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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
66328543
label
Memos – Dole, Elizabeth (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66328543
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Memos – Dole, Elizabeth (3)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Memorandums
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
66328543
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ef3537a92411569a
ocrText
P lease PUBLIC fillorson
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES A. BAKER, III
A
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Agenda Items for Meeting,
Thursday, November 5, 8:45 a.m.
1. Bilingual Regulations Memo to Cabinet.
2. OPL Travel Budget.
3. Social Security Task Force (inclusion of Bob Beck)
4. Pro-Family/National Family Week luncheon.
5. Conservative Memo.
>
6. OCA Meeting. Requested back in July - can we have the
Monday, Nov. 9, 10:30 a.m. time?
7. Presidential Cabinet Memo on Labor consultations.
8. PSI Task Force. Could I see the list because I understand
there is no representation of overseas-oriented volunteer
organizations or a women's organization.
9. Labor Schedule Proposals for the President.
Bilingual Regs Memo
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
(See Distribution)
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Bilingual Election Provisions of
the Voting Rights Act
At today's Cabinet meeting, the subject of the Bilingual
Election Provisions was not addressed in our discussion of
the Voting Rights Act. This is an issue with significant
political implications and one which will be viewed as a
bellwether of Reagan Administration support for Hispanic
issues.
This Administration has started off with a good record with
Hispanics, who voted for the President in record numbers in
1980 -- 36 percent, up from 17 percent in 1976. Hispanic
support was much higher in key states such as Texas and
Florida. We are looking at Hispanics as a high potential
constituency for 1984; therefore, our position on the
bilingual elections issue takes on added importance.
Although these provisions do not expire until 1985, failure
to address them at this time will be viewed as opposition.
It will be too late in 1984, when we are on the defensive,
to explain away our lack of positive action when we had the
opportunity.
I am attaching for your information an excellent staff paper
which explains the scope of the bilingual provisions and
addresses the concerns which have been raised about them.
I feel that this is an issue which has significant long-
range benefit with little downside risk and therefore
should be embraced by the President as part of his Voting
Rights Act position.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
FROM:
HENRY ZUNIGA
SUBJECT:
Bilingual Election Provisions of the
Voting Rights Act
The bilingual election provisions of the Voting Rights Act were
passed in 1975 and are in effect through 1985. These provisions
call for bilingual elections (bilingual ballots, information, and
oral instructions) in certain covered jurisdictions. These juris-
dictions include the States of Texas and Arizona plus selected
counties and precincts in other states.
At issue at this time is whether these provisions should be
extended as part of any amendment of the Voting Rights Act or
whether to delay action until the 1985 expiration date. Hispanic
civil rights groups have joined with Black civil rights groups
and others to form a coalition advocating the inclusion of the
bilingual provisions as part of the amendments to the Voting
Rights Act. The bilingual provisions have become the "Hispanic
issue" among those actively supporting the Voting Rights Act.
Opponents of the bilingual provisions advance five major arguments
against an extension. These are listed below, with the corres-
ponding counterarguments put forth by Hispanic spokesmen.
1. The right to vote is an American right and should be
exercised in the official language -- English.
To deny a citizen the right to vote because of a language difference
is to deny him his constitutional rights. Many Hispanics, such as
Mexican-Americans in the southwest, do not speak English well because
of inadequate educations and discriminatory practices. Puerto
Ricans educated in Puerto Rico were taught in their native language --
Spanish, and this has not been considered unAmerican. Many recent
immigrants have fallen into an environment where Spanish is spoken
and, hence; have not felt the need to learn English. In fact,
naturalization practices now permit those over 50 to be sworn-in
as citizens without any English requirements.
A recent survey points out that 43% of the Hispanic community
speaks "only enough English to get by. " Only Mexican Americans
are Hispanics primarily native born (53%), with foreign born
figures of 82% for Puerto Ricans, 93% for Cubans and 93% for
other Hispanics. Over 52% of Cubans and 61% of Puerto Ricans know
little or no English.
What this data highlights is that bilingualism is a growing trend,
and one which is likely to grow rather than diminish. Thus large
percentages of foreign born, non-English speaking Hispanics will
become voting citizens in increasing numbers (note: Puerto Ricans
are voting citizens by birth) and will depend on bilingual elections
to exercise their right to vote.
2. Bilingualism fosters a "separatist" movement and risks
problems similar to those being experienced in Quebec.
There is no "separatist" movement among Hispanics in this country
of any size or influence. The Hispanics who are seeking bilingual
election materials are not seeking total bilingualism in America.
They are seeking only the necessary assistance to exercise their
constitutional right to vote.
Far from being separatists, the beneficiaries of bilingual election
materials are among the more conservative Hispanics. The senior
citizen and recently naturalized citizen are generally very patriotic
and upright and seeking to become an integrated part of the American
mainstream. It was a generally accepted fact during the campaign
that, aside from the upwardly mobile professionals, the senior
citizen and recently naturalized were natural Reagan constituents.
This was the basis of rationale for the large expenditures of campaign
funds for materials in Spanish. This was precisely the target voter
we were seeking and were quite successful in attracting.
3. Costs of bilingualism are prohibitive and/or wasteful
since bilingual material is neither needed nor used.
Arguments that bilingual elections are too costly are no longer
based on fact. Many examples now available show the cost of a
bilingual election as minimal. In Los Angeles County, where 30%
of the population is Hispanic, the 1980 elections cost $7 million
dollars, the bilingual elections cost $155,000 or 1.9% of the
total cost.
1/ Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., "Spanish USA, Summary
of Findings.
-3-
The elections that same year in Orange County, California, indicate
that the bilingual election costs were 3.4% of the total cost of
the elections; Santa Clara County, California, reported 1.5% of
the total. New Mexico which has experienced bilingual elections
since 1912 reports the extra cost as "minimal."
Congressman Paul McCloskey (R-California), long an opponent of
bilingual elections, now states that costs are no longer an issue.
4.
American citizens do not need assistance to vote in
a language other than English.
Recent statistics and results of surveys- 3/ indicate that the
bilingual material and assistance is in fact needed, used and
determined to be helpful by the user. In the same 1980 election
in Los Angeles, there were 45,000 separate requests for bilingual
material. A recent survey indicated that 87% of Hispanics surveyed
in Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio), and 76.6% in Nueces County,
Texas (Corpus Christi), found the bilingual material to be helpful.
5. The provision of bilingual election materials has
not significantly increased voter participation.
Actual election returns and registration figures, which compare
1976 and 1980, show sharp gains in registrations and in Hispanic
citizens actually voting.
The number and percentage of Hispanics registered to vote has
increased by 30%, between 1976 and 1980, in the Country, with
increases in California, Colorado and Texas well above that
figure (Texas at 64%). The number and percentages of Hispanics
who actually voted also increased by 19% between 1976 and 1980
with those same three states well above the national average
(Texas had a 49% increase). A heavy Hispanic state showing an
increase at near the national level is New Mexico. New Mexico,
however, has enjoyed bilingual elections since 1912, hence there
was no difference in procedure between 1976 and 1980. New Mexico
also shows the highest percentage of Hispanics in elected state
positions. It is also important to note that New Mexico has a
100% Republican representation in Congress, including the only
Hispanic Republican Congressman. The bilingual provision have not
been an impediment to Republicans in New Mexico.
Statement dated June 10, 1981 before House Subcommittee
on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
3/ Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, January 1980.
