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:
From JPS to RN. This document discusses the Presidential race including the Democratic situation, strategy against McGovern, intra-party disagreements, organizational programs, etc. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/26/1972
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. to Robert C. Mardian. RE: Finance Guidelines for State Chairman. 13 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Jeb S. Magruder to John Mitchell. RE: Common Cause Suit Against TRW, Inc. Possible Intervention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Proposed Fund-Raising Cocktail Reception Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Jon A. Foust through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: D.C. Finance Committee Fund Raising Dinner. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/19/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice H. Stans. RE: Vice President Golf Tournament Newport Beach, California. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/2/1972
From Robert H. Marik through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Congressional Campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice H. Stans. This document discusses claims against the Republican National Convention in San Diego. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/9/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Request that Governor Rockefeller Address the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee Dinner October 4, 1972. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/20/1972
From Bob Morgan through Jeb Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: New Compass Systems Contract. 12 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Arkansas Repulican State Committee Fund-Raising Dinner, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/1/1972
From L. Robert Morgan through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Ohio- Financial Support for the Data Base. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/13/1972
From Dick Moore to H.R. Haldeman. RE: Campaign Contributors. 20 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/17/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Dave Gergen. RE: Draft Letter. 5 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From the Republican National Finance Committee. Title: Because of the New Tax Law Giving Costs Less. 4 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Newsletter], 5/22/1972
From Gordon Strachan to H.R. Haldeman. RE: Lyn Nofziger - California. 5 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/29/1972
From Gordon Strachan, RE: Follow-up. 4 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/18/1972
Handwritten Note. This document covers numerous topics time cover, ambassadors, options, etc. 7 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145982
label
WHSF: Contested, 33-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145982
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 33-1
description
This file contains:
From JPS to RN. This document discusses the Presidential race including the Democratic situation, strategy against McGovern, intra-party disagreements, organizational programs, etc. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/26/1972
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. to Robert C. Mardian. RE: Finance Guidelines for State Chairman. 13 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Jeb S. Magruder to John Mitchell. RE: Common Cause Suit Against TRW, Inc. Possible Intervention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Proposed Fund-Raising Cocktail Reception Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Jon A. Foust through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: D.C. Finance Committee Fund Raising Dinner. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/19/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice H. Stans. RE: Vice President Golf Tournament Newport Beach, California. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/2/1972
From Robert H. Marik through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Congressional Campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/11/1972
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice H. Stans. This document discusses claims against the Republican National Convention in San Diego. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/9/1972
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Request that Governor Rockefeller Address the Connecticut Republican State Central Committee Dinner October 4, 1972. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/20/1972
From Bob Morgan through Jeb Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: New Compass Systems Contract. 12 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder. RE: Arkansas Repulican State Committee Fund-Raising Dinner, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/1/1972
From L. Robert Morgan through Jeb S. Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Ohio- Financial Support for the Data Base. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/13/1972
From Dick Moore to H.R. Haldeman. RE: Campaign Contributors. 20 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/17/1972
From Gordon Strachan to Dave Gergen. RE: Draft Letter. 5 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From the Republican National Finance Committee. Title: Because of the New Tax Law Giving Costs Less. 4 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Newsletter], 5/22/1972
From Gordon Strachan to H.R. Haldeman. RE: Lyn Nofziger - California. 5 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 6/29/1972
From Gordon Strachan, RE: Follow-up. 4 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 5/18/1972
Handwritten Note. This document covers numerous topics time cover, ambassadors, options, etc. 7 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], 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
26145982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f76387d8884969ae
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
33
1
6/26/1972
Campaign
Memo
From JPS to RN. This document discusses
the Presidential race including the
Democratic situation, strategy against
McGovern, intra-party disagreements,
organizational programs, etc. 8 pgs.
33
1
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. to Robert C.
Mardian. RE: Finance Guidelines for State
Chairman. 13 pgs.
33
1
5/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Jeb S. Magruder to John Mitchell. RE:
Common Cause Suit Against TRW, Inc.
Possible Intervention. 2 pgs.
33
1
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Proposed
Fund-Raising Cocktail Reception
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1 pg.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Page 1 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
33
1
6/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Jon A. Foust through Jeb S. Magruder
to John N. Mitchell. RE: D.C. Finance
Committee Fund Raising Dinner. 1 pg.
33
1
6/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice
H. Stans. RE: Vice President Golf
Tournament Newport Beach, California. 1 pg.
33
1
5/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert H. Marik through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE:
Congressional Campaign. 4 pgs.
33
1
6/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Robert C. Odle, Jr. through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell and Maurice
H. Stans. This document discusses claims
against the Republican National Convention
in San Diego. 3 pgs.
33
1
6/20/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Herbert L. Porter through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Request
that Governor Rockefeller Address the
Connecticut Republican State Central
Committee Dinner October 4, 1972. 2 pgs.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
33
1
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Bob Morgan through Jeb Magruder to
John N. Mitchell. RE: New Compass
Systems Contract. 12 pgs.
33
1
6/1/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Herbert L. Porter to Jeb S. Magruder.
RE: Arkansas Repulican State Committee
Fund-Raising Dinner, Little Rock, Arkansas.
1 pg.
33
1
6/13/1972
Campaign
Memo
From L. Robert Morgan through Jeb S.
Magruder to John N. Mitchell. RE: Ohio-
Financial Support for the Data Base. 1 pg.
33
1
6/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Dick Moore to H.R. Haldeman. RE:
Campaign Contributors. 20 pgs.
33
1
6/6/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to Dave Gergen. RE:
Draft Letter. 5 pgs.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
33
1
5/22/1972
White House Staff
Newsletter
From the Republican National Finance
Committee. Title: Because of the New Tax
Law Giving Costs Less. 4 pgs.
33
1
6/29/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan to H.R. Haldeman.
RE: Lyn Nofziger - California. 5 pgs.
33
1
5/18/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Gordon Strachan, RE: Follow-up. 4
pgs.
33
1
White House Staff
Other Document
Handwritten Note. This document covers
numerous topics time cover, ambassadors,
options, etc. 7 pgs.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Page 4 of 4
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: H. R. Haldeman
Box Number: 313
Folder:
Campaign 22 Part I June 15-29, 1972 [Folder 1]
Document
Disposition
1
Retain
Close Invasion of Privacy memo, Strachan to HRH, 6-29-72
2
Retain
Close Invasion of Privacy Notes, "H, Pol. Mats, 7-1-[72]
3
Return
Private/Political Memo, JPS to Rn, 6-26-72
4
Return
Private/Political Memo, Odle to Mardian, 6-8-72
5
Return
Private/Political Memo, Magruder to Mitchell, 5-17-72
6
Return
Private/Political Memo, Porter to Mitchell, 6-6-72
7
Return
Private/Political Memo, Foust to Mitchell, 6-19-72
8
Return
Private/Political Memo, Porter to mitchell & Stans, 6-2-72
9
Return
Private/Political Memo, Marik to Mitchell, 5-11-72
10
Return
Private/Political Memo, odle to Mitchells Stans, 6-9-72
11
Return
Private/Political Memo, Porter to Mitchell, 6-20-72
12
Return
Private/Political Memo, Morgan to Mitchell, 6-6-72
13
Return
Private/Political Memo, Porter to mitchell, 6-1-72
14
Return
Private/Political Memo, Morgan to Mitchell, 6-13-72
15
Retain
Open
16
Return
Private/Political Memo, Moore to HRH, 6-17-72
17
Return
Private/Political Note, Gergen to Strachan, 6-6-72
18
Return
Private/Political & Private/Personal "Because of the..." n d.
19
Retain
Open
20
Retain
Close Agency Policy note, "Deval/Henkei," 6-27-[72]
21
Return
Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 6-29-72
22
Return
Private/Political note, "Jim Rolstad," n.d.
23
Return
Private/Political notes, "Time cover, n.d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
RN
June 26, 1972
FROM: JPS
I. Democratic Situation
The Democrats are on the verge of providing us with
a magnificent opportunity by nominating a Presidential
candidate whom a majority of their party does not want. In
the name of "reform", the Democrats have allowed the control of
their party to pass into the hands of an ultra liberal,
activist minority which is unrepresentative of any of the former
factions of the old coalition, (Southern Democrats, labor,
ethnics and minorities).
The key to taking advantage of the situation does not
involve labeling McGovern as an ultra-liberal, however. Keeping
in mind that the extra votes which we will be aiming for are
people who have voted Democratic automatically most of their
lives, the wrong thing to do would be to group McGovern as a
liberal and us as conservatives; most Democrats still feel
"liberal" is a good word.
Although he will attempt to hide his strategy, McGovern
will wage a large state campaign (Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington,
Oregon and California) which would yield just enough electoral
votes to win (276). Additional states where he will make an
-2-
effort are Maryland, West Virginia, Hawaii, Alaska, North
Dakota and South Dakota (31 electoral votes). The rest of the
country he will concede. It is important for us to keep this
in mind in planning our own strategy since it will mean that
we will have the capability of concentrating our own finances,
strategy and organizational talents in the few states which he
means to contest.
On the Vice Presidency, I still think he will choose some
one from a large state which we carried in 1968 (California,
Illinois, Ohio or New Jersey). The possibilities here are
rather limited (Tunney, Stevenson and Gilligan) and the
strongest possibility would be Stevenson. His other possible
approach would be to select some one who would be pleasing to
organized labor but there doesn't seem to be any obvious choice
in this regard. I doubt seriously if Senator Kennedy would
accept a Vice Presidential nomination. Abe Ribicoff might have
some attraction because of his following in the Jewish and Black
communities but he would not run well in the mid-West where
McGovern needs desperately to win. Most of the other non-Southern
Senators and Governors are not well enough known, would not take
it or are too battle scarred.
It would be a mistake to feel that we are looking ahead
to a victory of Goldwater purportions since (1) the press will
help McGovern to look more reasonable than Goldwater did and
(2) the McGovern people, different from Goldwater, realize that
they must move toward the center in order to win. We, however,
can keep the press honest if we go about it correctly.
-3-
II. Strategy Against McGovern
In most incumbent races the incumbent has most of the
advantages and only one disadvantage - to a certain extent
he is on the defensive since his non-incumbent opponent is
constantly alleging a failure to perform adequately in office.
We have a unique opportunity to remove this one advantage of
non-incumbency from McGovern.
A. Intra-Party Disagreements
Over the next few weeks, both before and after the
Democratic convention, Humphrey, Muskie, Jackson and
others can be counted upon to disagree pointedly and
often with many of McGovern's stands. We should
do nothing to interrupt this process since the most
damning criticism against any man are the words of
people in his own party. Any criticism of his stands
which come from us during this period will harm the
credibility of our disagreements against him in the
fall. If we can succeed in making the same criticisms
of McGovern which Democrats are used to hearing from
other Democrats, we'll have made a great stride toward
gaining the support of many Democratic voters in the
fall.
B. Labels and Personalities v/v The Issues
In most Presidential elections there really are no
issues which are clear enough for the people to under-
stand since both candidates are trying to seek the votes
of a broad center of the populace and usually agree in
principal on the larger issues in foreign and domestic
policy. Therefore, in past elections, so called issue
-4-
debates have degenerated into a difference of means to
accomplish agreed upon ends, which leave the voter in a
state of confusion and force him to make his choice on
the basis of personality, philosophical label or party
loyalty.
A McGovern candidacy represents a rather drastic
difference of opinion about ends, both in foreign and
domestic policy. We therefore have the opportunity, if
we can discipline ourselves to stick to the differences
in ends between the two candidates, to wage a campaign
based solely on the issues. The more we stray from this
discipline and rely on personality, philosophical labels,
or fear tactics, the more we give McGovern, with the
cooperation of the press, the chance to represent that
he is not as bad as we say he is, that we are unfairly
characterizing him and we lose the value of the obvious
difference that exists between RN and McGovern on ends.
C. Scheduling
RN should ignore the fact that there is an election
campaign going on. Some large rallies and public appear-
ances can be scheduled in October but as much as possible
it should appear that RN is too busy with the affairs of
state to pay too much attention to the election. The
Vice Presidential candidate on the other hand should have
an extremely full schedule starting the day after Labor
Day. He should attack McGovern on the issues every day
demanding answers to questions raised by McGovern's
programs to redistribute wealth, guarantee income, cut
defense spending, etc. The Vice President should have
-5-
"a-question-a-day" for George McGovern which will
create constant pressure on him to start answering the
charges of the Vice President. If this is done correctly,
the Vice President will be on the news each day with his
new question, McGovern will be forced to spend much of
his time answering our charges and little attacking the
Administration and, since his answers will never quite
catch up with the questions, we will be constantly
raising new doubts about him in the minds of the voters.
Some original thinking should go into formulating these
questions SO that we can use the most damaging ones with
the proper timing to keep the emotions of the campaign
at a high pitch and be sure to create hard news every
day. Some attention should be given to rifle-shotting
many of these questions to appeal to Jews, the laboring
man and Catholic ethnics. Of course, the questions
should be used to keep the Democrats divided on the
issues.
Once again, the Vice President should never refer
to liberals or conservatives or use trick phrases to
characterize McGovern as a radical. We are after
normally Democratic voters who will begin to feel sorry
for their party if they feel we are being underhanded
or unfair in our criticism.
