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 includes information on the Naval Photographic Center and its operations.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26416141
label
President - Campaign President Ford Committee (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26416141
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
President - Campaign President Ford Committee (2)
description
This file includes information on the Naval Photographic Center and its operations.
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Law and legislation
Presidential campaign, 1976
Campaign funds
Presidential election committees
Advertising, Political
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26416141
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-03-01
month
3
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d58dc6e5a5713300
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 45, folder "President - Campaign President
Ford Committee (2)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
B.
way
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
"Bo Calloway has asked to step aside temporarily as
Chairman of President Ford's Campaign Committee until
all questions relative to his Crested Butte resort development
are resolved. The President has agreed to this request and
today has named Stuard Spencer as acting Campaign Chairman",
March 13, 1976
FORD - LIBRARY
Digitized from Box 45 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
April 1, 1976
and
Arthur J. Block
21 Stuyvesant Oval
New York, New York 10009
Dear Mr. Block:
Reference is made to your letter, dated March 15,
1976, addressed to Mr. Spencer which has been referred
to me for reply.
This is to advise you in the strongest possible
term that the President Ford Committee does not intend
to pay your statement for alleged services performed
on its behalf. The reason for our position is quite
simple in that neither Chairman Callaway nor any other
member of the President Ford Committee have authorized
you to provide any services whatsoever and, in fact, no
such services have ever been received by this Committee.
Sincerely,
Rolest Vissur
Robert P. Visser
General Counsel
RPV: dm
FORD of LIBRARY
Report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. copy 20463.
The President Ford Committee, Howard H. Callaway, Chairman, Robert Mosbacher, National Finance Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A of our
monuay =1 001 10
7:30
Barry said Visser will probably call. The
ATLANTA CONSTITUTION ran a front-page story that
either the President or the PFC somehow violated
the law in in-kind corporate contributions as a result
of the President's speech to the Chamber of Commerce.
Barry said he doesn't have the details yet.
TORD - LIBRARY SERVICE
file
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
April 30, 1976
TO: Rogers Morton
Phil Buchen
Stu Spencer
FROM: Robert Visser RPV
RE: Oblon, Spivak, Maier & Visser
Upon the retention of my Firm and my agreement to
serve as General Counsel to the President Ford Committee,
Bo Callaway and I agreed that I would disclose the name
of any significant client that I brought into my Firm
during the campaign period.
Accordingly, this is to advise you that my Firm
has been retained by Floor Broker Associates and a number
of other independent floor broker-traders in New York City
to conduct a study regarding such broker-traders and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
FORD & LIBRARY OF
Determined
Admunistrative
1/22/16
By
TMH
[May 1976?
PFC in Michigan
Michigan Headquarters
Kathleen Seglund
(517) 374-7668
(Lansing)
Chairman of the State
Peter Fletcher
(313) 482-0445
(Ypsilanti)
BERLA - FORD DIGRARY
6:30 p.m.
Wednesday, June 2, 1976
Barry called and left the following message:
FEC's General Counsel has now taken the position that
attorney and accountants' fees are excluded from the
calculation of your expenditure ceiling and thus the
PFC should have $300-400,000, or more, to work with.
CC: Ed Schmults
BERAUR FORD LIBRARY
PFC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Eva:
Sendcopy to Borry.
P.
Eva Cpy sent to Barry,
Heris Mr back B's epy
TORO LIBRARY
ADMINISTRATIVELY
CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: RON NESSEN
FROM:
BOB MEAD Be
SUBJECT:
PFC COMMERCIALS, RE: NAVY PARTICIPATION
I have researched the subj ect requested on the Navy's participation in the
latest political commercials made by Don Penny, the Directors Circle,
and Mr. James Jordan, President of BBDO. (Mr. Jordan did not
participate as President of the advertising agency in this venture, but as
a free-lance independent, at the urging of his friend, Mr. Penny.)
First, let me reiterate the fact that under my control, the Navy Photographic
center and its military employees have always been instructed not to be
involved in any political activities concerning the White House. Their function
is to record on film or videotape, the functions of the President for the
Presidential archives and the future library of the President who holds the
office. Because this film and filming is completed by using taxpayers money,
any American citizen holds a right to purchase copies of this film from the
Navy department. It is true that we do not make this fact generally known.