-4-
SUMMARY
The President and the Administration should clearly support the
inclusion of the bilingual provisions in the Voting Rights Act
position for the following additional reasons:
*
The bailout provisions and other points in the Voting Rights
Act are far too technical and sophisticated for anyone but a
student of the Voting Rigths Act to understand. The average
Hispanic will not understand the position the Administration
takes. What he or she will understand, however, will be
whether the President included Hispanics in his position --
did he support the bilingual provisions. This is an important
issue to Hispanics. It will be made far more important to
the Hispanic community by the Hispanic civil rights groups
who will quickly and effectively spread the word that the
President left them out.
Bilingual elections have been ordered by a federal court in
New York in 1974, Tones V. Sachs. This case was followed by
a second court decision in 1975, Ortez V. New York State
Board of Elections, which required bilingual elections
statewide.
CONCLUSION
Administration support of the bilingual provisions would extend a
law which is politically important to the Hispanic community;
which is minimally controversial, except during the congressional
hearings; which has been shown to be needed and used by Hispanics;
and which has been previously ordered by a federal court independent
of legislative action.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLB
S
SUBJECT:
OPL Travel Budget
I am requesting a re-consideration of the travel budget we
have been allocated for FY82, namely, $15,000.
According to John Rogers' memorandum of October 8, this sum
is based on the actual funds used by our office for the past
eight (8) months. While such a basis for projection might,
in most cases, seem appropriate, I wish to point out that the
preponderance of our activities in OPL since January was, of
necessity, based here at the White House. Most of the
constituent groups with which we work came to Washington, on
their own or at our request, to begin the liaison process and
establish the grassroots networks designed for further activity.
Very little travel was done by OPL as we concentrated our efforts
on establishing the structure and the channels through which we
would operate.
Having established these through meetings, briefings, and the
like, my staff and I are now ready to work through these channels
at the local level to get the President's views across.
Including myself, there are 13 professionals on the OPL staff, each
with specific portfolio responsibilities. With this number, the
travel allotment we have been budgeted amounts to approximately
$1,150/person/year, or less than $100/person/month!
While I realize that the budget situation is tight and that we
all have to cut back in view of the President's directives, I do
believe that we are being asked to bear a disproportionate share
of the burden. Furthermore, inasmuch as we have the major outreach
function of the White House, such a drastic limitation of funds
will significantly impair our ability to fulfill that responsibility.
I ask your careful consideration of this request and your permission
to work out a suitable compromise with John Rogers.
Thank you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 8, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ELIZABETH DOLE
FROM:
JOHN F. W. ROGERS
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR ADMINISTRATION
SUBJECT:
FY 1982 OPERATING BUDGET
(Effective October 1, 1981)
As you know, The President has publicly committed himself to
reducing the operating appropriations of government agencies,
including that of the White House Office. In order to achieve
the reductions which The President has approved, it will
require the cooperation and participation of all departments
and staff of the White House. Some savings can be achieved
through the staff reductions which are now under review, but
the balance savings must be achieved through economies in
office overhead costs and a reduction in travel and entertain-
ment costs. The following areas of overhead costs will be
reviewed closely in the coming weeks to determine the most
efficient and cost-effective means of continuing operations:
office equipment and ADP equipment placement
printing
newspaper and periodical subscriptions
mailing expenses
In order to reduce travel and entertainment costs, a budget
allocation has been established in these categories for each
department. Thus each department will be able to plan its
priorities in these areas without adversely affecting other
offices. The allocations for your particular department are
shown on Attachment A. These amounts are based on the actual use
of travel and entertainment funds by your office over the last
eight (8) months, adjusted for consideration of office to office
fairness. The amount used will be reported to you on a monthly
basis to aid you in planning your expenditures. The allocations
will be reviewed at mid-year to determine if reallocations are
necessary. Attachments B and C are statements of policy with
regard to travel and entertainment.
Attachments
Attachment A
FY 1982 Travel and Entertainment Allowance for the
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
Travel:
$15,000.00
Entertainment: $ 1,000.00
The above amounts represent the maximum cumulative funds that
can be expended by the Office of the Assistant to the President
for Public Liaison for travel and for entertainment in FY 1982.
Any request for payment of such funds received by the
Administrative Office will be charged against the applicable
department's allocation and reported to the head of such
department on a monthly basis.
Attachment B
TRAVEL POLICY FOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICE
1. Travel Authorization
A fully completed travel authorization must be submitted to the
Special Assistant to the President for Administration for approval
prior to all trips (including political trips). All applicable
information must be shown on the authorization and it must be
signed by the traveler and the department head.
2. Transportation
Itineraries, routing and ticketing for air and rail transportation
is provided by the transportation office in Room 87, OEOB. Official
travel will utilize the most economical fares possible, including
government contract fares and other special discounts. Travelers
desiring different routing, alternate carriers or a higher class of
service for personal reasons must pay any additional fare above the
minimum resulting from their deviation from the authorized routing.
Commercial travel agents shall not be utilized to obtain tickets,
as government discounts are not available to such agents.
Ground transportation, such as taxis, limousines, etc., will be paid
on the traveler's voucher. It is not necessary to obtain a receipt
if the cost is $15.00 or less, however, charges over $15.00 must be
supported by a signed receipt. If a rental car is used, the col-
lision damage waiver cannot be paid by the government, and will be
deducted from the traveler's voucher if billed. (The government is
self-insured and official travelers will be covered against liabil-
ities arising from their conduct of official business.)
3. Per Diem Expenses
Travelers will be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses for
meals and other miscellaneous costs according to the allowance
prescribed below:
A.
Travel with The President
When a person is traveling with The President (or in
connection with the travel of The President), their
hotel room charges will be paid directly by the
White House. Any meals or other incidental charges
to a room must be paid by the individual while checking
out of the hotel. All charges for such incidentals,
if billed to the White House, will be deducted from
the traveler's voucher. Travelers will be reimbursed
for their meals and miscellaneous expenses at a daily
per diem rate of $23.00. The actual payment will be
based on the number of quarter-days the traveler is
away.
Page 2
Travel Policy for White House Office
B.
Travel other than with The President
Any officially approved travel that is not in connection
with travel of The President will be paid in accordance
with the standard government-wide Federal Travel
Regulations as promulgated by the General Services
Administration. The statutory maximum that may be
paid under these regulations is $75.00 per day,
including the cost of lodging. The travel voucher
for such travel must show an itemization of the indivi-
dual meal and lodging costs, so that the proper reimburse-
ment can be computed. (Note: the back of the voucher
form is designed so that the individual meal and lodging
costs can be listed in a single line. Pocket-size note
pads for recording travel expenses are available from
the Administrative Office, Room 1, OEOB, to assist
travelers in maintaining accurate records of expenses
while traveling.) Hotel charges not in connection with
travel of The President should not be billed directly
to the White House, but should be paid by the traveler.
If such a bill is received by the White House, the
charges in excess of the allowable maximum will be
deducted from the traveler's reimbursement.
4. Leave While Traveling
Taking leave while traveling is strongly discouraged as it creates
the appearance of using government funds for personal benefit. If
leave is taken while traveling, no expenses can be paid for the
period of leave.
5. Mixed Official and Political Travel
Official funds can be used to pay only travel that is 100% official.
If a particular trip contains even the slightest bit of political
activity, it must be financed in it's entirety from political com-
mittee travel funds.
Attachment C
WHITE HOUSE POLICY ON USE OF
OFFICIAL ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE
1. Background and Purpose
The Congress has authorized and appropriated a modest sum to the
White House Office for the official reception and representation
expenses of the White House and Executive Office of The President.
The purpose of these funds is to pay such expenses that are not
otherwise payable from appropriated funds to foster and maintain
relationships of value to the United States Government.