D. Organizational Programs
Special efforts should be made to isolate and inform
the conservative Democratic vote in all the states where
McGovern will concentrate his campaign. In Michigan, for
-6-
instance, this consists of the laboring and ethnic vote
in and around Wayne County which supported George Wallace
in the primary. In the other states it will involve a
much more agressive campaign in the large cities than we
have ever waged before. The Vice President should be
seen in union halls and at ethnic picnics and outings
which the Democrats are used to attending. If we can
go over the heads of the labor leaders to their con-
stituency, at the very least, McGovern will have to spend
a great deal of time trying to recapture votes which a
Democrat normally gets by default.
E. Helping the Remainder of the Ticket
If we can succeed in grabbing the initiative, thereby
placing McGovern on the defensive during the first weeks
of the campaign, many Democrats, especially in those
states outside McGovern's projected target areas, will
lose interest in the top of the ticket and devote most
of their attention to saving Gubernatorial, Senatorial
and Congressional seats. This will happen quite swiftly
in the South and, later, on a state by state basis in the
smaller states in the middle and far west. Of course
all of our candidates in these areas should be reminded
to run against McGovern (and not their opponent) but in
aid of their success we should: (1) see that we adequately
coordinate the questions which we will be asking of McGovern
with local candidates SO that they may use them to embarrass
their opponents; (2) coordinate all local efforts to ask
voters to vote the straight Nixon ticket in order to preempt
the predictable ticket spliting efforts by the Democrats;
-7-
(3) coordinate advertising efforts to include the names
of local candidates on billboards and T.V. spots. While
the Vice Presidential candidate will be useful in trying
to convert labor and ethnic votes in the larger states,
he should also be used to assist the local candidates in
areas where we can make some headway.
III. General Observations and Summary
We can place McGovern on the defensive by sticking to
the "ends" differences between Nixon and McGovern. This battle
should be carried by the Vice Presidential candidate without use
of name calling, philosophical labels or sheer fear tactics.
McGovern should be confronted with a "question-a-day" and forced
to answer on the substance of his proposals.
If this strategy is successful, it will result in (1) hard
political news on a daily basis; (2) continued division among
Democratic politicians and voters; (3) a continuing conflict
between the Republican Vice Presidential candidate and McGovern
which will keep RN above the battle in a statesman-like position
and (4) a failure on McGovern's part ever to successfully bring
criticism to bear on the Nixon Administration.
One general observation: in 1968 we spent a tremendous
amount of money on television advertising, much of which was
unproductive and even boring by the end of the campaign. There
is no doubt that the value of political advertising is suspect
these days since the voters are unwilling to believe selfserving
statements of any kind from the candidates themselves. The
"question-a-day" approach mentioned above is intended to guarantee
daily news coverage on the 6 o'clock news shows which still is of
-8-
great value because such coverage comes from an objective source.
I would hope to some degree, if the "question-a-day" method is
successful, we could tailor much of our spot advertising to
those questions which seem to provoke the most interest among
the electorate. The value in this approach is to first interest
the voters from an objective source (the 6 o'clock news) and
then reiterate the most telling points by our advertising. By
first testing these items through the news media we gain credi-
bility for each point and then can properly select which we
should drum home through spot advertising.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
M.EMORANDUM
June 8, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. ROBERT C. MARDIAN
FROM:
ROBERT C. ODLE, JR.
SUBJECT:
Finance Guidelines for State Chairmen
Pursuant to our agreement in the meeting with Mr. Mitchell earlier
this week I have revised the suggested guidelines for state chair-
men and am submitting them to you and the other political coordi-
nators for your joint review and possible revision. I would suggest
the following course of action: (a) joint review by the five poli-
tical coordinators and Fred LaRue; (b) review and approval by Mr.
Stans; (c) final approval by Mr. Mitchell; and, (d) transmission to
the state chairmen.
In revising the guidelines I have consulted closely with our counsel
Glenn Sedam, and Finance's counsel and treasurer, Gordon Liddy and
Hugh Sloan. All of us are in agreement and Gordon and Hugh believe
that the attached represents Mr. Stans' thinking as well.
The following comments on each may be helpful:
POLICY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
This is Mr. Stans' exact wording. I see no problem here.
POLICY FOR CAMPAIGN MATERIALS
1. We all, I think, agree here.
2. The suggested budgetary allocations for the states and the per-
centages have been submitted by November Group, based on electoral
votes and 1968 patterns. Basically, we have deducted 15% from the
$1.5 million in the national budget and apportioned that sum among
the states. The 15% would be a reserve. You may wish to change
both the figures for the states and the percentage formula.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
As you will note I have suggested the insertion of a line which
would allow one of the five national political coordinators to
change the percentage of a state upon application by the state.
3. This language was suggested by Mr. Stans in a budget com-
mittee meeting. Instead, however, of talking about the proceeds
of a sale as a budget supplement I talked about what could be
done with the proceeds, i.e., order more materials. Sloan and
Liddy seemed to agree with this.
4. I am suggesting 80% of the materials be in bumperstickers,
literature, etc., as opposed to jewelry, unless the political
coordinator decides otherwise. November Group agrees with the
80% figure.
5. Political coordinator added, per Mr. Flemming's suggestion.
6. Rewritten per Mr. Mitchell's suggestion.
9. This will make things easier. The catalog will quote prices
which include postage and handling. Unfortunately, the catalog
won't be available until the first part of July.
POLICY FOR LOCAL STOREFRONTS
Our job here was to let the state chairmen know that storefronts
outside the state budgets which might be programmed by a state
were illegal; while at the same time not discouraging them from
allowing their local and county groups to have them if they are
genuinely local in nature. Perhaps you'll want to rework some
of the language here. This is one area where the additional
funds spent, i.e., the money spent on the storefronts, is not a
permissible addition to the state budget since theoretically
this is not a state, but a local, activity.
POLICY FOR SPEAKERS AND SURROGATES
1. Political events. The point we wish to make here is that the
sponsor pays unless the sponsor is a state re-elect committee. If
it is, and if 1701 has sent in the speaker for its own purposes,
then we pay. If, on the other hand, 1701 is responding to a re-
quest for a speaker, the state pays. Monies a state raises in
such cases constitute a permissible amendment to a state budget.
2. Fund raising events. You may wish to leave this out. This
has, however, been approved previously by Mr. Stans.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
-3-
3. Official events. There was an objection to the manner in which
this was previously stated at the meeting with Mr. Mitchell. Perhaps
this new language will avoid the problem mentioned in the meeting.
4. Nonpartisan events. This language was also modified.
cc: Mr. Harry S. Flemming
Mr. Allan G. Kaupinen
Mr. Fred LaRue
Mr. Jeb S. Magruder
Mr. Donald Mosiman
Dr. Clayton Yeutter
bcc: Mr. Gordon C. Strachan
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
POLICY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The new Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 requires that no committee
may solicit or receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of a
candidate for Federal office, such as the President, without specific
authorization in writing from the candidate. The President has delegated
the power to give such authorization to the Chairman and Treasurer of the
Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, who are Maurice H. Stans and
Hugh W. Sloan, Jr.
It is vital under the law that all money matters be coordinated closely
with the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President in Washington. We
bring this matter to your attention promptly in order that all persons
working for the re-election of the President not inadvertently violate
the new Federal law in their zeal to help the campaign. Fund raising and
disbursing cannot take place without specific authorization.
The best practical way to handle the problem is to contact Mr. Hugh W.
Sloan, Jr., Treasurer of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President,
prior to any attempt to raise funds in a manner in any way connected
with the campaign for re-election of the President.
The following is a formal statement dealing with this legal provision in
more detail.
The President has by letter of May 18, 1972, to Mr. Maurice H. Stans,
Chairman of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, delegated to
him (or his Treasurer, for him) the power to authorize committees to
solicit and receive contributions on behalf of the President's candidacy.
As a result of the President's action, it is unlawful under the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-225) for any group not autho-
rized in writing by Mr. Stans or his Treasurer, Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., to
solicit or receive contributions on behalf of the candidacy of the Presi-
dent for re-election, unless it places a notice on the face or front page
of all literature and advertisements published in connection with the
President's campaign by such committee, or on its behalf, stating that the
committee is not authorized by the President and that the President is not
responsible for the activities of such committee.
POLICY FOR CAMPAIGN MATERIALS
The budgeting and financing of campaign materials (brochures, leaflets,
bumper stickers, pins, etc.) is to be handled as follows:
1. State operating budgets submitted to the National Committee for the
Re-election of the President should not include funds for campaign
materials.
2. A separate budgetary allocation from the national committee's budget
for such materials will be made and each state chairman will be able
to draw against that allocation. The budgetary allocation for the state
of
is $
in campaign materials.
These materials cannot be ordered all at\once but in stages according
to the following formula:
- Up to 20% from July 15 until August 15;
- Up to 50% from August 25 until September 15;
- Up to 90% from September 16 to October 15; and
- 100% by November 4.
This formula may however be altered on application of the state chair-
man by the national political coordinator who has responsibility for
the state.
3. Any money a state committee makes from the sale of the above materials
may be used to purchase additional materials beyond the budgetary allo-
cation mentioned above. However, all proceeds from the sale of campaign
materials must be turned over to the treasurer of the state Nixon finance
committee. The November Group would then honor a check from the state
treasurer for additional materials beyond those allowed by the state's
budgetary allocation. In other words, the more money a state makes
from the sale of materials received under its budgetary allocation,
the more materials it can order from the proceeds of the sales.
4. It is the responsibility of the state chairman to evaluate priorities
between and among the materials which are available, e.g., bumpersti-
ckers VS. leaflets. However, at least 80% of the materials must be in
bumperstickers, buttons, ballons, or literature, unless the state's
national political coordinator approves otherwise.
5. The November Group will provide each state chairman and the national
political coordinator for that state with a monthly accounting of pur-
chases, including cumulative totals.
6. Campaign materials may not be purchased with funds received through
the ordinary fund raising process. Monies received, however, from the
sale of campaign materials may be used to purchase additional materials
as outlined in #3 above. In other words, a state can't raise money to
buy materials but it can sell materials to buy materials.
7. Local campaign committees are to obtain materials from the applicable
state chairman.
8. All campaign materials used must be approved by the November Group.
9. The cost of shipping materials will be paid by the November Group
because it has been included in the price of the materials.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROBERT C. ODLE, JR.
CC:
PETER H. DAILEY
MICHAEL HEINRICH
PHIL JOANOU
MICHAEL LESSER
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
MICHAEL SCOTT
Attached is the final, typed version of the state promotion
budgets, which we discussed last week.
As I mentioned, the states turned out to be quite close to the
positions they occupied in terms of 1968 ordering (e.g. Calif-
ornia, New York and Illinois, etc. top orderers and so on down
to Hawaii. D.C. is the notable exception in '68, they
ordered big because they were a re-distribution center.)
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROBERT C. ODLE, JR.
FROM:
MICHAEL SCOTT
SUBJECT:
State Promotional Material Budgets
State
Electoral Votes
Budget
Alaska
3
$ 7,110
Alabama
9
21,330
Arizona
6
14,220
Arkansas
6
14,220
California
45
106,650
Colorade
7
16,590
Connecticut
8
18,960
Delaware
3
7,110
Florida
17
40,290
Georgia
12
28,440
Hawaii
1
2,370
Idaho
4
9,480
Illinois
26
61,620
Indiana
13
30,810
Iowa
8
18,960
Kansas
7
16,590
Kentucky
9
21,330
Louisiana
10
23,700
Maine
4
9,480
Maryland
10
23,700
Massachusetts
14
33,180
Michigan
21
49,770
Minnesota
10
23,700
Mississippi
7
16,590
Missouri
12
28,440
Montana
4
9,480
New York
41
97,170
Nebraska
5
11,850
Nevada
3
7,110
New Hampshire
4
9,480
New Jersey
17
40,290
New Mexico
4
9,480
North Carolina
13
30,810
North Dakota
3
7,110
Ohio
25
59,250
Oklahoma
8
18,960
Oregon
6
14,220
-2-
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM : R. Odle
June 6, 1972
State
Electoral Votes
Budget
Pennsylvania
27
$ 63,990
Rhode Island
4
9,480
South Carolina
8
18,960
South Dakota
4
9,480
Tennessee
10
23,700
Texas
26
61,620
Utah
4
9,480
Vermont
3
7,110
Virginia
12
28,440
Washington
9
21,330
West Virginia
6
14,220
Wisconsin
11
26,070
Wyoming
3
7,110
District of Columbia
3
7,110
Although there was no real pattern in 1968, it seems at least
reasonable to set up the following ordering pattern based on
1968 figures and common sense:
- Of their total for the whole campaign, states should be allowed
to order:
Up to 20% from Inception (say July 15) to August 15, 1972
21% to 50% from August 25 to September 15, 1972
51% to 90% September 16, 1972 to October 15, 1972.
91% on up from October 16, 1972 to November 4, 1972 (Saturday
before Election)
-- with a moratorium on ordering from August 15 to 25...i.e. the
time surrounding the Convention.