BACKGROUND ON USUAL PROCEDURES
If a private citizen wishes to purchase film from the Navy Photo Center, which
is of the President, that citizen would contact me in the office of Television
Advisor. He is informed that, by appointment, he may view the film he is
interested in at the NPC. The client then determines what he wants. Let us
say he wishes to purchase 100 feet of film showing the President speaking to
the Congress. The photo Center then makes a master copy print from the
original film and the client is charged for the raw stock of film at the price of
44 per foot or $44.00. The client is also charged a research fee of $13
per hour to find the film and for the viewing time. There are many films
which my office does not allow to be sold. The President's vacations in Vail
would not be available, nor would the President's deposition in the
Fromme case when we receive it from the counselor's office. This type of
film is not listed in the catalog and no one knows it exists. It is a discretion
on our part to allow some privacy to the President. If the future library or
historians desire to make such films available in the future, that would be their
decision.
BERALD FORD LIBRERY
-2-
RECENT OCCURRENCE DISCUSSED
With my permission Mr. Penny, went to the Navy Photo Center in Anacostia
to view films which he felt may have been incorporated into a political television
commercial. Mr. Penny viewed several thousand feet of film footage.
He was charged the usual $13 per hour research fee. The attached billing
shows that two hours were charged to him or $26 and a bill was sent to the
New York address given by him.
Because of time limitations and the length of time it takes the Photo Center
to make copies of films, Mr. Penny asked permission of Mr. Jack Horton,
the liaison with whom I work, if he could take the film from the Center to
New York where he could do his own dubbing or copying to save time. (it
usually takes the Photo Center a few days to complete a job since it services
the entire Navy fleet.)
Mr. Horton granted this permission and allowed 1000 feet of original
President Ford archival film to leave the building. This is not an unusual
practice. It is a bad practice and I have requested the Photo Center not to
allow this to happen unless there are extreme emergencies, but particularly
NOT with film which might find its way into political spots or some other commer -
cial use. This film could have been badly scratched or damaged in the process
of dubbing outside of our laboratory. The film was returned undamaged and
some of the footage was used in the three commercials produced and
broadcast in the campaign.
SUMMARY
Mr. Penny and/or his organization did not pay for footage used in the making
of the television commercials because no raw film stock was used at
the Navy Photo Center since it was not copied at that location If a copying
charge was made, it was done in a New York studio or laboratory. As far as
I can determine, no law was broken in this transaction. It is true that the
Navy Photo Center gave away archival footage to make a political commercial
and did not charge for it, because they did not copy it. If they did, a charge of
an extra $440 would have been billed. (1000 feet @ 44-cents per foot) This
decision was, in my mind, a bad decision because the commercial producers
did, in essence get free film for commercial use. Also, there is the rest
of the 1000 feet of film which could be used in the future for additional
commercials. However, there is no cost for use of film. I have stopped the
practice of loaning out film for such purposes in the future.
Perhaps to eliminate any future charge or insinuations of wrong doing, we
FORD
BERALD
LIBRANT
should send an additional bill for $440 to the commercial producers, even though
nothing has occurred which is illegal. However, there could arise charges of
the military being used for political purposes; power of the office of the
incumbent; or possibly in-house production of commercials for political
gain by using military film.
To keep from embarrassing the President, it would be my suggestion that,
as a White House employee, Mr. Penny might want to offer $440 from the
producer to stave off any future criticism. The production house
commercials, which I find, personally quite high, and I feel the $440
would be a pitence of their profits.
C.C. Phil Buchen for informational purposes
C.C. Bill Cuff, Military Aide's Office
attachmts
GREAT FORD LIBRARY
DATE
21 May 1976
TO:
FROM:
Don Penny
COMMANDING OFFICER
Mel Matz
U.S. NAVAL PHOTOGRAPHIC CENTER
Directors Circle
U.S. NAVAL STATION
870 7th Ave 10019
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20390
N.Y. Sheraton Hotel
CLASSIFICATION
GROUP CLASSIFICATION DOD DIR 5200-10
Unclass
REFERENCE
ENCL.
Jack Horton - - White House Liaison
BY
SUBJECT
ITEM
White House ftge of Pres. Ford trip to Michigan; Loan of
1
One roll of 16mm color original, approx. 500' of White House mumber 360-375-76.