2. Guidelines for Use of Entertainment Funds
Entertainment funds are not intended for the benefit of government
officers or employees. Thus, they may not be used to pay for the
cost of meals, theater tickets or other entertainment for Federal
officials, but only for their non-government guests. The only
exception being if a reception or similar large event is scheduled
for the purpose of entertaining non-government guests, then the
entire amount may be charged as entertainment expenses without
deducting the cost of the few government officials who are present.
Entertainment funds expended should be proportionate to the cir-
cumstances and the identity of the guest, keeping in mind this
Administration's commitment of frugality in government. For
example:
Meetings should not be scheduled for lunchtime if a
morning coffee and danish session would be as productive.
Lunch or dinner expenses appropriate to a one-time only
foreign visitor may be considered excessive with respect
to a businessman who meets regularly with government
officials.
Efforts should be made to minimize the costs of recep-
tions being planned by using government facilities or
food service or by considering cost in selecting the
food and beverages to be served.
3. Procedures for Drawing on the Funds
Advance approval from the Special Assistant to the President for
Administration is required before a planned function can be funded
from this account. Request for approval should be accompanied by
a cost estimate.
Requests for reimbursement should be forwarded to the Special
Assistant to the President for Administration and should include
a receipted bill of expenses, a list of persons present for the
function, a statement of the purpose, and a brief description of
the expenses (e.g. coffee and pastries, assorted cold drinks, etc.).
Reimbursement may be declined if funds are not available or if the
entertainment is not consistent with established guidelines.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Robert Beck
I would like to re-iterate how very important I believe it
is that Bob Beck be included on the Social Security Task Force.
As you may recall, Bob is CEO of Prudential Insurance and
is regarded as an expert on the subject of social security. He
chairs the Business Round Table's task force on social security
as well as heading up the insurance industry's social security
committee. Additionally, he is actively involved with the
Chamber of Commerce on the Social Security issue.
From our perspective, at least, Bob Beck's appointment is
crucial, since he is SO actively involved with several of our
constituencies.
Thank you.
Pro/Family -National
Family Week
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
November 4, 1981
TO:
GREGORY J. NEWELL, DIRECTOR
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULING
FROM:
Elizabeth H. Dole
REQUEST:
White House Luncheon
PURPOSE:
In celebration of the beginning of Thanksgiving
week and National Family Week to give recognition
and encouragement to the "pro-family" organization
leaders as well as prominent citizens who have given
notable support to traditional family values.
(Spouses included)
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, President Reagan proclaimed the week
of November 22, 1981, as National Family Week. This
is the most appropriate time for the President to
give recognition to leaders of the pro-family
movement and others identified with traditional
family moral values. Most of the invitees are
leaders of national grassroots networks of people who
basically support the President. These groups continue
to be vital as a source of support for the President's
program and for candidates favorable to the President.
Most of these groups are at least to some extent
concerned with what they see as passivity in the
Administration on the issues most vital to them.
This non-political event will serve to recognize
them for their past efforts and to encourage them
to continue a high level of support.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
None.
DATE:
November 22, 1981.
DURATION: 2 Hours
LOCATION:
State Dining Room
PARTICIPANTS:
100 - list to be developed
OUTLINE OF EVENT:
Luncheon and brief remarks followed by photographs
with each couple
REMARKS REQUIRED:
Brief remarks
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Photographs with each couple
RECOMMENDED BY:
Elizabeth H. Dole, Lyn Nofziger, Herb Ellingwood
OPPOSED BY:
PROJECT OFFICER:
Morton C. Blackwell
Conservative Mem
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE PRESIDENT'S WINNING COALITION
The Importance of Activists
Most people misperceive the nature of electoral politics.
They see an election as a contest between two individual
candidates, or a contest between two rival philosophies, or
perhaps even a contest between all the people who belong to
the different parties.
Such frameworks do not describe what really goes on in
an election.
Elections, in my view, are to a very great extent contests
between all the people working hard to elect one candidate and
all the people working hard to elect his opponent. These are
the people who matter the most in a political race.
Similarly, contests over legislation are not personal
duels between legislators, but between the coalitions that
those legislators can assemble to support or oppose a
particular bill. The fight over the AWACS sale was less a
battle between President Reagan and Senator Packwood than it
was between those national and grassroots activists lobbying
on each side.
It is the activists who make the difference. Most citizens
do not engage in any political activity outside of voting. Most
will never donate money, wear a button, or stuff an envelope.
Those that do have a major impact on the outcomes, and their
support is a necessary ingredient to success.
The Winning Coalition
President Reagan won his election with the support of a
Winning Coalition which drew acitvists from several distinct
sources:
- Formal Republican Party organizations
- Businesses and Trade Associations
- Limited Government/Conservative groups
-2-
-Pro-defense groups
-Religious/Pro-family groups
Many of the groups within this coalition have com-
pletely separate concerns. Each of the groups that joined
the coalition did so because Ronald Reagan addressed
those issues they care about in such a way as to gain
their support. They allied not because they cared about
the same things, but because they a 11 wanted to elect
Ronald Reagan.
Such is the essence of any coalition. People work
together despite differences in emphasis because their
desires, at least, do not conflict and because they
share a common goal.
This victory contrasts with the 1972 landslide of
Richard Nixon. His reelection was a triumph solely
of his campaign organization, and was not a coalition
victory.
That us why the 1980 victory was accompanied by a
parallel sweep of so many House and Senate candidates,
while in 1972 the victory was much more isolated. The
victorious House and Senate candidates in 1980 were, for
the most part, supported by the same coalition that worked
for the President.
Prospects for the Future of the Winning Coalition
Every element of the Winning Coalition appears
likely to continue growing in membership, finances,
and expertise through the 1982 and 1984 elections.
Formal Republican Party Organizations
There are three major Republican Party committees
working on fundraising for the upcoming elections:
- The Republican National Committee
- The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee
-- The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee
All are having very successful fundraising drives. All
predictions are for another record two years at least.
-3-
Businesses and Trade Associations
The corporate and trade association Political Action
Committees have, from our point of view, improved markedly.
In 1976, they had a dismal record, giving most of their
money to Democrats, and much of it to incumbents with safe
seats. Many of these PAC's were more interested in buying
access to sure winners than in affecting the outcome of a
close contest.
In 1978, my detailed study showed that business and
association PACs made considerable progress in terms
of size, numbers, and backing for candidates who supported
the free enterprise system.
A study of their record in the 1980 elections indicates
that they are continuing along the correct path. Moreover,
more and more of these PACs are being created every year,
and existing PACs have realistic plans to raise much more
money than they have in the past.
In addition, those (still numerous) PACs who wish merely
to ride with the winners will to some extent accommodate them-
selves to the new Administration, the new majority in the
Senate, and the new conservative coalition in the House.
Next year, therefore, promises to be the biggest and best
directed effort yet from business and association PACs.
Limited Government/Conservative Groups, Pro-defense Groups,
and Religious Pro-family Groups
The cluster of limited government, conservative, pro-
defense, pro-family, religious-political activist groups
is collectively known as the conservative movement, or
the New Right.
It is composed of literally dozens of national organiza-
tions and thousands of local groups, all of them either new
or newly large and increasingly effective. Whether PAC or
lobby, whether focused on a small cluster of issues or on a
wide spectrum of interests, all of them are concentrating on
attracting more participants into public policy battles on
the side of the Winning Coalition.
Most of these groups believe in training their supporters
in the techniques of winning. All of these groups can point
to the scalps of politicians defeated in part due to their
efforts, as they ask their supporters to contribute againito
their programs.
-4-
This grassroots activists development is the most
dramatic force at work in politics today. There are
abundant signs that groups in this category are still
in a period of explosive growth. New groups are founded
daily. Old groups, such as the well known NCPAC, are
setting records this year for money raised.
The Winning Coalition and the President's Program
The Winning Coalition held together in the major battles
over the budget resolution and the tax cut. In the Senate
AWACS fight, the coalition eventually was virtually intact,
working for another key win for the President.
The Future of the Activists on the Left
The other side has its activists as well, but they are in
danger of being seriously weakened.
To the extent that the budget cuts defund those programs
which for years have illegally or improper been used to
pay for political organizing, the corps of activists working
for bigger government and higher taxes will be reduced.
For years, untold thousands of liberal activists were
selectively registering voters in liberal Democratic areas,
getting out the vote in those same areas, organizing rent
strikes, training liberal precinct organizers, and so on,
at taxpayer expense. With their funding reduced, many on
the Left will find themselves cut adrift.
[Members of the President's Winning Coalition, however,
have never depended on (or gotten) government funding.]
Shut off from much of their usual government-funded
organizing, likely to lose some of their constituency as
hundreds of thousands able to fend for themselves become
productive taxpayers, and bickering among themselves over
the question of who is to blame for their losses, the op-
position is attempting to create its own "New Right."
They are trying to create their own voluntarily funded
groups in order to parallel what the conservatives have
done. For several reasons, these are likely to fail in
the long run and are certain to be unequal to the task in
the short run.
Potential Problems
From the above analysis, there appears to be building
a long term realignment caused by an infusion of new resources
and new activists.
What could go wrong for the Winning Coalition?
-5-
The first pitfall to avoid is a failure of will. Such
a failure would be characterized by a lessening of the
Administration's commitment to reducing government spending.
Specifically, the President needs to continue to press for
- cutbacks in the illegal and improper government activities
which fund the political opposition, and
- cutbacks in those social welfare programs not targeted
to the truly needy.
The second pitfall to avoid is a failue of strategy
or tactics, which might be characterized by:
- Poor communication among the elements of the Winning
Coalition
- Failure to plan ahead on the key elements of the
President's program
- Divisions and fights that could break out among the
diverse elements of the Winning Coalition.
- 6 -
THE 1981 VIRGINIA DISASTER
For the past several years, a coalition in Virginia
beat the liberal Democrats in virtually every statewide
race, three gubernatorial races, every U.S. Senate race,
and a record of Presidential election victories beginning
in 1968.
In 1981, that coalition split in an acrimonious fight.
The major elements of the coalition which for long
dominated Virginia were the following:
1. the traditional Republicans
2. the traditional Harry Byrd, Sr. Democrats
3. the New Right, movement conservatives
Basically, it was a struggle between "teams" of like
minded activists. There was a bitter contest over the Lt.
gubernatorial nomination. The old-line Republicans, the
conservative former Democrats, and the New Right each had
its own candidate.
For the past couple of years, the state party chairman
had been taking verbal pot shots at conservative activists,
particularly conservative religious leaders who had loyally
supported virtually every Republican statewide candidate.
The party's gubernatorial nominee had been active in
1964 in Youth for Rockefeller, switching to Scranton when
Rockefeller dropped out. While he was Attorney General, the
1981 gubernatorial nominee was a fund raiser for the Ripon
Society.
During the campaign the gubernatorial candidate presented
himself as a conservative, but he made little or no effort to
establish a rapport with any of the wide spectrum of conservative
movement organizations which have impact in Virginia politics.
The conservative activists who were formerly of Democratic
affiliation and the newly activated conservative movement
organization leaders both decided to support the gubernatorial
nominee. They realized that they were part of a coalition.
Both groups allied to the Republican party establishment,
however, decided to run candidates for Lt. Governor. So did the
GOP establishment.
The New Right conservatives led with more than 40% of
the convention on the first ballot for the Lt. Governor nomination.
The former Byrd Democrat ran a strong second. The purely
Republican candidate, Nathan Miller, ran a poor third.
- 7 -
In subsequent ballots, Miller's votes were chewed off in hunks
by the other candidates until it appeared that the former
Byrd Democrats' candidate, Herb Bateman, would win.
An intense rivalry had developed. The conservative
movement candidate, Guy Farley, withdrew. On the next ballot,
Miller's original delegates returned to him and most of
Farley's people decided to support Miller rather than their
intense rival, Bateman.
The resulting ticket was simply not capable of generating
enthusiasm from enough of the activists who had participated
in all the previous GOP ( and Byrd Democrat) victories.
The bitterness extended to the grass-roots. The
liberal-to-moderate factions of the party, for instance,
refused to support strong conservatives running for
reelection to the state legislature in Fairfax County.
Larry Pratt, a 1980 Reagan delegate, was defeated for
reelection; so was John Buckley, 1980 Presidential elector
from the 8th Congressional district.
Conservative activists who have poured resources into
previous Virginia Republican campaigns simply sat on their
hands or worked only for those candidates who had supported
them in the party struggles earlier in the year. Others,
active in the party leadership, went through the motions of
campaigning, but privately expressed themselves as
unconcerned with the outcome of the election.
In short, the various elements of the traditionally
dominant coalition in Virginia politics went their separate
ways. The result was defeat for candidates of each component
of the coalition.
To some extent this was a normal outcome of the struggle
over the control of the spoils of victory. To some extent
it was the result of strong personality conflicts among the
leaders of different elements of the coalition.
At the state level, the central problem was that
important elements of the normal, governing coalition
felt cut out of the action. They were made to feel unwelcome;
they were hardly courted at all; they felt beaten and betrayed;
they knew they would lose credibility with their followers if
they urged the same kind of effort under these circumstances
that they had organized in the previous election victories.
The lesson here for the Reagan winning coalition is
obvious. Those in positions of responsibility in the Reagan
Administration must recognize that they are supported by a
diverse coalition, the major elements of which are led by
strong leaders.
- 8 -
Whether or not the Reagan winning coalition can be
held together in future election battles remains to be seen.
Divine right of kings was overturned in this country two hundred
years ago. An attempt to resurrect this principle failed in
the Nixon years. Leaders who know they have recruited and
elected U.S. Senators and Congressmen should not be taken
for granted by any Administration.
The coalition which Franklin D. Roosevelt put together
in the 1930's held together as the normal governing coalition
in America for almost fifty years.
There were many inherent conflicts in Roosevelt's days
between union. leadership, civil rights organizations, and
segregationist southern Democrats. But Roosevelt and subsequent
leaders of the Democrat party generally had the good sense to
court constantly all the elements of their coalition. No
major element was treated as an unwanted stepsister.
When the leftists began to ignore and then to attack the
interests of conservative Democrats, the Roosevelt winning
coalition began to break up.
- 9 -
ISSUE INITIATIVES IMPORTANT TO THE WINNING COALITION
All of the below listed suggestions are either part of
the body of commitments made by the President or logical
policy developments consistent with the President's
philosophy.
They are listed not necessarily in order of eventual
political importance but in order of perceived urgency
among groups which are part of the President's winning
coalition.
1. Some clear initiative on behalf of Right-to-Life.
The President could take any one of several actions which
would calm the activists among this group of previously
committed Reagan supporters.
A. Endorsement of the Human Life Amendment.
B. Endorsement of the Human Life Bill.
C. Announcement of some Administration action against
abortion such as a decision to drop abortion from
the list of medical procedures which can be financed
through government insurance programs.
2. Gun control
The President should repudiate those portions of the recently
released Justice Department Committee study of crime which
would require increased regulation and control of handguns.
3. Busing
The President should announce his support for limitation of
jurisdiction of federal courts on forced school busing.
4. Hobbs Act reform
The President should announce his support for an amendment to
the Hobbs Act which would remove the exemptions now enjoyed by
organized labor under which union organizations cannot be
prosecuted for certain categories of extortion.
5. Legal Services Corporation
The President should make sure to wipe out funding for this
organization of left-wing activists.
6. Block grants
There are many current opportunities to advance the block
grant concept beyond its current status in the recently
enacted budget resolution. An Administration willingness to
force votes, even losing votes, will provide conservative
activist groups with ammunition from voting records to be
used in the 1982 and 1984 elections.
- 10 -
7. Tuition tax credits
This is a Reagan commitment, the fulfillment of which will
greatly encourage many supporters and will work dramatic
improvements over the years in our nation's education system.
8. Department of Education
The abolition of the Department of Education and the shifting
of most of its programs to the states through a block grant
system should receive a high priority from the Administration.
9. Family Protection Act
This proposal has been amended since the last Congress. It
is an omnibus bill which is unlikely to pass in this Congress,
but which contains many proposals that are highly attractive
to large segments of the Reagan winning coalition. The
President could show strong interest by specifically endorsing
the following four of the thirty-two concepts included in the
Family Protection Act:
- Parental Notification; provides that parents
be notified when an unmarried minor receives
contraceptive devices or abortion-related services
from a federally-funded organization
- Parental Care Trust; establishes a trust account
procedure similar to the Individual Retirement
Account, under which taxpayers can save $3000 a
year for the support of an aged parent or a handi-
capped relative
- Sex-intermingling; local schools are given back the
authority over sex-intermingling in sports and other
school activities
- Voluntary Prayer; guarantees the individual's
constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,
whether in public or in private
10. National Defense
There is general agreement among conservative, pro-defense
organization leaders that the U.S. should undertake strong new
initiatives in high-technology weapons, such as lasers and
space weapons. The rationale is that we should compete with
the Soviets in such areas where we have a decided advantage.
The President's support for increased emphasis on high tech-
nology defense programs would be consistent with his desire
to maintain a voluntary military
- 11 -
11. Voting Rights Act
The left has made an effort to make this a "cause celebre."
The conservative groups would be upset if the President gives in
to the liberal pressures and endorses permanent Federal
pre-clearance controls over certain state and local election
procedure changes. The President should work to provide some
real escape hatch so that jurisdictions with excellent records
in this area could work their way out from under the onerous
provisions of the current law.
12. Veterans policy
The Veterans groups are reasonable satisfied with current
Administration policy. I recommend that the Administration
take no steps which would significantly lower the level of
medical services currently provided by the VA. Legislative
and election battles are much more easily won if these
powerful organizations are retained as part of the President's
winning coalition.
- 12 -
HOLDING CONSERVATIVES IN THE WINNING COALITION
We are not in an era of static political forces.
We can and should encourage the growth of groups in basic
agreement with the President.
We should make leaders of these groups understand that
they have a piece of the action in this Administration.
We should tolerate their occasional divergences on policy
matters. We should discredit any feelings they have that
they are considered pariahs by this Administration.
We should facilitate meetings for these groups with
the President.
We should clear the log jam on long-pending requests
by these groups for meetings with the Senior Staff. Examples
of pending requests are busing, gun groups, and Right to Work.
We should encourage Administration figures to accept
speaking engagements before conservative groups.
We should tighten the process by which "Reagan credentials"
are required for appointees to the departments and agencies.
We should break the log jam on the recommended appointments
of conservative activists to Presidential boards and commissions.
We should appoint conservative leaders and activists
to serve on appropriate delegations for the President.
We should take quick actions at the highest levels to
repudiate further "unnamed sources" in the White House which
are critical of conservative organizations.
We should take particular care that future federal
judicial appointees are solidly in tune with the President's
political philosophy.
We should make sure that the President will not approve
any of the pending revisions of the U.S. criminal code which
are offensive to major elements of the winning coalition.
We should not retreat at all on tax cuts.
We should push vigorously forward on the second, third, and
fourth rounds of budget cuts.
We should reach agreement on no new SALT treaty with the
Soviets.
We should put some real anti-Soviet teeth into the
Voice of America and other U.S. broadcasting services behind
the Iron Curtain.
- 13 -
We should launch a thorough, "human rights" criticism
of the Sandanista regime of Nicaragua.
We should get tough on technology transfers to Soviet
bloc countries.
We should specifically encourage the conservative religious
component in the Task Force on Private Sector Initiative.
We should stifle any RNC or Administration criticism of
"negative" campaigns by conservative organizations against
liberal incumbents. This political tactic works, as NCPAC
and the GOP's anti-Tip O'Neill ads proved last year. The
liberals used this tactic to defeat Reaganite Delegates
Pratt and Buckley in Fairfax County (VA) in the 1981 elections.
Many people contend that this Administration will suffer
disaster at the polls in 1982 unless the economy makes a dramatic
recovery. History demonstrates that that is not necessarily so.
Franklin Roosevelt was elected during this nation's worst
economic crisis. The economy remained a disaster area all
through the 1930's.
Despite the continued, severe depression, Roosevelt
won consistent victories. These were the two secrets of
his success:
1. He retained the initiative on issues. He
kept people talking about his proposals.
2. He held his coalition together.
OCA Meeting
OCA
No working paper. .
Pres'l Cabinet Memo
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
I am writing to reaffirm to you my belief that this
Administration should actively seek the counsel and
input of the representatives of organized labor.
During my eight years as Governor of California, I
was proud of my relationship with organized labor.
While some disagreements may have existed, I always
found that we could disagree without being disagree-
able.
By this Memorandum, I am asking each of you to take
immediate steps to see that "our doors are always open"
to the labor community.
In furtherance of this "open door policy", I would ask
that you give special consideration to regularized
meetings with labor representatives, that you actively
solicit labor views on major policy issues impacting
labor, and that you consider those views in the decision-
making process of your Department or Agency.
Over the years, the American labor movement has played a
major role in the American economic miracle. Unions are
among our most valued institutions and serve as some of
our best examples of participatory democracy. I want to
ensure that their views are fully heard and considered
by my Administration.
PSI TASK FORCE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES ROSEBUSH
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Women's Voluntary Organization Component
of the PSI Task Force
As we agreed, I have done some research to determine which
organization would most appropriately represent volunteer
women on the Private Sector Initiatives Task Force.
All indications are that the General Federal of Women's
Clubs (GFWC) is the premiere organization of this type. The
GFWC is massive in its membership, well organized and respected
for its volunteer initiatives. The organization has been
supportive of the President's programs and was one of the
first to respond to his call for volunteer action.
While the GFWC is clearly a winner, the political background
of its current president, Juanita Bryant, would make her an
unsuitable participant on the Task Force. She is an active
and vocal Democrat who has repeatedly attacked the President.
She could be expected to use her position as president for
partisan ends, even though the GFWC is officially a non-
partisan organization.
To deal with this fact, I am recommending that the incoming
president, Jeri Winger, be appointed to the PSI Task Force.
Mrs. Winger's tenure as president-elect will officially
begin in June of 1982. According to GFWC regulations, she
will serve as president-elect for two years before ascending
to the presidency in 1984. Her assured participation in a
GFWC leadership role for the next four years will provide a
valuable measure to the continuity to the Task Force and its
activities.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Private Sector Initiatives Task Force
I wish to recommend again that the Task Force include at least
one person from the area of international voluntarism. In that
regard, I would like to suggest three possible candidates:
1. Loret Ruppe, Director of the Peace Corps. With her
domestic counterpart, Tom Pauken, on the Task Force,
Loret would be a natural complement. The Peace Corps
epitomizes international voluntarism and Loret herself
has been actively pursuing ways in which the private
sector can work with the Peace Corps on overseas
projects.
2. James Doty or 3. Jay Niemczyk, of the People-to-People
Program. Doty is the President and Jay the Executive
Director of the Board. People-to-People was founded by
President Eisenhower and promotes international exchange
visits and programs. It has never received one cent of
federal funds and thus is truly of "the private sector."
President Reagan now serves as honorary chairman.
If any of the above are unacceptable for any reason, then I would
like to ask consideration of a representative from one of the
international relief organizations, i.e. CARE, Catholic Relief
Services, etc.
I would appreciate your consideration of these candidates.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 5, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
VIA:
RED CAVANEY/JACK BURGESS
FROM:
BOB BONITATI P3
SUBJECT:
Attached Schedule Proposals
In scheduling these three labor meetings I think it would
be very useful to have the meeting with the Teamsters first.
To be followed by the AFL-CIO Executive Council and then
the meeting of independent unions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with representatives of the Teamsters
DATE:
Week of 12/7 - prior to AFL-CIO Executive Council
PURPOSE:
To maintain communication with a union that
has been supportive of the President.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
20 representatives of the Teamsters
45 minutes
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH
MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
President gave video-taped message to Teamsters
PARTICIPATION:
Convention in Las Vegas, June 1, 1981.
BACKGROUND: -
Meeting with the Teamsters is part of program
to maintain communications with labor and
demonstrate that this Administration has an
"open door policy".
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with AFL-CIO Executive Council
DATE:
Week of 12/7
PURPOSE:
To establish dialogue with the leaders of orga-
nized labor and demonstrate that this Admin-
istration is interested in the concerns of labor.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
35 member AFL-CIO Executive Council
1 hour
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
BACKGROUND:
Our relations with organized labor are in need of
improvement. The leadership of the AFL-CIO has
publicly adopted an anti-Administration attitude,
but there are signs that some members of the AFL-
CIO Executive Council would like to begin to "get
along with the Administration". This meeting
could demonstrate the President's "open door policy"
towards labor.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with representatives of independent
unions (not affiliated with the AFL-CIO)
DATE:
- First two weeks of December
PURPOSE:
To establish dialogue with the representatives
of independent unions and demonstrate that this
Administration is interested in the concerns
of labor.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
25 representative of independent unions
45 minutes
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH
MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
BACKGROUND:
Meeting with representatives of independent
unions would be part of Administration program
to maintain communications with labor and de-
monstrate that we have an "open door policy".
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
Labor Schedule Props.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 5, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
VIA:
RED CAVANEY/JACK BURGESS
FROM:
BOB BONITATI P3
SUBJECT:
Attached Schedule Proposals
In scheduling these three labor meetings I think it would
be very useful to have the meeting with the Teamsters first.
To be followed by the AFL-CIO Executive Council and then
the meeting of independent unions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with representatives of the Teamsters
DATE:
Week of 12/7 - prior to AFL-CIO Executive Council
PURPOSE:
To maintain communication with a union that
has been supportive of the President.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
20 representatives of the Teamsters
45 minutes
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH
MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
President gave video-taped message to Teamsters
PARTICIPATION:
Convention in Las Vegas, June 1, 1981.
BACKGROUND: --
Meeting with the Teamsters is part of program
to maintain communications with labor and
demonstrate that this Administration has an
"open door policy".
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with AFL-CIO Executive Council
DATE:
Week of 12/7
PURPOSE:
To establish dialogue with the leaders of orga-
nized labor and demonstrate that this Admin-
istration is interested in the concerns of labor.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
35 member AFL-CIO Executive Council
1 hour
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
BACKGROUND:
Our relations with organized labor are in need of
improvement. The leadership of the AFL-CIO has
publicly adopted an anti-Administration attitude,
but there are signs that some members of the AFL-
CIO Executive Council would like to begin to "get
along with the Administration". This meeting
could demonstrate the President's "open door policy
towards labor.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: 11/5/81
FROM: Elizabeth H. Dole
MEETING:
Meeting with representatives of independent
unions (not affiliated with the AFL-CIO)
DATE:
First two weeks of December
PURPOSE:
To establish dialogue with the representatives
of independent unions and demonstrate that this
Administration is interested in the concerns
of labor.
FORMAT:
Cabinet Room
25 representative of independent unions
45 minutes
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
Secretary Donovan
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
REQUIRED
ADVISED
X NOT ADVISED
SPEECH
MATERIAL:
Brief remarks of welcome
PRESS
COVERAGE:
Photo coverage
Press made aware of meeting
STAFF:
Robert F. Bonitati
RECOMMEND:
Elizabeth H. Dole
OPPOSED:
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
BACKGROUND:
Meeting with representatives of independent
unions would be part of Administration program
to maintain communications with labor and de-
monstrate that we have an "open door policy".
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH H. DOLE
VIA: Red Cavaney/Jack Burgess
FM:
Bob Bonitati
RE:
Vice President's Reception
I have attached a copy of a follow up memo I sent to Thad Garrett
concerning the Vice President hosting a reception for labor leaders
at his residence.
Red Cavaney has suggested that I bring this to your attention so
that the concept might be cleared with Jim Baker.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THAD GARRETT
FM:
Bob Bonitati
RE:
Reception for Iabor leaders
I would like to suggest that the Vice President consider hosting
a reception for a group of labor leaders at his residence.
Such a gesture might help to warm the chilly relationship that now
exists between the Administration and organized labor.
An appropriate time might be early November, prior to the AFL-CIO
Convention.
As I indicated to you before, the reception might be held in honor
of the AFL-CIO Centennial year.
I'd be pleased to discuss this further with you and to assist in
planning and organizing if you decide to host such a reception.
CC: Elizabeth H. Dole
Marth
0077
OCT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 3, 1981
TO:
JENNIFER FITZGERALD
VICE PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS & SCHEDULING
FROM:
Elizabeth H. Dole
REQUEST:
Reception for labor leaders at the Vice
President's residence
PURPOSE:
To attempt to improve strained relations
between the Administration and organized
labor and commemorate the AFL-CIO Centennial
year.
BACKGROUND:
Our relations with organized labor are in
need of improvement. A reception for labor
leaders commemorating the AFL-CIO Centennial
year could help to dispel the notion that
the Administration is anti-labor and will be
interpreted as an attempt to "reach out".
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
None
DATE:
After conclusion of AFL-CIO Convention.
Friday, November 20 or the week following.
DURATION:
1 1/2 hours
LOCATION:
Vice President's residence
PARTICIPANTS:
Vice President, Cabinet Officers
Approximately 150 labor leaders
OUTLINE OF EVENT:
Cocktail party/reception
REMARKS REQUIRED:
Brief remarks honoring AFL-CIO Centennial
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Press made aware of reception.
RECOMMENDED BY:
Elizabeth H. Dole
PROJECT OFFICER:
Robert F. Bonitati
YOU UNIDON
family
Sim
CICCONE
6/11
MOT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 26, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES A. BAKER, III
A
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
SUBJECT:
Office of Public Liaison Briefing
on the Family Protection Act
I. Summary
At the request of major pro-family groups, our office scheduled
a discussion on the proposed Family Protection Act on Wednesday,
October 7, 1981. Pro-family leaders have designed this omnibus
legislation to reverse past government policies which they
believe have been harmful to or destructive of families.
Leaders of these grass roots organizations believe that if the
Administration will reverse what they see as a passive policy
on social issues, this will invigorate their troops to do battle
in the critical 1982 elections.
II. Discussion
Leaders of National Pro-Family Coalition, Moral Majority, Eagle
Forum and United Families of America met with Administration
officials from OMB, OPD, HHS, DOEd, Congressional Affairs Office,
and the Vice President's office. Also in attendance were
Senator Roger Jepsen, principal sponsor of the Family Protection
Act in the Senate and Congressman Albert Lee Smith, principal
House sponsor. The list of the attendees is attached.