POLICY FOR LOCAL STOREFRONTS
All state headquarters and sub-headquarters must be in the state budget
submitted to and approved by the National Committee for the Re-election
of the President, so that the expenditures may be properly reported un-
der the provisions of the new federal campaign law. A state chairman may,
however, encounter enthusiastic local and/or county groups who proceed to
set up neighborhood storefronts. In such cases, the following guidelines
should be observed:
1. Neither a state Nixon committee nor the national Nixon committee shall
accept or incur any legal or financial responsibility for the actions
or expenditures of the local sponsoring group.
2. Funding shall be the responsibility exclusively of the sponsoring local
campaign committee.
3. Neither the operating budget nor actual expenditures for a local store-
front may exceed $1,000. Should this occur, either deliberately or
inadvertently, the local group would become a reporting committee and
would have to register with the Comptroller General and report its
expenditures in accordance with provisions of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971.
4. Those in charge of the storefront should be sent a letter by the state
chairman outlining the points 1-3 made above. A copy of that letter
should be retained in the state chairman's files.
A state chairman must utilize his best diplomatic skills in such situations
in order that he not discourage local initiative and enthusiasm while at
the same time firmly insuring that all the activities in his state comply
with the new federal requirements. For a state to give the appearance
that it had "programmed" a network of storefronts outside its budget (and
therefore not reported) would violate at least the spirit of the law.
POLICY FOR SPEAKERS AND SURROGATES
1. Political Events
The costs associated with the appearance of a speaker scheduled through
the Committee for the Re-election of the President at a political event
which is not a fund-raising event, or which is scheduled in conjunction
with a fund-raising event, are to be borne by the sponsoring organization,
unless the sponsor is a state Committee for the Re-election of the Presi-
dent. If the event is sponsored by a state Committee for the Re-election
of the President, the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President will
bear the expenses if the national Committee has placed the speaker in the
state for its own purposes as opposed to responding to a request from a
state for a speaker. In the latter situation, the state re-elect committee
or the requesting sponsor must bear the expenses. Monies raised locally
to finance such expenses will be regarded as a permissible amendment of a
state budget as long as all monies raised are turned into the state re-elect
treasurer. States are encouraged to raise money for such purposes.
The costs include the following:
A. Round-trip coach fare for the speaker's advanceman. (The sponsor
will be requested to mail to us a ticket for this purpose in ad-
vance) ;
B. Round-trip first class airfare for the speaker and his party.
Several of the speakers are required to use private aircraft.
(Suggestions on the availability of private aircraft would facili-
tate matters and, possibly, reduce the cost. Aircraft belonging
to corporations, if used, must be paid for at the going rate.)
C. Expenses incurred by the speaker, his advanceman and his party for
hotel accommodations, including automobile rentals; and expenses
incurred in connection with the provision of necessary supplies and
services.
The expenses should be billed directly to the sponsoring organization,
unless the event is one the expenses of which are to be borne by the
Finance Committee to Re-elect the President.
2. Fund-Raising Events
With respect to political fund-raising events, the policy is that ap-
pearances are to be accepted only on the following conditions:
A. If the fund-raising event is sponsored by a regular Republican
organization for its general budgetary or campaign purposes and
the speaker is:
1. a member of the First Family,
2. a surrogate candidate (attached list),
3. a member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, or
4. a Republican Senator or Governor and his appearance has been
scheduled by the Spokesmen Resources Division,
the appearance will be subject to the payment of 10% of the gross
proceeds to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President. If
the speaker is the Vice President, his appearance will be subject
to the payment of 15% of the gross proceeds to the Finance Committee
to Re-elect the President. In addition, the sponsor must bear all
the expenses associated with the speaker's appearance.
B. If the fund-raising event is sponsored by:
1. a state or local Finance Committee to Re-elect the President
and by a regular Republican organization jointly; and
2. the state or local Finance Committee to Re-elect the President
receives at least 50% of the net proceeds,
the sponsors must bear all the expense associated with the speaker's
appearance. (The 10% rule would become effective only if the state
Finance Committee to Re-elect the President were to agree to receive
less than 50% of the net proceeds.)
C. If the fund-raising event is sponsored by a candidate or by a regu-
lar Republican organization for the benefit of a political candidate
other than the President and the speaker is:
1. a member of the First Family,
2. a surrogate candidate
3. a member of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government,
the appearance will be subject to the payment of 10% of the gross
proceeds to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President. If
the speaker is the Vice President, his appearance will be subject
to the payment of 15% of the gross proceeds to the Finance Committee
to Re-elect the President. In addition, the sponsor must bear all
the expenses associated with the speaker's appearance. (It should
be noted that the rule described in this paragraph differs from the
rule described in paragraph 1 in that the 10% rule does not apply
if the speaker is a Republican Senator or Governor who is not a
surrogate candidate. Of course, the sponsor must bear the speaker's
expenses.)
D. If the fund-raising event is sponsored solely by a state or local
Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, the sponsor must
bear all the expenses associated with the speaker's appearance.
E. The only general exception to the 10% rule is that it does not
apply in instances where the speaker (other than the Vice Presi-
dent or a member of the First Family) is appearing at a fund-
raising event in his or her home constituency. In scheduling,
priority must be given to events described in paragraphs B and D.
3. Official Events
State Committees will not be involved with official events because the
costs associated with an appearance by a speaker at an official event,
such as the Secretary of Agriculture speaking before a farm convention,
are borne by the appropriate department or governmental agency. There
must be a substantive reason for the speaker's appearance and the speaker's
department or agency will be the final arbiter on the question whether
the event is official in character. It should be noted that Senators and
Congressmen have no funds for such activity, so this rule applies only in
case of Executive Branch personnel.
4. Nonpartisan Events
The costs associated with an appearance by a speaker at a nonpartisan
convention or meeting, such as a Chamber of Commerce or Kiwanis Club
gathering, will be paid by the sponsoring organization, so, technically,
the state Committee will not be involved in these kind of events either.
FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
MEMORANDUM
May 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
SUBJECT:
Common Cause suit against TRW, Inc.
Possible intervention
You will note from the clipping attached at Tab A that
John Gardner's Common Cause has filed a test case against
TRW, Inc. which maintains a political fund such as that
sanctioned by Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code,
as amended by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
The theory is an alleged conflict of Sections 610 and 611
of Title 18 with which you are familiar.
Gordon Liddy advises that Secretary Stans is very much concerned
that the effect of the suit will be to deny us a substantial
amount of money we might otherwise expect to receive in
contributions. Gordon says that Secretary Stans wants him to
take the necessary legal steps to intervene in behalf of the
Finance Committee. He adds that Secretary Stans wishes our
input on the political consequences before taking such a
step.
Gordon has already discussed this matter with John Dean who
objects strongly. Dean suggests as an alternative that we
attempt to have the United States Chamber of Commerce intervene
and seek the declaratory judgment Secretary Stans desires.
Gordon Liddy informs me that Secretary Stans will be calling
you about this matter.
Passed-
3
Suit Attacks Political Funds
By JAMES R. POLK
than $150,000 in the 1970 elec-
lars from not only defense
lot of programs on ice, just
Special to The Star
tions.
firms but all other companies
kind of in limbo," said an in-
A legal drive to ban cam-
The lawsuit charged the do-
doing business with the gov-
dustry spokesman.
paign contributions allegedly
nations are illegal under a sec-
ernment.
TRW, Hughes Aircraft,
sponsored by government con-
tion of the new campaign re-
The law allows corporations
Northrop, and Olin Corp. are
tractors was launched in fed-
form law which forbids any
to set up separate political
the only major defense con-
eral court here today.
government contractor to SO-
funds based on executives'
tractors to register SO far.
Common Cause, the citizens'
licit political funds or "direct-
contributions, but Section 611
reform lobby, filed the test
Other political funds are
ly or indirectly make any con-
bars the indirect campaign
known to have operated in the
case against TRW Inc., a ma-
tribution of money
to any
help by anyone holding a fed-
jor aerospace firm with head-
past at such defense firms as
political party, committee or
eral contract.
quarters in Cleveland, Ohio.
Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnell
candidate for public office
The threat of such a legal
The TRW Good Government
Douglas, General Electric,
challenge has caused many
Union Carbide and several
Fund, financed by contribu-
If Common Cause wins the
companies to hesitate in regis-
others.
tions from executives and oth-
test. it could choke off
tering their political funds un-
er employes, passed out more
hundreds of thousands of dol-
The Justice Department has
der the new law. "This'has a
been wrestling for weeks with
the question of whether politi-
cal committees set up inside
such firms would be legal, but
still had not reached a deci-
sion when the case was taken
to court today.
Common Cause charged,
"At stake is the integrity of
our political process which is
being corrupted by the mil-
lions of dollars in campaign
contributions made by govern-
ment contractors."
TRW, which produced the
lunar descent engine for the
Apollo missions to the moon,
holds more than $235 million in
Pentagon and space contracts.
TRW collects campaign con-
tributions through a voluntary
checkoff system among its
employes in plants through
the nation. Earmarked dona-
tions are sent directly to the
candidates designated by the
various workers, while offi-
cials of the fund control the
distribution of the rest of the
money.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH: JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
HERBERT L. PORTER
Bart
SUBJECT:
Proposed Fund-Raising
Cocktail Reception
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
We have received an invitation from Mr. Frank McGlinn, Finance
Chairman of our Committee in Philadelphia, inviting you and
Mrs. Mitchell to attend and make a few informal remarks at a
proposed cocktail reception on Thursday; June 29, 1972, from
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Bellevue-Stratford in Philadelphia.
The expected attendance is approximately 1,000 persons at $100
per person.
Should you plan to attend, the Pennsylvania Finance Committee
will arrange for a plane to transport you and Mrs. Mitchell
between Washington and Philadelphia.
This invitation is recommended to you by Messrs. Mosiman and
Stans.
We would appreciate it if you would let us know at your earliest
convenience whether you will accept this invitation.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
loned
COF
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 19, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
FROM:
JEB S. MAGRUDER faust
JON A. FOUST
SUBJECT:
D. C. Finance Committee Fund Raising Dinner
Surrogate Governor Winfield Dunn of Tennessee was the principal
speaker at the D. C. Finance Committee fund raiser, June 14, at
the International Club Ballroom in Washington, D. C. The Dinner
Committee, chaired by Senator George Murphy, originally planned
to hold the affair for an expected crowd of 1,500 at the
Washington Hilton Ballroom. However, the Committee sold fewer
tickets than expected and consequently had to move the event to
a smaller room.
Governor Dunn delivered a rousing campaign speech for the Presi-
dent and was enthusiastically received by the 150 Republicans
present for the dinner-dance. The affair was preceded by a
cocktail reception attended by about 100 people.
Governor Dunn and his party arrived in Washington the morning
of June 14 and departed the following morning. In addition to
advancing the Governor and his staff, the Committee provided
him with assistance in preparing and distributing his speech to
the major news sources. The Governor and his staff expressed
pleasure and satisfaction with their arrangements and were
pleased at the assistance our advance staff provided.
Although the crowd was small, the Governor was most pleased
with the event and, particularly, with the warm reception he
received.
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 2, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THE HONORABLE MAURICE H. STANS
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
HERBERT L. PORTER
SUBJECT:
Vice President Golf Tournament
Newport Beach, California
We have received a proposal from Mr. Victor C. Andrews, Chairman
of the Orange County Committee to Re-elect the President, that
the Vice President participate in a golf tournament at the Big
Canyon Country Club in Newport Beach, California. The proposed
dates for the tournament are June 19, July 3, July 10, or July 17.
It is proposed that 100 people be invited to play golf with the
Vice President and several celebrities. The entry fee would be
$1,000 and the anticipated gross is $100,000.
This proposal has the endorsement of Messrs. Mardian and Nofziger.
We would appreciate it if you would advise us whether this pro-
posal should be recommended to the Vice President.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
updending
H
allare
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
arm
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW
WASHINGTON D C. 20006
(202) 333.0920
May 11, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
ROBERT H. MARIK
SUBJECT:
Congressional Campaign
Arthur Finkelstein has assessed the political situation in
McCloskey's Congressional District. His report is attached.
Basically he feels that McCloskey is sufficiently vulnerable
that a person like Royce Cole would have a good chance to
win the primary with a well run campaign. Without some
additional resources of funds and capable management, it is
unlikely that Cole will win.
Arthur feels that it would be an unwise risk for people in
Washington to try to get Barry out of the race by offering
him a position in government. Based on Arthur's evaluation,
the following recommendations are made on the assumption
that there is interest in influencing this race.
Recommendations
That approximately $50,000 be channeled into the Cole campaign
in order to gain him more visibility with the voters of his
district.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
That some competent campaign media advisor be made available to
the Cole campaign to implement a good media campaign. For
obvious reasons, this should not be a member of the November
Group.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
That some organizational help be made available to Cole through
appropriate sources in California. This would have to be done
indirectly and with discretion.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
Attachment.
CONFIDENTIAL
CO...TDENTIAL MEMORATUM
TO: Jeb Magruder
FROM: Arthur J. Finkelstein
AgF
RE: "Cole for Congress"
After looking at the data and speaking to several interested parties
involved with the Royce Cole campaign for Congress, the following situa-
tion would appear to exist:
1. McCloskey 18 extremely vulnerable. His vote total in a
primary will not fall beneath 20% nor should It rise above
40%.