DO NOT CUT OR ALTER alson 360-172-76 (Approx 500'/
THIS IS LAON TO BE RETURNED ASAP
2
Prints for the above numbers alson included.
THIS A LOAN
RETURN FILMTO:
Commanding Officer
Naval Photographic Center
Motion Picture Film Depository
Naval District
Washington, D. C. 20374
METHOD
NPC ORIGINATOR
CHARGE NO.
OF SHIPMENT
FDF - Pinto
360
SPECIFICALLY
GUARD MAIL
SPECIFICALLY
U.S. MAIL
SPECIFICALLY
EXPRESS
Don Peanny
TIME
DATE
BY
ry
ADDRESSEE
COURIER
Mr. Penny will hand carry
NOTIFICATION:
SERALD an R. FORD LIBRARY
SHIPPING SECTION FILE COPY
IMemoranaum
DATE: 24 May 1976
FROM: Head, Film Depository Division
TO :
Comptroller
SUBJ : Cash Sale Transaction; billing of
It is requested that a bill be send on project 2530-76079:
2 hrs. search time @13.00 per hr.
$26.00
Send bill to:
Mr. Don Penny
Directors Circle
New York Sheraton Hotel
870 7th Avenue
New York, New York 10019
CARL A. CARLSON
Head, Film Depository Division
SEAL FORD VIBRARY
I
Phil BUOTEN
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
June 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Moot
FROM: Robert Visser
ev
GREATE FORD LIBRARY
T. Timothy Ryan
RE: Attorneys and Accountants Fees
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you as to the
impact of the 1976 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign
Act ("Act") with regard to the question of whether expenses incurred
by a candidate or committee for legal and accounting services paid
to ensure compliance with the Act must be charged against the
expenditure limitations. In particular, the following sets forth
our specific recommendations and guidelines for the determination of
those functions of the Treasurer's Office, General Counsel's Office,
and outside consultants such as Arthur Anderson and Company, which
are excludable from the expenditure limitations.
I. Advisory Opinion 1975-27
In Advisory Opinion 1975-27, published in the Federal Register
on November 4, 1975, the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") decided,
by a four to two vote, that expenditures for attorney's and accounting
fees paid for the purpose of general compliance with the Act must be
charged against the expenditure limitations of the Act. However,
The President Ford Committee, Rogers C.B. Morton, Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A copy of our Report is filed with
the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.
FORD
-2-
CENTER
fees paid to prepare and respond to formal compliance action would
be exempt from the expenditure ceiling. The majority based its
conclusion on the fact that the definition of the term "expenditure"
as used in the 1974 Act (i.e., 18 U.S.C. §591 (f) enumerated several
specific exclusions from the definition but that none of the exclu-
sions extended to amounts paid for accounting or legal services
rendered to assist a Federal candidate in complying with the Act.
The majority did exempt out compensation for such services rendered
in connection with formal compliance proceedings on the theory that
they are not expenditures made for the purpose of influencing the
election of a Federal candidate. Commissioners Aiken and Tiernan
in their dissent noted that such expenditures made to "assure
adherence to the mandates of this complex new law at every stage of
a campaign for Federal office have an equal claim for an exemption
from the expenditure limits of the Act". Moreover, they stated
"good faith attempts to anticipate and meet the requirements of the
Act well in advance of a formal complaint action should also be
recognized and given strong encouragement and endorsement [and that]
this assistance should be available to every candidate, no
matter whether it is used prospectively to guide a campaign within
the boundaries of the Act, or subsequently to defend against formal
complaints". Finally, they noted that such accounting and legal
efforts "can easily be distinguished from political strategy and
tactical advice. "
II. The 1976 Amendments
The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, signed
into law on May 11, 1976, added identical new provisions to the
-3-
1000
AMOUNT
statutory exclusions for the definitions of both of the terms
"expenditure" and "contribution" under the Act.