Senator Jepsen outlined the conservative, pro-family thesis that
government policy, including tax policy, is disruptive to
families. This omnibus bill, of which Senator Laxalt is princi-
pal co-sponsor, is intended to remove the government from advocacy
in various areas such as busing and homosexuality. Through tax
incentives, it would encourage families to make provisions for
children's education, care of elderly relatives at home, etc.
A summary of the concepts contained in the act is attached.
The groups at this briefing were some of the best known of the
literally hundreds of pro-family and religious groups which
- 2 -
intend to make the Family Protection Act their principal
affirmative legislative program in this Congress. These
groups were all strong supporters in the nomination process
and in the general election in 1980.
The point was repeatedly made that without some meaningful
signs of encouragement from the Administration, much of the
grass roots enthusiasm which produced startling changes in
the 1980 elections in both Houses will not be available for
candidates who support Administration policies in 1982.
These pro-family groups do not expect the Administration to
actively support this entire bill. But they did emphasize
that continued lack of Administration leadership on social
issues will have a negative impact.
They noted with pleasure that Senator Laxalt told the Eagle
Forum at their banquet on October 2 that the President had
assured him that the Administration will take an active role
in social issues starting early next year.
Subsequent to the briefing, the pro-family organization leaders
reviewed the thirty-two concepts contained in the proposed act.
They selected the following four segments of the act which they
felt would be appropriate for endorsement.
Parental Notification -- Provides that parents be noti-
fied when an unmarried minor receives contraceptive
devices or abortion-related services from a federally-
funded organization.
Parental Care Trust -- Establishes a trust account
procedure similar to the Individual Retirement Account,
under which taxpayers can save $3,000 a year for the
support of an aged parent or a handicapped relative.
Sex-intermingling -- Local schools are given back the
authority over sex-intermingling in sports and other
school activities.
Voluntary Prayer -- Guarantees the individual's
Constitutional right to the free exercise of
religion, whether in public or in private.
Let's discuss, please.
discussed
CC: E. Meese
a
M. Deaver
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
List of Attendees - Family Protection Act Briefing - October 7, 1981
Senator and Mrs. Roger Jepsen
Congressman Albert Lee Smith
Gina Bessey - Office of Senator Jepsen
Sara Newcomb - Office of Congressman Smith
Connie Marshner - National Pro-Family Coalition
Ron Godwin, Louis Ropog - The Moral Majority
Noreen Barr - Eagle Forum
Gordon Jones - United Families of America
Don Moran - OMB Staff
Elizabeth H. Dole - OPL Staff
Diana Lozano - OPL Staff
Bill Triplett - OPL Staff
Morton Blackwell - OPL Staff
Wendy Borcherdt - OPL Staff
Kathy Christiansen - OPL Staff
Maiselle Shortley - OPL Staff
Mary Gall - Vice President's Staff
Gary Bauer - OPD Staff
Bill Gribbin - Legislative Affairs Staff
Jerry Regier - HHS Staff
Robert Rubin - HHS Staff
John Rodgriguez - Department of Education Staff
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
List of Attendees - Family Protection Act Briefing - October 7, 1981
Senator and Mrs. Roger Jepsen
Congressman Albert Lee Smith
Gina Bessey - Office of Senator Jepsen
Sara Newcomb - Office of Congressman Smith
Connie Marshner - National Pro-Family Coalition
Ron Godwin, Louis Ropog - The Moral Majority
Noreen Barr - Eagle Forum
Gordon Jones - United Families of America
Don Moran - OMB Staff
Elizabeth H. Dole - OPL Staff
Diana Lozano - OPL Staff
Bill Triplett - OPL Staff
Morton Blackwell - OPL Staff
Wendy Borcherdt - OPL Staff
Kathy Christiansen - OPL Staff
Maiselle Shortley - OPL Staff
Mary Gall - Vice President's Staff
Gary Bauer - OPD Staff
Bill Gribbin - Legislative Affairs Staff
Jerry Regier - HHS Staff
Robert Rubin - HHS Staff
John Rodgriguez - Department of Education Staff
ROGER W. JEPSEN
IOWA
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20810
(202) 224-3234
THE FAMILY PROTECTION ACT -- 97th Congress
CONCEPT SUMMARY
Jepsen-Smith S. 1378
TITLE I -- Family Preservation
1. Rights of Parents -- Reinforces the responsibility and legal
rights of parents to direct the religious and moral upbringing
of their children. (Section 101)
2.
Parental Notification -- Provides that parents be notified when
an unmarried minor receives contraceptive devices or abortion-
related services from a federally-funded organization.
(Section 102)
3. Juvenile Delinquency -- Prohibits the federal government from
preempting or interfering with state statutes pertaining to
juvenile delinquency. Interstate compacts will be maintained.
(Section 103)
4. Child Abuse -- Restricts the federal government from preempting
or interfering with state statutes pertaining to child abuse.
Revises the definition of child abuse to exclude corporal
punishment (spanking) "applied by a parent or individual
explicitly authorized by a parent to perform such function."
Federal funds for operating a child abuse program are
subject to specific authorization from state legislatures.
(Section 104)
5. Spouse Abuse -- Restricts the federal government from
preempting or interfering with state statutes pertaining
to spouse abuse. (Section 105)
6. Legal Services: Abortion -- Prohibits any funds under the
Legal Services Corporation from being used in litigation
seeking to compel abortions, assistance, or compliance
with abortion, or funding for abortion. (Section 106)
7. Legal Services: Divorce -- Prohibits any funds under the
Legal Services Corporation from being used in litigation
involving divorce. (Section 106)
8. Legal Services: Homosexual rights -- Prohibits any funds
under the Legal Services Corporation from being used in
litigation involving homosexual rights. (Section 106)
9. Spouse Allowance -- Reinstates Department of Defense provision
that service personnel living separately from their families
automatically send home the predetermined "dependent's allowance"
for family support. (Section 107)
10. Homosexual Organizations -- Denies federal funds to any organi-
zation which uses the funds for the express purpose of advocating
homosexuality as a lifestyle. (Section 108)
THE FAMILY PROTECTION ACT -- 97th Congress
Page 2
TITLE II -- Taxation
11. Education Savings Account -- Establishes a savings plan
whereby relatives may deposit up to $2,500 tax exempt, per
year, to save for a child's education (Section 201)
12. Tax-exempt schools -- Private educational institutions
are granted tax exemption if they fulfull certain requirements.
( (Section 202)
13. Multi-generational household -- Allows a tax credit of $250
or a tax exemption of $1,000 for each household which includes
a dependent person age 65 or older. This provision allows
either the tax credit or the tax exemption -- not both.
(Section 203)
14.
Parental Care Trust -- Establishes a trust account procedure
similar to the Individual Retirement Account, under which
taxpayers can save $3,000 a year for the support of an aged
parent or a handicapped relative. (Section 204)
15. Retirement Savings Account for Spouses -- Contributions by
an employed person to a savings account for the non-salaried
spouse are tax-deductible up to $1,500 a year. This amount
increases to $3,000 if the spouse is handicapped. (Section 205)
16. Day Care -- A corporation may deduct from taxes its contribution
to a joint employee-employer day care facility. (Section 206)
17. Exemptions for Childbirth or Adoption -- Married couples filing
jointly are granted an additional $1,000 tax exemption for the
year in which a child is either born or adopted. The
exemption increases to $3,000 if the child is born handicapped
or if the adopted child is handicapped, over the age of 6, or
biracial. Additionally, this provision allows the individual
to deduct the amount of adoption expenses paid during the
taxable year: (Section 207)
TITLE III -- Education
18. Religion Courses -- Provides a cause of action for parents
if an educational institution receiving federal funds
prohibits them from participating in decisions regarding
their child's enrollment in religion courses. (Section 301)
19. Visitation of Classrooms -- Provides a cause of action for
parents if an educational institution receiving federal funds
prohibits them from visiting their child's classroom.