2. Cole, because of organization support, as well as issue
positions, should make a stronger candidate than Bob
Barry.
3. Barry will siphon votes almost exclusively from Cole.
4. It 18 possible to beat McCloskey even in a three-way race,
but it would mean a campsign which would give extremely
high visibility to Cole and McCloskey to the exclusion
of Barry.
5. The Cole people would like -
A. Barry out of the Isce.
B. Additional funding.
C. An endorsement by the President.
D. Some professional advertising help in terms of
television media.
6. Trying to get Barry out of the Tace et this late date would
be a difficult and perhaps harmful maneuver - difficult be-
cause Barry is & wealthy man to whom A prestige office
would have to be assigned. Further, it would take a phone
call from way up to persuade Berry to leave the race.
Such # phone call may be reported to the press who, in
turn would interpret the race 88 McCloskey VS. Mxon
rather than as a Republican primary fight for a Congres-
sional seat.
- 2 -
Further, Barry is also the type of publicity seeker
who may leak such a maneuver to the press himself.
7. A Nixon endorsement of Cole outright would be taking
a political risk where no risk need necessarily be
undertaken.
8. The Cole campaign 1s. in fact, hurting for money. 1
would estimate that it would take approximately
$50,000 to help give Cole the visibility he would
need to garner a sufficiently large percentage of the
60% anti-McCloskey vote to win.
9. The Cole campaign has suggested that Phil Joanou be
made available to help in TV advertising.
I would recommend that the Re-Elect Committee make available to the
Cole campaign, the media assistance they desire and the financing
figure 1 suggest. The organization support which can be given by the
regular Republican organization of California and additional organiza-
tion support which can be lent by the California Committee for the Re-
election of the President should be made available to the Cole campaign.
Arthur J. Finkelstein
AJF:db
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THE HONORABLE MAURICE H. STANS
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
ROBERT C. ODLE, JR.
In a recent budget meeting you asked us to make certain that the
RNC resists as much as possible the claims which might be made
against it as a result of the convention move from San Diego.
The attached memo sets forth how the RNC is doing that at our
request, and we will continue to monitor its progress.
There are no claims against the Committee for the Re-election of
the President, except for $25,000 we may lose in deposits on
sleeping accommodations for our youth program. We are of course,
resisting this.
CC: Mr. Hugh W. Sloan, Jr.
no $1 out -
Mr. William E. Timmons
bec: Mr. Gordon C. Strachan
1972 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
COMMITTEE ON ARRANGEMENTS
MEMORANDUM
Date JUNE 2, 1972
Subject: CLAIMS AGAINST THE RNC FROM SAN DIEGO
The following is being set forth for your information concerning. certain
claims which probably will or have been made against the Republican National Com-
mittee by individuals and corporations in San Diego, relative to our Convention
preparations in San Diego.
1. PAUL M. THOMAS -- A contract was entered into with Mr. Thomas providing
for the construction of work space for the photo press in the vicinity of the Sports
Arena. This contract was in the amount of $7500, and Thomas now advises that this
building is 60 percent complete. We contracted to rent 10,000 sq. ft. in this build-
ing which is a 20,000 sq. ft. building, which Thomas was going to build anyway for in-
vestment rentals. Thomas is now demanding $15,000 for settlement of the contract
which is completely absurd; in my opinion, we should vigorously resist his demands even
to the point of engaging in litigation, if this proves necessary.
2. M. H. GOLDEN CONSTRUCTION CO. -- The M.H. Golden Construction Co. initially
sent us a bill for $56,300.93. I discussed this matter with Mr. Stoddard Martin, project
manager for the Golden Construction Co., on May 17, 1972, and he informed me that this
bill represented a charge of $14,000 for services rendered by the Golden Construction
Co., and the other charges were for contracts entered into between the Golden Construction
Co. and various subcontractors--primarily for the purpose of altering the Sports Arena
so that a Convention could be properly held there. The subcentractors charges were
primarily for air-conditioning and lighting matters. In discussing this matter with
Martin, I expressed concern with the size of this bill, particularly with regard to the
subcontractors. Martin was advised that under no circumstances should the Golden Con-
struction Co. reimburse any of the subcontractors until they had received word to do so
from the Republican National Committee. I explained that to do SO would definitely
weaken our bargaining position regarding any disputed items with the subcontractors. I
advised him that any payment that he made to the subcontractors would be at his own peril.
Martin was further advised that every effort should be made to obtain as much
salvage value as possible from the items that were being especially built for us, par-
ticularly with regard to the $50,000 exhaust fan. I instructed Mr. Martin to pursue this
vigorously, and I also told him that the $3,500 charge by the company handling the
portable air-conditioning equipment in Norfolk was much too high and would have to be
reduced. Mr. Martin was emphatically informed that a failure on the part of the sub-
contractor to submit a more realistic bill would result in our resisting payment, even to
the point of engaging in litigation if necessary.
Mr. Martin subsequently advised that he had been successful in obtaining a
reduction of over $9,000 in our bill, reducing same from $56,300.93 to $47,193.58. He
advised that this reduction was made possible by salvaging basic material on the exhaust
CLAIMS AGAINST THE RNC FROM SAN DIEGO
Page 2
fan and also included reduction of $1,000 in the charges made by the Norfolk portable
air-conditioning firm.
3. WHEELER & HOPE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM -- The Wheeler & Hope Architectural Firm
has submitted a bill for approximately $42,000, and, pursuant to your instructions,
they are presently submitting detailed justification for this bill. It is felt that
we should engage in hard negotiations with this company, particularly in view of the
fact that it was necessary to replace their first project manager, John Groom, because
of his incompetence. It is not felt that we should be paying exorbitant amounts for
the mistakes which he made. As you know, his ineptness resulted in a considerable waste
of time and expense on the part of RNC personnel, which, in my opinion, should be a
proper subject for further negotiations with Wheeler & Hope as a set-off against their
claim.
4. SAN DIEGO SPORTS ARENA -- We had a contract for $75,000 for the rental of the
San Diego Sports Arena with Peter Graham. Graham has not made any claim as yet.
5. ROYAL INN AT THE WHARF Earl Gagosian, president of the Royal Inns of America,
has apparently indicated to certain RNC personnel that he contemplates charging us for
certain rooms and office space at the Royal Inn at the Wharf which were previously
complementary as part of our overall package deal which had been put together with the
Royal Inn at the Wharf for the entire Convention. He apparently also has indicated that
he contemplates filing a lawsuit against the RNC for damages he feels he incurred as a
result of expediting a building for a convention center on the hotel premises. He was
not requested to build this convention center by the RNC or anyone else affiliated with
the Republican Party. This is a permanent capital improvement to his hotel and will
undoubtedly be used for all subsequent conventions that the hotel books. However, he claims
he accelerated the construction of this building for the purpose of accommodating our
Convention and expects to be reimbursed. It is felt that any claim along this line-js
completely without merit.
6. MOBILE LEASE -- We entered into a contract with Mobile Lease for the construc-
tion of certain outside modular office space. They have not yet submitted a bill indi-
cating the extent they were damaged by our moving the Convention to Miami Beach. It
is unlikely that they have sustained any damage in excess of several thousand dollars.
In this regard, it will be noted that Mobile Lease is a subsidiary of Pepsico.
With respect to the claim made by Paul Thomas and any. possible claim by Peter
Graham, it is recommended that no settlement be made of these until after September 1st,
as we cannot possibly know the extent of the damages until that time. Both of these
situations are rental agreements for facilities in July and August, and we will not know
until September 1st the extent to which Graham and Thomas were successful in leasing these
facilities to other tenants during the pertinent period which would result in mitigation
of our damages. The above are the only claims against us that have been received or can
reasonably be anticipated.
We have no information concerning any obligation, if any, incurred by the Committee
to Re-Elect the President or any claims made against them in San Diego.
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
MEMORANDUM
June 20, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
HERBERT L. PORTER
SUBJECT:
Request that Governor Rockefeller
Address the Connecticut Republican
State Central Committee Dinner
October 4, 1972
We have received an invitation through Mr. L. Patrick Gray, for
Governor Rockefeller to deliver the keynote address at a fund-
raising dinner sponsored by the Connecticut Republican State
Central Committee. The dinner is scheduled to be held at the
Sheraton Park Plaza Hotel in New Haven, Connecticut, on October 4,
1972. The room in which the dinner is to be held has a capacity
of 900 and the tickets will be priced at $100 per plate.
Mr. Chip Andrews, the Executive Director of the Connecticut
Republican State Central Committee, has proposed that (in lieu of
a payment of 10% of the gross) they would agree to pay 50% of the
cost of developing a computerized list of voters. The payment
would be made to Cambridge Opinion Studies, Inc. This list will
be required by the telephone, direct mail, registration, and
get-out-the-vote operations in Connecticut which are directed
from 1701. That payment will amount to approximately $34,000.
The invitation to Governor Rockefeller and the proposed financial
arrangement have the approval of Mr. Stans, Mr. Kaupinen and Mr.
Agostinelli. We believe that Governor Rockefeller's proposed
appearance in Connecticut in October would be very beneficial
from the point of view of the campaign.
Page Two
We would appreciate receiving your recommendation whether Governor
Rockefeller should be invited to attend the dinner.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
cc: JSM chron
JSM subject
JSM working
HLP chron
HLP subject
JCH
bcc: Mr. Al Kaupinen
Mr. Fred LaRue
X
Committee for the Re-election of the President
MEMORANDUM
June 6, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
MR. JEB MAGRUDER
FROM:
BOB MORGAN
SUBJECT:
New Compass Systems Contract
The new Compass Systems contract with the Reapportionment
Trust' Committee is attached as TAB A. There are four
major changes in this contract vs. the previous one.
1. It updates the amount of money that we and the
Republican National Committee have put into
the system.
2. It shows that the Reapportionment Trust Committee"
(RTC) and the Committee will share on a 50/50
basis, the 1972 data improvements while limiting
the RTC's commitment to $12,000.
3. It allows the RTC and us to pay for both hardware
and software usage based on the amount we use the
system vis-a-vis a flat, fixed amount.
4. It eliminates the control of the system by the
Central Committee in California and provides for
a management system administered by us through
Dr. Alan Heslop, who is Chairman of the Political
Science Department at Claremont Men's College.
RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the new contract as presented, that was
signed by the RTC's membership.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
COMMENTS
+
CC: Dr. Robert H. Marik
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION
OF THE PRESIDENT
The Reapportionment Trustee
Committee
c/o Mr. Putnam Livermore
111 Sutter Street
San Francisco, California 94104
Gentlemen:
This letter will serve as a memorandum of the agree-
ment between and among REAPPORTIONMENT TRUSTEE COMMITTEE, an
unincorporated association ("TRUSTEE"); and the COMMITTEE FOR
THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, an unincorporated associa-
tion organized under the laws of the District of Columbia
("COMMITTEE") (or any other committee organized to succeed
COMMITTEE by whatever name); and THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COM-
MITTEE ("RNC"), respecting joint use of the data base and the
computer operating system developed by COMPASS SYSTEMS, INC.
("COMPASS"), for the purpose of legislative and congressional
redistricting in the State of California, said data base and
system being hereinafter, for convenience, referred to in
its entirety as the "System."
Pursuant to an agreement dated April 15, 1971, and
subject to the limitations therein, COMPASS has granted cer-
tain noncommercial uses of the System to TRUSTEE in connection
with various aspects of proposed legislative and congressional
redistricting in the State of California and certain other poli-
tical uses.
The System is scheduled for completion on June 21,
1972. The System is defined as follows:
A. A report writer capable of display on
either a Computer Remote Terminal or High Speed Printer.
B. An aggregation program using a point-in-
polygon procedure with digitizer input.
C. A plotting program to produce plots of
political and census parameters.
D. A program to add, change and delete
elements in the data base.
E. A working variation of the Kaiser-Nagel
Model.
F. An incomplete data base including poli-
tical information on the precinct level for the year
1968 and almost complete 1970.
To operate the present System, it is necessary to
have the use of equipment which is available under present
leasing arrangements with a thirty (30) day cancellation
clause. The present System, while well suited to development
of information for reapportionment purposes, is not perfectly
suitable for additional political uses. Major adaptions and
2.
changes in the System, including addition of new data to the
data base as it becomes available, will have to be made for
such political uses, which uses may include various types of
precinct, census tract or small area analyses utilizing both
census and political data, with geographical units sorted in
rank into designated priority order if desired, and may be
either on the basis of the type of use desired (which may
include direct mail, telephone voter contact, literature
distribution, door-to-door contact, voter registration, voter
turnout, or any other use determined by COMMITTEE or RNC), or
on the basis of issues or voter response patterns desired for
analysis
We acknowledge that, to a certain extent, the System
has certain other residual, functional values in connection
with providing computer based mailing services and other infor-
mation retrievals which can be utilized by TRUSTEE, COMMITTEE
and RNC during the 1972 Presidential Campaign and thereafter
by TRUSTEE and RNC in connection with elections and political
campaigns within the State of California.
In consideration of the contemplated uses of the
System by the parties hereto as above contemplated, it is
agreed as follows:
1. As consideration for TRUSTEE's performance
hereunder, COMMITTEE has paid to TRUSTEE the sum of $95,000.00,
3.
and RNC has paid to the Republican State Central Committee of
California the sum of $25,000.00. COMMITTEE and TRUSTEE each
agree to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs of the data base addi-
tions as defined in paragraph 3(a) and of the costs of adapta-
tions and changes in the System referred to above together with
certain other changes as may be needed in the System, provided
that in no event shall TRUSTEE be required to pay more than the
sum of $12,000.00; and to share the cost of operating the Sys-
tem, all in the manner set forth in paragraph 3 hereinafter.
2. In consideration of said payments, COMMITTEE
and RNC shall, during the Presidential Campaign through
November 7, 1972, have the unlimited and unrestricted right,
under the supervision of TRUSTEE, to use the System and to
request from the data base any information which, in their
discretion, they, or either of them, may deem beneficial,
necessary or helpful in connection with the 1972 Presidential
Campaign. COMMITTEE and RNC may, if it is feasible, have a
computer remote terminal in Washington, D. C. for use in
accessing the data base for the purpose of facilitating re-
quests for analyses and for receiving hard copy containing the
requested analyses, all costs of which remote terminal shall
be borne and paid by COMMITTEE and/or RNC exclusively, and
4.
TRUSTEE shall be held harmless therefrom. None of the cost
of such remote terminal shall be included in the costs agreed
to be shared by COMMITTEE and/or RNC as set forth in paragraph
3 hereinafter.
3.
TRUSTEE, COMMITTEE and RNC acknowledge that
within the additional costs for adaptions and changes in the
System and the operating costs as contemplated in paragraph 1,
there shall be included:
(a) Costs of the data base additions and
adaptions and changes in the System specifically
include:
1972 primary precinct voting data;
1972 primary close voter registration
data by precinct;
1972 precinct maps on microfilm;
1968 and 1970 political data assigned
to 1972 precincts;
1972 precinct locations including
1972 precinct centroids and assignment of
1972 precinct to census tract.
(b) Payments on rentals on equipment which
may be needed to operate the System based on an analy-
sis of the minimum cost of hardware to perform the
needs through October, 1972.
(c) Development of plotting system making
use of Hewlett-Packard's mini computer and development
5.
of city boundary plot program.
(d) Expenses of retrieval and analysis
work performed in connection with TRUSTEE's efforts
in the California state legislature and congressional
election and in connection with the uses intended by
COMMITTEE or RNC as outlined in paragraph 2, including
computer time costs related to the use of such equip-
ment as is available, and other costs incidental
thereto.
The COMMITTED and TRUSTEE will each pay a percentage
of the fixed hardware costs, based on their respective use of
said hardware, while expediting action to reduce the cost to a
minimum. The COMMITTEE and the TRUSTEE will each pay directly
to COMPASS the cost of services rendered to each of them. The
COMMITTEE will pay for all services performed for the California
Committee.
All billing will be within the accepted practices
of the American Society of Certified Public Accountants and
payments to invoices received will be paid within five (5)
days of receipt. All invoices will be final unless the in-
voice indicates it is a partial payment.
4. The parties further agree that in the event
their respective presently foreseeable uses of the System
shall change to such extent that either of them will not be
6.
utilizing the System to the full extent contemplated by para-
graph 3, then and in that event, any party desiring to term-
inate its obligation to continue making the aforesaid monthly
payments shall notify the other party of such election, at
least thirty (30) days prior to the date such party intends
to discontinue such payments. The obligation to make further
contributions as to such party shall terminate thirty (30)
days after the date of said notice, unless the parties shall
have met, and in good faith discussed and agreed upon a new
or alternate remedy for sharing the use and cost of the Sys-
tem.
5.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or
does provide for possession of the data base or storage tapes
by RNC or COMMITTEE. The rights of RNC and COMMITTEE are to
use thereof, not its possession.
6. It is understood that COMMITTEE and RNC ini-
tially shall have the right to use of the System only in con-
nection with the Presidential General Election and the Presi-
dential Primary Election in the State of California in 1972.
RNC shall have the further right, subject to the terms hereof,
to the use of the System for general political purposes there-
after, provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall
in any way or manner impair or restrict the right of TRUSTEE
to use the System for any political purposes whatsoever,
7.
including but not limited to, use thereof in California elec-
tions, general, special, partisan, non-partisan, statewide,
local municipal, Presidential, congressional, or legislative
during the years 1971 and 1972 and thereafter.
7. After the termination of the 1972 Presidential
Campaign, RNC shall continue to have use of and access to the
System, subject to the conditions and limitations COMMITTEE
and RNC are subject to in this letter of agreement.
8.
(a) Dr. Alan Heslop will immediately be-
gin to act as the coordinator for all data requests
from the users of the System: COMMITTEE, the Repub-
lican State Central Committee of California, the Cali-
fornia Committee for the Re-Election of the President
(hereinafter referred to as "the California Committee"),
and TRUSTEE.
(b) Dr. Alan Heslop will be paid by the
COMMITTEE on a monthly basis based on his time on
the job submitted directly to COMMITTEE.
(c) Dr. Alan Heslop will on the Friday of
every week send to the above mentioned parties a list-
ing with due dates, job descriptions and with cost
estimates for all requests that have gone into COM-
PASS. He, with the assistance of COMMITTEE, will
also initiate approved management control techniques
8.
and other management systems now presently lacking in
the COMPASS organization.
(d) The Data Users Committee, composed of
a member from the State Central Committee, Governor's
office, the Assembly Republican caucus, the California
Committee, the COMMITTEE, and Dr. Alan Heslop who will
serve as the non-voting chairman, will meet periodi-
cally as an advisory board to the COMMITTEE and TRUSTEE
on the operation of the System and make recommenda-
tions for changes in the System, its operation, or
the administration of COMPASS. Recommendations will
go to both the COMMITTEE and TRUSTEE. Recommendations
adopted by COMMITTEE and TRUSTEE will be implemented
by Dr. Alan Heslop. Dr. Alan Heslop will report, for
administrative purposes to the COMMITTEE's designee
on the Data Users Committee, and the Data Users Com-
mittee will administratively give direction to the
COMMITTEE designate.
9. Nothing contained herein shall in any way impair
or restrict the right of TRUSTEE to use the data base and Sys-
tem, together with any additions and changes thereto, for the
purposes described in paragraph 6 during 1971, 1972 and there-
after. However, in the event of any conflict between a pro-
posed use of the System by COMMITTEE or RNC in the 1972
9.
Fresidential Campaign and any other use of the System, the
Data Users Committee, in exercising supervision over the Sys-
tem administratively through Dr. Alan Heslon, shall resolve
any such conflict in favor of the Presidential Campaign.
10. Any controversy or claim arising out of or re-
lating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be set-
tled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American
Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered
by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdic-
tion thereof. A single arbitrator shall be used. It is under-
stood that such arbitration proceedings held shall be conducted
in the State of California.
11. While the present System has been designed for
use in the State of California, the parties agree that COMMIT-
TEE and RNC, at their sole cost and expense, may, under the
supervision of TRUSTEE, have the use of the System and the
computer software capability and technique utilized therein,
as developed for the California reapportionment program, for
use in other states if deemed beneficial by COMMITTEE and/or
RNC in connection with the 1972 Presidential Election only.
The signatures of the aforesaid parties hereto at
the places prescribed below shall indicate acceptance of the
terms of this memorandum.
This contract shall supercede any prior contract
10.
between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter
hereof.
Very truly yours,
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION
OF THE PRESIDENT
By
The Honorable Maurice Stans
Chairman, Finance Committee
to Re-Elect the President
AGREED:
THE REAPPORTIONMENT TRUSTEE
By COMMITTEE Lieriere
By Bat monagem
By Nurulean
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
By
June 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
JKE S. MAGRUDER
FROM:
HERBERT L. PORTER
SUBJECT:
Arkansas Republican State Committee
Fund-Baising Dinner
Little Rock, Arkansas
The Arkansas Republican State Committee has invited the Vice
President to keynote a fund-raising dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas,
in the second half of June. The anticipated attendance is 1,500
people at $100 per plate. It has been agreed that 50% of the net
proceeds will be paid to the Arkansas Committee for the Re-election
of the President.
The invitation has the endorsement of the Finance Counittee to Re-
elect the President; the Arkansas Finance Committee to Re-elect the
President: and, former Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller.
Harry Flemming attaches a low political priority on an appearance
by the Vice President in Arkansas, but would have no objection to
an appearance if the Vice Fresident could fit it into his schedule.
The Vice President has specifically requested that you advise him
whether or not he should accept the invitation.
The Vice President should accept.
"most"
The Vice President should not accept.
0
Committee for the Re-election of the Presiden
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
THROUGH:
MR. JEB S. MACRUDER
FROM:
L. ROBERT MORGAN
SUBJECT:
Ohio - Financial Support for the Data Base
Senator Taft's and Senator Saxbe's offices declined to
participate in the cost to develop the data base. The
Ohio State Central Committee also declined to participate.
We estimate the cost to develop the data base in Ohio to
be $115,000., however, we anticipate some cooperation in
sharing these costs in each state. If we paid $40,000.
then the other three participants could pay $25,000. apiece
for a copy of the data base.
RECOMMENDATION:
That you contact Senators Taft and Saxbe and the State
Chairman, John Andrews, and press for their financial
participation.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
COMMENTS
cc: Dr. Robert H. Marik
Mr. Don Mosiman
Tobase not
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY
DETERMINE TO BE AN
RKING
E.O. ADMINIS. 12025, Section 6-102 62-1-82
MEMORANDUM FOR H. R. HALDEMAN
By
is
NAME,
Date
FROM:
DICK MOORE
in
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
So far, I don't think we have enough evidence to warrant
a judgment as to whether the contributor issue will die
out or will become a major problem. Therefore, the only
safe course right now is to assume that it might become
a very serious issue, and plan accordingly.
As I see it, there are several possibilities. First,
the issue could level off as a minor irritant; second,
it could grow into a fairly serious issue which will require
a better answer than simply saying that the law doesn't
require that we file; and third, the issue could catch
on to the point where the question "what are they trying
to hide" could be a continuing and serious problem. We
know that the Democrats hope to paint us as the friend
of the Fat Cats, and the allegation that we are protecting
"secret contributors" to the tune of $10 million could
fortify that picture in a pretty juicy and plausible way.
For the moment, I think we should lie how and hope the
issue will die down. Where we have to reply to a question,
as in an interview show, we should stick to the proposition
that we are complying with both the letter and the spirit
of the law.
If we see the issue escalating, I think our first effort
must be to prove that it is not the Nixon Administration
or the Nixon Committee which chooses not to reveal the
names. Rather, it is the contributors themselves who
chose not to have their names revealed for good and
sufficient reasons. For us to reveal the names would
be a flagrant breach of faith.
- 2 -
As a first step, a major spokesman should make a strong
and clear statement explaining why perfectly good Americans
sometimes prefer not to reveal the fact that they have con-
tributed to a political party or candidate. For example,
an executive might not wish to have his name made public
because the chairman of the board is an ardent Democrat;
a salesman may not wish to antagonize Democratic customers;
a professional man may not wish to antagonize important clients
who are anti-Nixon.
Until April 7, the law made it possible for a person to
exercise his right to support a candidate without fear of
economic or social reprisal, or without being made the target
for unwanted publicity or unwelcome solicitation by various
organizations and causes, good and bad, including the
Democratic Party. This is a reasonable and understandable
view, and if properly explained, it can help take the heat
off the Administration and the Committee.
At all times, our posture must be that we are happy to dis-
close the name of any contributor who is willing to waive
his legal right of privacy which Congress gave him up to
April 7.
If the issue gets really hot, we might want to prove our
sincerity by voluntarily filing the names of those early
contributors who would be willing to have us do SO. If
this were a great number, and involved, say half of the
$10 million, it would be a dramatic and convincing demonstration
of our good faith in the matter.
Meanwhile, I think we should quietly get an idea of how many
early contributors would be willing to have their names filed
voluntarily. For example, we could make a hundred discreet
telephone calls to typical contributors, asking (but not
urging) whether they would be willing to have us file. If
the proportion of volunteers proves to be high, then we
might write a letter to every contributor, asking him whether
he wishes to authorize disclosure of his name. Even if only
a few give us permission, it would still take the onus off us
by proving that it is the contributor who is unwilling, not
the Nixon people. Yet it would not embarrass the contributors,
since they would not be disclosed.
- 3 -
In terms of other "lines" which could be used, we can go
on the attack in the sense that McGovern would be urging
us to commit a breach of faith against good Americans who
were exercising their consitutional right to support their
candidate, and their legal right to do so without being
subjected to unwanted publicity, etc. McGovern would re-
peal the right of privacy retroactively, and his whole
approach is improper, unfair and downright dishonest.
Unlike McGovern, we don't believe in changing the rules
in the middle of the game.
Another line which perhaps should come from a source
other than a Mitchell or a Stans, should be an attack
on McGovern's hypocrisy. In his campaign film he claims
that he relies on $1 and $5 contributors, and that claim
is obviously phony, and can be proved SO. Moreover, we
can step up our attacks on him as the big spender, as
evidenced by his lavish campaign in California.
THE WHITE HOUSE
DETERMINED TO BE AN
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVE MARK ..?
By
E.O. OP 120.0, Section 0-102
Date 4-1-82
Confidential/Eyes Only
June 15. 1972.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
My answers to questions 1 and 2 of your memo of today were
answered in my memo of March 14, a copy of which is attached.
I do not think we should try to stand behind the idea of protecting
the donors' anonymity from charitable solicitation.
McGovern's blast at this: "Now do you really suppose they're
worried about the Red Cross" gets a big, derisive laugh every
time. When the President can be successfully ridiculed, it is
bad.
My advice now is the same as it was in March -- we should accept
the embarrassment to Stans and make public our names. Other-
wise, this is going to be hung around our neck all through the
campaign. I don't think it's worth it.
I am hard pressed to come up with suitable lines defending non-
disclosure. One might be: "If Congress intended the list to be
disclosed, they would have made that the law." Another might be:
"You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. 11 A third
and more realistic answer might be: "We don't want the Democrats
soliciting our contributors. What they want to do is go to our
donors to demand matching contributions, and we are not going to
make it easy for them."
The weakness of the above answers is the most telling argument for
full disclosure; and I think this ammunition we give them on the "you
can't trust Nixon" theme is worth more than the millions of dollars
we would have to return to contributors whose anonymity could not
be broken.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 14, 1972
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
SUBJECT:
Draft Statement by Stans on Campaign Spending
"President Nixon strongly supported and signed into law the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1972. As President, he will enforce the law,
and as a candidate for re-election, he will obey the law.
This committee will report all contributions over $100 exactly as the
law requires and as Congress intended. The law calls for our first
report on June 30 of this year, and we have put into place the necessary
procedures to comply fully and promptly. "
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL LINE: The one-upmanship now under way between
the Democratic candidates to prove who can reveal most is something
to be expected in a hotly contested series of primaries. The President
is not personally engaged in primary campaigning, and his campaign
committee will nd go beyond the law in its fundraising or spending
procedures. 11
RECOMMEND NOT USING THIS LINE.
The arguments for such a statement and such a policy:
1. The heat for us to follow the Democratic candidate's example will
fade after June, when we publish names of contributors since April 7.
2. If we were to follow their example and disclose names now, it would
provide a continuing series of stories blasting fatcats and their government
connections.
3. If we wanted to publish now, we would have to go back to contributors
and see if they would be willing, and thus lose substantial sums.
-2-
Arguments against sticking to the "letter of the law":
1. The ITT controversy lays a public opinion base for suspicion of all
campaign contributions.
2. One main Democratic campaign theme is likely to be "trust, " and
any coverup compared to their full disclosure gives them an opening.
3. This issue will not go away after June. We will be charged with
having the 20 million dollar hidden fund, collected before the deadline
from influence seekers, whom Nixon persists in refusing to name --
because he knows that the revelation of their names would be political
suicide. I have nothing to hide; I have named all my contributors -- but
the President has not. Why not? Why does he constantly harp on the letter
of the law, when he is clearly breaking the spirit of the law, the intent
of Congress which calls for full disclosure of campaign contributors?
My cards are all on the table -- come on, Mr. President, let's see your
cards -- let's give the American people a chance to see who bought a
secret piece of your campaign. Let's see who is really paying the bills
for those lavish TV commericals. " Etc., Etc.
4. Disclosure of the pre-April 7 names may be embarrassing, showing
more big contributors, and give the other side a few shots -- but not a
real theme of suspicion. And the most embarrassing could be returned
before disclosure. When these shots are taken in the summer, we could
counter with questions on labor union spending.
My basic point: we should not make the decision to "take the flak"
without reviewing the full consequences of the flak throughout the
campaign.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DEVERRIVED TO BE AN
ADXI,
IKING
E.J. 120 station 6-102
CONPIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
By
Ep
Date 4-1-82
June 13, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK MOORE
BILL SAFIRE
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
In light of the recent attacks by McGovern, will you please
give me your thoughts on how to handle the campaign contri-
butor question? In doing so, consider the following questions:
1) Do you believe the 10 million collected before
April 7 will be a big damaging issue in the campaign or
do you believe it will pass in a few days?
2) Should we rely on the line used by Mitchell that
the contributors need anonymity to protect against requests
from charitable organizations?
3) What other lines could Stans, Mitchell and our
other spokesmen use?
4) What should our line be in countering the Democratic
attacks, etc?
Please forward your recommendations by Friday, June 16.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1972
DEVERMINE 03 AN
CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY
PRING
E.O. 12001, Section 6-102
By
up
4-1-82
MEMORANDUM FOR H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
DICK MOORE
100
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
So far, I don't think we have enough evidence to warrant
a judgment as to whether the contributor issue will die
out or will become a major problem. Therefore, the only
safe course right now is to assume that it might become
a very serious issue, and plan accordingly.
As I see it, there are several possibilities. First,
the issue could level off as a minor irritant; second,
it could grow into a fairly serious issue which will require
a better answer than simply saying that the law doesn't
require that we file; and third, the issue could catch
on to the point where the question "what are they trying
to hide" could be a continuing and serious problem. We
know that the Democrats hope to paint us as the friend
of the Fat Cats, and the allegation that we are protecting
"secret contributors" to the tune of $10 million could
fortify that picture in a pretty juicy and plausible way.
For the moment, I think we should lie how and hope the
issue will die down. Where we have to reply to a question,
as in an interview show, we should stick to the proposition
that we are complying with both the letter and the spirit
of the law.
If we see the issue escalating, I think our first effort
must be to prove that it is not the Nixon Administration
or the Nixon Committee which chooses not to reveal the
names. Rather, it is the contributors themselves who
chose not to have their names revealed for good and
sufficient reasons. For us to reveal the names would
be a flagrant breach of faith.
- 2 -
As a first step, a major spokesman should make a strong
and clear statement explaining why perfectly good Americans
sometimes prefer not to reveal the fact that they have con-
tributed to a political party or candidate. For example,
an executive might not wish to have his name made public
because the chairman of the board is an ardent Democrat;
a salesman may not wish to antagonize Democratic customers;
a professional man may not wish to antagonize important clients
who are anti-Nixon.
Until April 7, the law made it possible for a person to
exercise his right to support a candidate without fear of
economic or social reprisal, or without being made the target
for unwanted publicity or unwelcome solicitation by various
organizations and causes, good and bad, including the
Democratic Party. This is a reasonable and understandable
view, and if properly explained, it can help take the heat
off the Administration and the Committee.
At all times, our posture must be that we are happy to dis-
close the name of any contributor who is willing to waive
his legal right of privacy which Congress gave him up to
April 7.
If the issue gets really hot, we might want to prove our
sincerity by voluntarily filing the names of those early
contributors who would be willing to have us do SO. If
this were a great number, and involved, say half of the
$10 million, it would be a dramatic and convincing demonstration
of our good faith in the matter.
Meanwhile, I think we should quietly get an idea of how many
early contributors would be willing to have their names filed
voluntarily. For example, we could make a hundred discreet
telephone calls to typical contributors, asking (but not
urging) whether they would be willing to have us file. If
the proportion of volunteers proves to be high, then we
might write a letter to every contributor, asking him whether
he wishes to authorize disclosure of his name. Even if only
a few give us permission, it would still take the onus off us
by proving that it is the contributor who is unwilling, not
the Nixon people. Yet it would not embarrass the contributors,
since they would not be disclosed.
- 3 -
In terms of other "lines" which could be used, we can go
on the attack in the sense that McGovern would be urging
us to commit a breach of faith against good Americans who
were exercising their consitutional right to support their
candidate, and their legal right to do so without being
subjected to unwanted publicity, etc. McGovern would re-
peal the right of privacy retroactively, and his whole
approach is improper, unfair and downright dishonest.
Unlike McGovern, we don't believe in changing the rules
in the middle of the game.
Another line which perhaps should come from a source
other than a Mitchell or a Stans, should be an attack
on McGovern's hypocrisy. In his campaign film he claims
that he relies on $1 and $5 contributors, and that claim
is obviously phony, and can be proved SO. Moreover, we
can step up our attacks on him as the big spender, as
evidenced by his lavish campaign in California.
IT TERMINED TO BE AN
THE WHITE HOUSE
STRATIVE MAIL IG
WASHINGTON
J05, Section 6-102
EV. NARS, Date 4-1-82
Confidential/Eyes Only
June 15. 1972.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
My answers to questions 1 and 2 of your memo of today were
answered in my memo of March 14, a copy of which is attached.
I do not think we should try to stand behind the idea of protecting
the donors' anonymity from charitable solicitation.
McGovern's blast at this: "Now do you really suppose they're
worried about the Red Cross" gets a big, derisive laugh every
time. When the President can be successfully ridiculed, it is
bad.
My advice now is the same as it was in March -- we should accept
the embarrassment to Stans and make public our names. Other-
wise, this is going to be hung around our neck all through the
campaign. I don't think it's worth it.
I am hard pressed to come up with suitable lines defending non-
disclosure. One might be: "If Congress intended the list to be
disclosed, they would have made that the law." Another might be:
"You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. 11 A third
and more realistic answer might be: "We don't want the Democrats
soliciting our contributors. What they want to do is go to our
donors to demand matching contributions, and we are not going to
make it easy for them."
The weakness of the above answers is the most telling argument for
full disclosure; and I think this ammunition we give them on the "you
can't trust Nixon" theme is worth more than the millions of dollars
we would have to return to contributors whose anonymity could not
be broken.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 14, 1972
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
SUBJECT:
Draft Statement by Stans on Campaign Spending
"President Nixon strongly supported and signed into law the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1972. As President, he will enforce the law,
and as a candidate for re-election, he will obey the law.
This committee will report all contributions over $100 exactly as the
law requires and as Congress intended. The law calls for our first
report on June 30 of this year, and we have put into place the necessary
procedures to comply fully and promptly. "
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL LINE: "The one-upmanship now under way between
the Democratic candidates to prove who can reveal most is something
to be expected in a hotly contested series of primaries. The President
is not personally engaged in primary campaigning, and his campaign
committee will nd go beyond the law in its fundraising or spending
procedures. "
RECOMMEND NOT USING THIS LINE.
The arguments for such a statement and such a policy:
1.
The heat for us to follow the Democratic candidate's example will
fade after June, when we publish names of contributors since April 7.
2. If we were to follow their example and disclose names now, it would
provide a continuing series of stories blasting fatcats and their government
connections.
3. If we wanted to publish now, we would have to go back to contributors
and see if they would be willing, and thus lose substantial sums.
-2-
Arguments against sticking to the "letter of the law":
1. The ITT controversy lays a public opinion base for suspicion of all
campaign contributions.
2. One main Democratic campaign theme is likely to be "trust," and
any coverup compared to their full disclosure gives them an opening.
3. This issue will not go away after June. We will be charged with
having' the 20 million dollar hidden fund, collected before the deadline
from influence seekers, whom Nixon persists in refusing to name --
because he knows that the revelation of their names would be political
suicide. I have nothing to hide; I have\named all my contributors -- but
the President has not. Why not? Why does he constantly harp on the letter
of the law, when he is clearly breaking the spirit of the law, the intent
of Congress which calls for full disclosure of campaign contributors?
My cards are all on the table -- come on, Mr. President, let's see your
cards -- let's give the American people a chance to see who bought a
secret piece of your campaign. Let's see who is really paying the bills
for those lavish TV commericals. " Etc., Etc.
4. Disclosure of the pre-April 7 names may be embarrassing, showing
more big contributors, and give the other side a few shots -- but not a
real theme of suspicion. And the most embarrassing could be returned
before disclosure. When these shots are taken in the summer, we could
counter with questions on labor union spending.
My basic point: we should not make the decision to "take the flak"
without reviewing the full consequences of the flak throughout the
campaign.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CONPIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
DETERMINED D 33
June 13, 1972
E.J. 120 5, Sectica 4-1-82 6-102
OP
Date
By
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK MOORE
BILL SAFIRE
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
In light of the recent attacks by McGovern, will you please
give me .your thoughts on how to handle the campaign contri-
butor question? In doing so, consider the following questions:
1) Do you believe the 10 million collected before
April 7 will be a big damaging issue in the campaign or
do you believe it will pass in a few days?
2) Should we rely on the line used by Mitchell that
the contributors need anonymity to protect against requests
from charitable organizations?
3) What other lines could Stans, Mitchell and our
other spokesmen use?
4) What should our line be in countering the Democratic
attacks, etc?
Please forward your recommendations by Friday, June 16.
March 14, 1972
AN
CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTA
RKING
E.U.
0-102
By
Ef
Date
4-1-82
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE JOHN N. MITCHELL
FROM:
JEB S. MAGRUDER
SUBJECT:
Campaign Disclosure
In a .meeting this afternoon with Messrs. Stans, Kalmbach, Finch,
Moore, LaRue, Shumway, and Aloan, we discussed whather it would
be appropriate for us to disclose contributions received before
the April 7 deadline set by the new law. It was the unanimous
opinion that we should not disclose, although we realize this
would be an issue that could be used against us in the campaign.