Sections 431 (e) (4) defines "contribution", inter alia, as
"the payment, by any person other than a candidate
or a political committee, of compensation for the
personal services of another person which are rendered
to such candidate or political committee without charge
for any such purpose EXCEPT THAT THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL
NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF LEGAL OR ACCOUNTING SERVICES
RENDERED TO OR ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF
A POLITICAL PARTY (UNLESS THE PERSON PAYING FOR SUCH
SERVICES IS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE REGULAR EMPLOYER
OF THE INDIVIDUAL RENDERING SUCH SERVICES), OTHER THAN
SERVICES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY
FURTHER THE ELECTION OF A DESIGNATED CANDIDATE OR CANDI-
DATES TO FEDERAL OFFICE, NOR SHALL THIS PARAGRAPH APPLY
IN THE CASE OF LEGAL OR ACCOUNTING SERVICES RENDERED TO
OR ON BEHALF OF A CANDIDATE OR POLITICAL COMMITTEE SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT OR CHAPTER 95 OR CHAPTER 96 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE OF 1954 (UNLESS THE PERSON PAYING FOR SUCH
SERVICES IS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE REGULAR EMPLOYER OF
THE INDIVIDUAL RENDERING SUCH SERVICES), BUT AMOUNTS
PAID OR INCURRED FOR SUCH LEGAL OR ACCOUNTING SERVICES
SHALL BE REPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SECTION 434(b) " (Emphasis added)
Identical language is contained in Section 431 (f) (4) (J) excluding
such compensation for legal or accounting services from the
definition of "expenditure". The FEC's proposed regulations pub-
lished in the Federal Register on May 26, 1976, also reflects
such change in the law. ($100.4 (a) (12) and $100.7 (a) (15))
As I advised you during our recent meeting, following enactment
of the 1976 Amendments, I requested a meeting with the General Counsel
of the FEC, Jack Murphy, to discuss the Commission's interpretation
of this new section. In that meeting, Jack Murphy stated that,
although the new statutory language is somewhat ambiguous, it is
clear to him that the Congress fully intended to overrule the
Commission's earlier Advisory Opinion regarding this matter. In
-4-
LIBRARY
particular, he stated that all expenditures relating to legal and
accounting. services rendered on behalf of a candidate or campaign
committee in order to ensure compliance with the Federal election
campaign laws are exempt from the expenditure ceiling. Although
the statute restricts such exclusion only for those expenditures
solely relating to the purpose of ensuring compliance with the
provisions of the Act and portions of the Internal Revenue Code, Mr.
Murphy stated that he interprets the term "compliance" as an extremely
broad concept encompassing all such reasonable direct and indirect
expenses incurred for the purpose of guiding and assisting a campaign
committee in understanding, adhering to and complying with all aspects
of the Federal election campaign laws.
This is also to confirm that I have been advised by both
Loren Smith, General Counsel to the Citizens for Reagan Committee,
and Jan Baran, General Counsel to the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee that Jack Murphy has separately and indepen-
dently advised them of the same opinion with regard to this matter.
As a result, Loren Smith advised me that he is excluding from the
ceiling anything related, directly or indirectly, to compensation
for attorneys and accountants services in connection with their
advisory functions on the Federal election campaign laws, including
but not limited to direct consulting advice and opinion, analyses
and disclosure and reporting, as well as formal compliance procedures.
Moreover, following these meetings I confirmed this interpretation
at a meeting with Commissioner Aikens and several FEC staff members.
Accordingly, Tim and I have reviewed with you, Jim Cochran and
Tom Moran the basic Treasurer's office functions and activities.
-5-
Following this review and an examination of the summary sheet you
provided to us, we have reached the following conclusions regarding
application of this new statutory provision to our national ceiling.
First, with reference to your sheet entitled "Functions of
the Treasurer's Office", a copy of which is attached hereto for your
information, we believe that the following items are clearly a function
of this Committee's good faith effort to ensure full and adequate
compliance with the Federal election campaign laws and are totally
1.
excludable from the PFC ceiling.
E
FORD
2. Processing Checks for Bank Deposit:
Riggs Lock Box Service
Staff making up Deposits for Checks received direct
3. Contribution, Coding to identify Contributors Occupation,
Title, Solicitation I.D. number, etc.
4. Contribution Computer Processing including integrated data
bank for multiple purpose of recording and accounting for
contributions, providing print-outs for acknowledgement,
for state fund raisers, for re-solicitation, for matching
fund requests and for FEC Reporting.
5. Contribution Processing Supervision
6. Follow-up on Contributions to secure information required
by law re Full Name, Address, Occupation, etc.
8. Coding of Invoices to provide information required by law,
i.e., vendor identification, state limitation charged,
fund raising vs campaign cost, etc.
11. Preparation of FEC Receipt & Expenditure Monthly Reports
13. