Californians. His responsibilities would include the following:
Expand list of California Presidential supporters to include
appropriate businessmen, Party officials, and campaign
workers.
Work through the Social and Personnel Offices to ensure White
House recognitions are given to those Californians most important
to the President.
--
Work through the above offices plus Peter Flanigan and George Bell
to ensure selected Californians are appropriately cultivated by
policy briefings, calls or letters from the President, staff calls
asking their views on issues. etc. (As indicated earlier, special
attention should be paid to Northern California.)
Develop a continuing information flow on promotions, illnesses,
honors, deaths, etc., for appropriate acknowledgement by the
President or White House Staff. (This information should also
help to update the list of major Presidential supporters. )
Serve as a central contact point for inquiries and viewpoints
from major California Presidential supporters and follow up
on any criticisms or concerns.
In carrying out these activities, this individual should naturally coordinate
closely with the campaign organization. Also, he should be an individual
respected by the relevant Californians. Dick Moore would be a logical
candidate for this responsibility since he apparently has been designated
by the Attorney General as liaison to California for campaign purposes
and since he knows many of the Californians affected.
- 5
It should be recognized, however, that Californians have been told
previously that various individuals would be the central White House
contact, but the problems have continued. Consequently, to be a credible
and effective liaison, the designated individual must be able to get
results from the various White House Offices involved.
William L. Horton
August 10, 1971