If we were to disclose, we would have to give each contributor
an opportunity to renege on his pledge which would reduce our
funds considerably. This, in turn, would probably create a dif-
ficult public relations situation if it welle known we were return-
ing any funds, as well as be embarrassing to those donors who let
their contributions stand. It also could create an on-going press
barrage about our contributors since many of them are in sensitive
positions both within the Administration and the business community.
Even though this could be brought up as an issue in the general
election, we could bring up the fact that we began disclosing on
April 7 and it probably would not be an issue of the magnitude then
as it is now.
One point which should be stressed is this: when an incumbent
President, rather than a Presidential candidate, discloses, there
may be more political problems caused by the disclosure than by
non-disclosure. For example, if Muskie discloses that he received
$10,000 from the President of General Motors, that is one thing.
But if the incumbent President discloses such a contribution, he is
open to the charge that in return for the donation, General Motors
was promised something which it is within the power of the incumbent
President to grant. Hence, the charges which might be made as a
result of the disclosure might do more political damage than the
charges made as a result of non-disclosuse.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
If we do not disclose, it would be important to deploy funds raised
before April 7 into as many state committees as possible, as well
as prepaying any future bills that would be appropriate so that our
balance on hand at the first reporting date would be relatively
small. At the present time it is anticipated that we could have as
much as $12,000,000 on hand by April 7. If we do not disclose and
show that figure in June during the first reporting period, we could
create a tremendous backlash regarding our non-disclosure.
On the other hand, the arguments for disclosing are obvious. We
would increase our credibility with the public; no issue could be
raised about lack of disclosure; and we would not add to the credi-
bility problem that has been created by the ITT/Sheraton incident.
From the financial standpoint, it is obvious that it would be to our
advantage not to disclose. On the public relations side, it is much
more difficult to determine the public's reaction and is, therefore,
a decision that should be made at the highest level. Consequently,
our recommendation is that we tentatively agree not to disclose;
that Ziegler continue to refer any inquiries to this Committee; that
Van Shumway, if asked, continue to indicate that we are going to com-
ply with the law; and that a decision be made not later than next
Monday, so that in case there was a desire to disclose, the Financial
Division could do the paper work before the April 7 deadline.
Approve
Disapprove
Comment
CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 14, 1972
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
SUBJECT:
Draft Statement by Stans on Campaign Spending
"President Nixon strongly supported and signed into law the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1972. As President, he will enforce the law,
and as a candidate for re-election, he will obey the law.
This committee will report all contributions over $100 exactly as the
law requires and as Congress intended. The law calls for our first
report on June 30 of this year, and we have put into place the necessary
procedures to comply fully and promptly."
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL LINE: "The one-upmanship now under way betwe
the Democratic candidates to prove who can reveal most is something
to be expected in a hotly contested series of primaries. The President
is not personally engaged in primary campaigning, and his campaign
committee will nd go beyond the law in its fundraising or spending
procedures. "
RECOMMEND NOT USING THIS LINE.
The arguments for such a statement and such a policy:
1.
The heat for us to follow the Democratic candidate's example will
fade after June, when we publish names of contributors since April 7.
2. If we were to follow their example and disclose names now, it would
provide a continuing series of stories blasting fatcats and their government
connections.
3. If we wanted to publish now, we would have to go back to contributors
and see if they would be willing, and thus lose substantial sums.
-2-
Arguments against sticking to the "letter of the law":
1. The ITT controversy lays a public opinion base for suspicion of all
campaign contributions.
2. One main Democratic campaign theme is likely to be "trust, " and
any coverup compared to their full disclosure gives them an opening.
3. This issue will not go away after June. We will be charged with
having the 20 million dollar hidden fund, collected before the deadline
from influence seekers, whom Nixon persists in refusing to name --
because he knows that the revelation of their names would be political
suicide. I have nothing to hide; I have named all my contributors -- but
the President has not. Why not? Why does he constantly harp on the letter
of the law, when he is clearly breaking the spirit of the law, the intent
of Congress which calls for full disclosure of campaign contributors?
My cards are all on the table -- come on, Mr. President, let's see your
cards -- let's give the American people a chance to see who bought a
secret piece of your campaign. Let's see who is really paying the bills
for those lavish TV commericals. If Etc., Etc.
4. Disclosure of the pre-April 7 names may be embarrassing, showing
more big contributors, and give the other side a few shots -- but not a
real theme of suspicion. And the most embarrassing could be returned
before disclosure. When these shots are taken in the summer, we could
counter with questions on labor union spending.
My basic point: we should not make the decision to "take the flak"
without reviewing the full consequences of the flak throughout the
campaign.
may memo for Mitchell
It
toneght
Dale - press corp tomorrace - lla
-
3/14
Finch, Kalmbach, Shumway, /
ha Rue, moore, Magreeder
Stans
K- if we disclose must give doners
option to get $ back
- il give $ back, there will be leaks
banks reluctant
Slans - if we have to give back must
raise $ beel proe to keep up w/58m
spending - hold off intil fe 10
Find - no partial disclosure like Cal
-a pive
- not déselose
Slans J8M+RF safire re his
state her P.
La Rue - have Dale take heat
at Pr cent on 3/15
an Fla results
Slans - not disclose, deploy $
15 m-ap7
out to Scate Comms
3 m- - spent
11 m - elperg
- Pre pay
-on - Je 7 could have balance
Pr/ apr7
DETERMING ES AN
ADMINIS
LKING
By EP +
E.O. 120.5, Section 6-102
NARS,
Date 4-1-87
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
CA it FU
June 13, 1972
here
yet solto
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK MOORE
BILL SAFIRE
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contributors
In light of the recent attacks by McGovern, will you please
give no your thoughts on how to handle the campaign contri-
butor question? In doing so, consider the following questions:
1) Do you believe the 10 million collected before
April 7 will be a big damaging issue in the campaign or
do you believe it will pass in a few days?
2) Should we rely on the line used by Mitchell that
the contributors need anonymity to protect against requests
from charitable organisations?
3) What other lines could Stans, Mitchell and our
other spokesmen use?
4) What should our line be in countering the Democratic
attacks, etc?
Please forward your recommendations by Friday, June 16.
HRH/LH/GS/jb
FU - 6/16
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 6/6/721
TO:
Gardon Atralan
from: FROM: DAVE GERGEN
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
DAVE GERGEN
SUBJECT:
Draft Letter
Here is a revised solicitation letter, as prepared
by Roland Elliott and Mary Ann Allin and approved
by Ray. Most of it is sufficiently well done that we
hope to incorporate portions in the campaign
package.
I apologize for the delay.
Enclosure.
(Allin/Elliott) RP
February 4, 1972
On January 20, 1969, America was a troubled nation. There was
division in the country, disruption on the campuses, inflation in the
economy, crime in the cities, powderkegs in the ghettoes, backlash in
the suburbs, and two hundred coffins a week coming home from Vietnam.
As Richard Nixon took the oath of office, he inherited this bitter
legacy. It required both political courage and statesmanship to move
away from war and inflation, up onto the high road of peacetime pros-
perity. But Richard Nixon, more than any President before him, has
quietly presided over major changes in policy and direction in our
government, and has restored our faith in the ability of our system to
solve its problems and reflect the basic integrity of the American
people.
The record of the Nixon Administration is clear: There have been
dramatic new initiatives in foreign affairs designed to end our involve-
ment in the Indochina conflict and secure a lasting peace; there have
been bold new economic policies to speed our progress toward a sound
prosperity; there is a full agenda of domestic programs aimed at
government reform to make it truly responsive to the needs of our
citizens; and there is much else that remains to be done.
-2-
Progress toward achieving what the President has called the
"great goals" of our society requires the cooperation and commitment
of every American. The vast majority shares the President's con-
viction that this is a great and good nation, one which has an extra-
ordinary capacity to set out upon a new course of action and bring
together diverse elements in a creative force to improve government
and our quality of life.
Where there was despair and frustration only a few years ago,
there is now a growing sense of hope and faith in the traditional
strengths of our institutions and in the fundamental goodwill of our
countrymen. The President has made a beginning which urgently
merits our support. He deserves and the Nation needs the opportunity
to press for completion of his initiatives, both foreign and domestic.
In his campaign for re-election, you can demonstrate your support
in a vital and meaningful way -- with your personal check. A contri-
bution of $15 will enroll you as a member of the Committee. But gifts
of $25, or $50, or $100, and larger are also welcome! If it is signif-
icant to you, it will be significant to us, and you may be sure that every
dollar will be used in the re-election of the President. With your
financial assistance and that of other concerned individuals, we can
mount a campaign that will take the record of this Administration
-3-
directly to the people, calmly but forcefully articulating its accom-
plishments, its far-reaching proposals and its confident vision of the
future.
We urge you to join in this high adventure. It will be an alliance
of citizens who believe that Richard Nixon has guided the Nation
through an era of adversity and has brought us to the threshhold of a
full generation of peace with prosperity. This is our opportunity, in
Lincoln's words, for us to "dare to do our duty as we understand it. "
####
Because of the
new tax law
giving costs less
Because of the new tax law giving costs less
For the first time in history, political contributions
This would mean, for example, that a couple who gave
made in 1972 will cost less than before. Special federal
$25.00 last year could DOUBLE the size of their 1972
income tax provisions now allow a portion of money
gift to $50.00 and get $25.00 returned to them when
contributed to be returned to the giver when he files his
filing their 1972 tax return. The net cost of giving re-
federal income tax return.
mains at $25.00.
The new tax provisions were passed by Congress and
Another provision in the new tax legislation enables
signed by President Nixon so all citizens could afford to
a contributor to deduct from taxable income, all politi-
support their political interests at the local, state and
cal contributions up to $50.00 for a single return, or
national levels.
$100.00 for a joint return. This is known as the "tax
deduction" method. You can deduct your political gifts
Because of the new tax law, many individuals and
in the same manner as you would itemize charitable con-
couples will be able to DOUBLE the size of their previ-
tributions, taxes, etc.
ous contributions to the Republican Finance Committee
Generally speaking, contributors of more than $50.00
and it won't cost them one additional cent. This is how
who are in the higher tax brackets will benefit more
the new tax provisions work:
through the "tax deduction." Those who give under
A person may subtract from his total income tax bill,
$50.00 may benefit more from the "tax credit" method.
an amount equal to one-half of his political contributions
Individuals and couples may select either method of
-but not to exceed $12.50 if filing a separate return, or
reducing their tax liability. The taxpayer must decide
$25.00 if filing a joint return. This provision is known
which will be most advantageous to his particular tax
as the "tax credit" method.
situation.
Cost of giving using "Tax Credit" method
JOINT RETURN FOR COUPLES
SEPARATE RETURN FOR INDIVIDUALS
If your '71
And you
Your Tax
Actual cost of
If your '71
And you
Your Tax
Actual cost of
contribution
double your
Credit
doubling your
contribution
double your
Credit
doubling your
was:
'72 gift to:
will be:
gift is:
was:
'72 gift to:
will be:
gift is:
5.00
10.00
5.00
0
5.00
10.00
5.00
0
10.00
20.00
10.00
0
10.00
20.00
10.00
0
15.00
30.00
15.00
0
15.00
30.00
*12.50
2.50
20.00
40.00
20.00
0
20.00
40.00
*12.50
7.50
25.00
50.00
25.00
0
25.00
50.00
*12.50
12.50
50.00
100.00
*25.00
25.00
50.00
100.00
*12.50
37.50
*Maximum tax credit allowable for couples filing a joint return.
*Maximum tax credit allowable for those filing individual
returns.
Republican National
Finance Committee.
CHAIRMAN
Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.
Mr. Gordon Strachan
20 Broad Street
New York, New York 10005
11041960
20E
DETACH ALONG DOTTED LINE AND RETURN WITH YOUR CONTRIBUTION. NO POSTAGE REQUIRED.
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL FINANCE COMMITTEE (Note: Corporate checks prohibited by law.)
Dear Mr. Strachan:
Your. last contribution to the Republican National
Finance Committee--for which we are most grateful--was
$10.00. Under the new 1972 Federal Income Tax law, you
can increase your support of our Committee to $20.00
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING YOUR OUT-CF-PCCKET COST.
This can be done by taking up to $100.00 (maximum)
as a DEDUCTION--or up to $25.00 (maximum) as a direct tax
CREDIT ON YOUR 1972 tax return (see. the explanatory slip
enclosed).
This 1S your opportunity to GIVE to the REPUBLICAN
PARTY for GREATER PURPOSE and at LOWER COST than EVER
BEFORE!
You and thousands of other loyal Republicans have
kept our National Committee in business through the years
by your generous contributions (our average in 1971 was
$19.90), and you made it possible to redirect the course
of our Nation by helping elect President Nixon in 1968.
This year we face again the time of critical nation-
al decision for the next four years. We Republicans know
and respect what President Nixon has accomplished since
he took office. But to insure his reelection, our votes
and our loyalty alone are not enough--outnumbered as we
are by non-Republicans. We must also provide the finan-
cial resources needed to bring the President's message
and the real facts about what he has done convincingly to
the attraction of all of our fellow Americans.
Everyone must have the chance to understand, as we
do, that our President:
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL FINANCE COMMITTEE
Has so reduced American participation in the Viet
Nam war that despite aggressive enemy action, our
troop involvement by July 1 will be down to about
10% of what it was when he took office in 1969, with
American casualties now at even a lower fraction
than that.