(Section 301)
20. Teacher Unionization -- Provides a cause of action for
individuals if an educational institution receiving federal
funds requires forced payment of dues as condition for
the employment of teachers. (Section 301)
FAMILY PROTECTION ACT -- 97th Congress
Page 3
21.
Reviewing Textbooks -- Provides a cause of action for parents
if an educational institution receiving federal funds prohibits
parents from reviewing textbooks prior to their use in public
schools. (Section 301)
22.
Balance in Textbooks -- Prevents federal funds from being used
to promote educational materials that do not present men and
women in all the various roles they play in today's society.
(Sec. 301)
23. Teacher Qualifications -- States are ensured the right to
determine teacher qualifications unhampered by federal
regulations. (Section 302)
24.
Attendance Requirements -- States are ensured the right and
authority to regulate attendance requirements at public
schools without interference from the federal government.
(Section 302)
26.
Sex-intermingling -- Local schools are given back the
authority over sex-intermingling in sports and other
school activities. (Section 302)
27. Block Grants -- Titles I, II, III, IV, VII and IX of the
Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 are replaced with
block grants of money to states as they deem necessary.
28. Release Time for Parenthood Education -- If schools require
a course on parenting, parents may arrange for their children
to be taught the course by a church or by the parents on a
release time basis. (Section 304)
29. Legal Services: Busing -- Prohibits any funds under the
Legal Services Corporation from being used in litigation
involving busing solely for the achievement of racial quotas
or for desegregation purposes. (Section 305)
TITLE IV -- Voluntary Prayer
30.
Guarantees the individual's Constitutional right to the
free exercise of religion, whether in public or in private.
(Section 401)
FAMILY PROTECTION ACT 97th Congress
Page 4
TITLE V -- RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND EDUCATIONAL AFFILIATES
31. Federal agencies may not regulate religious activities such
as church schools, religious activities, religious youth
homes, and ministries of religious institutions. The provision
in no way interferes with provisions of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (with respect to race, creed, color, or national origin)
or with the authority of local governments to require
reasonable fire, health, and safety standards. Exempts
religious organizations from regulations of affirmative action,
quotas, guidelines, or actions designed to overcome racial
imbalance. (Section 501)
TITLE VI -- JURISDICTION
This section outlines the various courts of jurisdiction to
which an action under the Act may be brought by an aggrieved
party. (Section 601)
Put
LIOUR
labor
To
Jim Ciccone 11/9
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 26, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES A. BAKER, III
FROM:
ELIZABETH H. DOLE
BHD
SUBJECT:
A Labor Offensive
The AFL-CIO will conduct its Centennial Convention in New York
City from November 16 through November 19.
With the current disposition of the news media to focus on the
"rift between labor and the Administration", that period of time
should produce the same kind of negative media play that we ex-
perienced around Labor Day and Solidarity Day. The opportunities
for negative media will be heightened by the fact that the AFL-
CIO has decided to not invite the President to address their Con-
vention. Not inviting an incumbent President is a considerable
break with years of tradition. (See attached)
Rather than being on the defensive during this period, I would
suggest that we seize the media initiative and implement an of-
fensive program designed to portray the Administration as reaching
out to listen to the concerns and interests of organized labor.
In planning such an offensive we have taken into consideration
several factors:
1. Lane Kirkland is receiving increasing internal criticism
from union leaders for his continued anti-Administration
style and rhetoric.
2. There is a growing sentiment within the AFL-CIO to cease
the hostilities and to try to "get along with the Admini-
stration". Such people as United Steelworkers President,
Lloyd McBride; Service Employees Union President, John
Sweeney; Building &. Construction Trades President, Bob
Georgine; Plumbers President, Marty Ward, all want to re-
duce the adversary relationship and begin to cooperate.
3. A number of business leaders and key members of Congress
believe that the Administration has to take some initia-
tive in trying to make peace with organized labor. They
feel that many of our policy decisions have only served
to antagonize labor and that the party and the country can
ill afford further hostilities.
- 2 -
An offensive program (which requires some immediate decisions)
could include several components, or parts thereof, to portray the
President as a magnanimous man who wants to be open, accessible
and willing to work with labor. Possible options for consider-
ation:
1. During the week of November 2 (the AFL-CIO Convention
begins on November 16), make public a letter the
President will send to all Cabinet members indicating
that he wants to have an "open door" policy for labor
leaders and that they should seek the input of repre-
sentatives of organized labor.
2. During the week of November 8 the Vice President
hosts a (much publicized) reception for a wide-
ranging group of labor leaders at his residence.
The event could be hosted to commemorate the AFL-CIO
Centennial year.
3. During the week of November 2 the President communicates
with Kirkland, inviting him and the AFL-CIO Executive
Council to meet with him at the White House sometime
after their Convention. In extending the invitation,
the President can recognize that there are differences
of opinion but that we must all work together to solve
our problems and that he wants to receive the input of
the labor community.
4. A meeting is scheduled for late November with the
AFL-CIO Executive Council here at the White House
and at that time the President announces that he
wants very much to hear from leaders of organized
labor and is asking the Vice President to have
regular (quarterly) meetings with a group of top
labor leaders (Teamsters included).
While undertaking one or more of these activities can be debated,
they are designed to:
(A) Provide a positive image of the Administration communi-
cating with labor,
(B) Attempt to head-off the spate of news stories about the
poor relations/communication with organized labor, and
(C) Provide some ammunition for the moderate labor types
who want to call a truce and begin to work with the
Administration.
Let's talk.
discussed
ge
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
October 26, 1981
By PHIL ROURA and TOM POSTER
Walesa to address
AFL-CIO meeting
here, then tour
Lech Walesa, the head of Poland's Solidar
union, will make his first trip to the United Sta
next month to address the cente nial convention
the AFL-CIO at the Sheraton Centre, it was learn
yesterday. It is also the first time since 1963 that the
convention has been held in the Big Apple.
Because of the controversy surrounding the Pol-
ish union leader, security at the convention site will
be heavy. That will continue when Walesa moves on
to Chicago and Detroit to visit the Polish communi-
ties in those cities.
The convention opens Monday, Nov. 16, and runs
through-Nov. 19, with Walesa scheduled to speak on
Tuesday, Nov. 17. "Yes, we have invited Walesa and,
barring unforeseen problems in Poland, Walesa will
be with us," Tom Donahue, secretary-treasurer of the
AFL-CIO, told the People Page. "He will receive the
first George Meany Human Rights Award on behalf
of Solidarity."
Also attending the convention will be two Demo-
crats who figure to be in the thick of the 1984
nomination for the presidency: Walter Mondale and
Ted Kennedy. Mondale will address the unionists on
opening day; Kennedy will have to wait until
Wednesday, Nov. 18, before getting in his licks.
But most notable among the missing is Preside
Reagan. "He is not being invited," said Donahu
Other sources told us why: The Prez still is bein
given an extremely cold shoulder that was fir
shown him on Labor Day when he was excluded fro
the big parade here. One top labor source said: "T
President is not being invited because of his actio
in the air traffic controllers* strike."
P.S. Because of the PATCO strike, Walesa will not
fly while in the United States: Plans call for him to
jet to Montreal from Warsaw and then drive down to
New York. Newsweek magazine says that some
Reagan administration officials are worried that the
Soviet Union will view Walesa's U.S. visit as "a
provocation." But they have decided not to oppose a
visa. That would really get U.S. labor angrier than
they already are at the President.