Has taken effective action to cut the disastrous
price spiral in half and to increase substantially
both real wages and total employment despite the
rapid shift from war to a peace time economy.
Has built the foundation for a "generation of peace"
by taking bold initiatives and building new bridges
for better U.S. relationships in international
affairs.
Has waged an unprecedented war against crime, so
that at last we can see a significant decrease in
the national crime rate, along with a doubling of
convictions of organized crime leaders, and almost
the same increase in prosecution of drug traffickers.
But people forget the past too easily, and the mem-
ory often fails to distinguish clearly between the bless-
ings of today and the troubles of the past. We're count-
ing on you to help us remind everyone of just what has
happened because of President Nixon. Your help will make
it possible, if you will write a check now and send it to
us today in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
On behalf of our Republican Party and one who be-
lieves as you must in the greatness of this nation, I
thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.
"A copy of our report filed with the Comptroller General will be available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, United States Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402."
FIRST CLASS
Permit No. 4018-R
Washington, D.C.
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
NO POSTAGE STAMP NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES
Postage will be paid by
Republican National Committee
Sustaining Fund Membership Program
20E
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
ASHINCTONED 1 PM
YORK,
MAY
MAY of
CHURC
-tin
1972
ST EISENSOWER USA
NOW
7072
UNDER NEW TAX LAW
YOUR GIFT
TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
COST LESS THAN EVER BEFORE!
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
June 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
SUBJECT:
Lyn Nofziger - California
Lyn Nofziger is in Washington today. He has been meeting
with Mardian, Malek, Magruder, and others at 1701.
Nofziger wonders whether you would like to discuss the
California campaign with him. Nofziger is not pushing
for a meeting, but wanted you to know he was available.
In light of the memorandum you signed for Mitchell on
California (which has not been delivered to him) you
may want to talk with Nofziger.
Whether you see Nofziger or not, I will talk with him
at length.
Recommendation: That you see Nofziger today so that when
you discuss the California situation with Mitchell, you
will have given Nofziger a hearing.
Haldeman see Nofziger.
Haldeman will not see Nofziger.
Re-schedule.
nol-
as confused as I am Cal is better
organized than any other major
St in U.S.
slans - pretion 8 at not bud in yz
meal wants sam I advertising, Dir Mad & Teleph
McG may well have lost nomen
on Cal decision
- could bea detaster to MCG
HI people now turned back in
4in Cal - never again !
-1 Omn + 1 Eree Dei +
but never me y so agern
- Bave Packale cutting own
all regional Cam are Henevay
deals to wl Ilanstrol.
-se not under complete
-
2 3 Bill Ranoceski P. of Peppedine
control or net etc.
- Mc Candless am Bold Supervese of
- @ monagan assemelymer Tracy
Reversale Got
- no Col willy Report in 3was.
- can't deep Find out of Col.-
- Firestone, litteng re amt of $ Rotwants
- ash types > 10% i only helend Kaiser
Gaylad Parkenson-
Twile come each
Never mentional rim; just conered
teus but valuless
3 welks
Goc RR - going abroad; instead Allo
be fundraising in in Mid am
-needs Y2 an ul P + then
could detroop al d tims IRN
- rarely meets w/ JVN, but good relations
- - Ese Der (nol) not RR runcemp
While in Cal - love aly, werking
vacation; not socializing
-Bring col ORD to Calot
word while your goes on.
get to not for Radio TTV
only Rose Marie
RAND MONALLY
CALIFORNIA
STATE COUNTY OUTLINE MAP
SIZE 8½11
"
12
15
14
19
20
21
22
21
A
Pating
MUINE
*****
"
****
HUMBOLDI
RIMI
-
SHASTA
LASSAN
nm
TRINITY
"
BLACE
PLUMAS
TEMAMA
-
"
*****
Charge
MENDGEINO
$1,820
Please
RUSTE
GLENN
are
142.059
F
SIERRA
LAKE
YUBA
COLUSA
$6.315
NEVADA
-
SUITER
-
-
-
PLACER
CRNSRY
MP,373
-
F
DOUGLAS
52.74
-
1010
11.70
1
ELDORADO
SONOMA
-
The
NAPA
SACRA
(LYON
1
MENTO
ALPINE
-
9.9
n.or
SOLAND
AMADOR
MINERAL
TM
STATE
12'4
G
MONO
MARIN,
CALAVERAS
AN JOAQUIN
CONTRACOS:A
HON. BOB MONAGAN
SAN FRANCISCO
ISMERALDA
"
STANISLAUS
;
DAVID PACKARD
SAVIAL
MERCED
MADERA
INTO
HEVADA
CANTA
1
CRUZ
NTE
SAN DENITO
FRESHO
MONTEREY
TULARE
,
KINGS
CLARK
K
HON. AL MCCANDLESS
L
MONATE
GANTA BARBARA
VENTURA
::
SANTA
.......
RIVERSIDE
*UMA
DR. WILLIAM BANOWSKY
BANGE
14
AM DIEGO
IMPERIAL
VENTURE
ARID
MOXICO
"
California Committee
for the Re-election
of the President
1670 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 484-1330
May 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR RONALD REAGAN
FROM LYN NOFZIGER Ln
RE: California Campaign (Week Ending 27 May 1972)
The press from the East is beginning to come to California, primarily
for the Humphrey-McGovern race, but they are also looking for some
signs of Ashbrook activity. They tell me there is none, which concurs
with my own feeling. I do not see any substantial Ashbrook impact at
this time, although it is still possible he will get around 15 percent.
In the meantime the Nixon campaign is about on target. The mail program
remains fouled up to some extent at the data processing end, but once
the mail begins to flow back into our headquarters our people are
handling it well.
The phone banks are working well except for San Diego and the San
Fernando Valley, but some have not received the cards they should have,
with phone numbers on them. In the case of the mail foul-ups, the problem
is with the Reuben H. Donnelley Company.
The hostess telephone program, which involves women using their own home
phones for phoning, begins Tuesday. We think it has a good potential.
Put Livermore finally offered to give us two staff men for registration.
We took them. And Compass Systems finally seems to be getting untracked
with Alan Heslop in charge there.
We will have a "victory" party at the Ambassador Hotel next Tuesday
night as we discussed in your office. We have a suite reserved for
you, and hopefully you can make a brief appearance.
CC: John Mitchell
Bob Haldeman
Bob Mardian
Jeb Magruder
Gordon Luce
Ed Meese
HRolstad - better
poe man
il beeping up
UP staff
staff
/
no Gold, cDward
confiel in
vie (tryinglut can't debg)
-
me whother
It
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FU
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
6/9
May 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FOLLOW-UP
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
G
On June 2nd check with Charlie McWhorter regarding the
results of the Republican Governors establishment of
a "buddy system".
June 8, 1972
Memorandum
For: John Mitchell and Bob Haldeman
From: Charlie McWhorter
I have spent the last few days in Houston attending the National
Governors' Conference which was dominated by discussion of Presidential
politics. There is general recognition that the President has developed a
strong record of leadership and will be difficult for any Democrat to
defeat. However, there is every indication that the McGovern people, Larry
O'Brien and most Democratic governors are out to win in November even though
it means substantial shift of position for McGovern.
As I am sure you know, the McGovern forces are making a determined
effort to develop increased support from blue collar and minority groups
which, according to Harris and other pollsters, would give stronger support
to Nixon against McGovern than if the candidate were Humphrey. The McGovern
strategy seems intended to hold on to McGovern's strength among independent,
higher income and better educated voters while improving his appeal to blue
collar and minority groups.
While the choice of Ted Kennedy as a running mate would probably
give McGovern his best chance to consolidate this vote, nobody at Houston
seemed to think that Kennedy was available. Most of the speculation turned
on Wilbur Mills and Adlai Stevenson and there was no particular enthusiasm
for either.
The McGovern visit to the Governors' Conference at Houston was a
good illustration of his campaign flexibility. I was told that Governor
Lucey of Wisconsin talked to Senator McGovern from Houston and strongly
recommended this visit. Within 24 hours McGovern was in Houston. Governor
Lucey remarked that it would take the Muskie people at least a week to
consider whether they should make such a trip. This indicates to me that
there will be a need in the Nixon campaign to have a high degree of compar-
able flexibility in scheduling which in turn requires quick access to key
people in our campaign organization and an ability to make prompt decisions.
A serious problem confronting the McGovern campaign relates to
the question of who will run the McGovern organization in the various
states following the Democratic Convention in Miami. McGovern will be
under pressure to get rid of the "crazies" who have engineered his primary
and state convention victories. However, he will have difficulty in relying
on the loyalty and commitment of many of the regular Democratic leaders and
organizations. In his private comments to the Democratic governors,
Senator McGovern seemed to be most willing to accommodate himself to their
- 2 -
concern in this regard. The real test of McGovern's attitude on these
problems will probably come in his policy on credential challenges and on
modification of his views in order to achieve a more moderate platform
position. McGovern could have difficulty with his more militant supporters
if he makes too many concessions on platform and credentials. Before the
roll call for President, Senator McGovern must decide whether to make major
compromises or face a roll call defeat for his position. It may well be
that the effort to stop McGovern will take the form of maneuvering him into
a position where he could lose a roll call vote prior to the vote for
President.
One final thought with regard to the Nixon campaign. It now
seems that the President's position on economic issues is much improved.
However, I would strongly urge that in presenting his record in these
areas, that our speech writers and others emphasize the beneficial impact
of his economic and domestic programs on the welfare of ordinary citizens.
There seems to be a strong feeling that the primary reason that a Republican
administration wants an improvement in the economic situation is to increase
corporate profits rather than to improve the lot of the average worker and
citizen. I would strongly urge that the schedule for the President during
the fall campaign include activities and events which will make clear to
voters his personal motivation in advancing the economic and domestic goals
of his administration. For instance, when the President goes to Atlanta
this fall, rather than confine his activities to a motorcade and television
activities in Atlanta, he should consider visiting with the workers in a
textile mill or factory of a smaller Georgia city and talk to these workers
in specific terms about how his programs affect them and the future of their
families.
There would also be opportunities for the President to dramatize
the impact of his programs for the benefit of minority groups. For instance,
it should be possible for the President to visit a community drug care
center in Harlem or Chicago which has been assisted by federal programs.
In my opinion, the fact that the President took the time to visit with
the community leaders who are involved in the front line fight against
hard drugs would have a great impact among the voters of these areas.
In summary, I think we must make every effort to prevent Senator
McGovern from consolidating his hold on blue collar andminority groups
while we present the case for the President in terms which have the greatest
impact on individual voters.
Time Cover
RN'S Shirley Eastavoel / Wayne + Everatt
Mc.
me Lane, Julie Cariste, Beates Waves
* 1 Denied expedity proceding in 1701 Demsu
gudye Retched
Razzos to Campo
still
al Gataluse more Esse in n
Dem's the Rizzo
to be the ambassador to U.K, a post ofs.
also sought by Oem Stone.
Whoes
C
2
love
wore
Jel magreeder will personally
Mrs ascoli will be
asked to write articles..
He will be asked to join
the intellectures group,
chuck Shearer, head of lits
JM will return today
coldiero in charge of telebuties +
has memo on way
maril re moryons Orange in
Onest mail; anticlyed
3 3 mlys to all Reps
software the 8am Wiley.
in 11 states,
2 mlys to Ind's
-Total ap Gudge mil
- Jun went ahead w/o Jm +
will try to Drudgel
meread to 5.5.
Dent
J8m - cump dogan to Phillip / alled back lno
Paillips
-aeliought geven
cervers didn't,
to OK
-
not improyed afd.
- -For Costing parposes
Democrole should move to support the
P until after the
Ogilvie - you shld
no Decesion to be made
Hungs to be held
Options left open
5/18 - 58m
mca smt ISI Fam - still in limbs,
Je19 a St. convention-popepelly OK
- me. - date ofcorven.
Orotiner cally / page summaries? ?
G chotiner
Frank shalles - P Indep Comm in Greece
Re politics noneed for W rete"
to see P. "per Jm whoworling u/.,
Send DP Hausen info poll on Women.
Julie - 2 tips a well 3 8th a wall
Begin Sept / -David to see
full Jalie.
her Fu non fox Fla -for 6 days.
Herge plan on all Surris bet nowt
ller - 870 DP
5/31
Ralph Mechom- - 43- Mormon -
AA te Sen Bennett - eCneres Kerol
upol anac.
- attack man for Dem- Covert+ Open
- maler & 50m at camp Hoover
- Demon's trading etc fananged by Liddy
- Conven Timmons OK but
worried restates -role, etc.
Docu's
Fu
5 Themes fox H.on Fri
/ the
6/2
w/ H.?
advertising gene
I Im if needed, maybe P.
San Clem believes ball in It ct.
J8m miami, etc. Wed, Then Come
Bac, etc adied for me G otrategy
- Get me Ga to attach Jm, etc,
by Je 6/- - a pattern
HFC
6/15/18
Timmons - memo on Convention
for H trip
E, H Timmons on Conventeen
her Fri (Optier JM also.
J8m - 14+5m screen up Dem
telethene Rub Odle
Scirl- Park + magruder
Korologos - malelt- attack monmemo.,H.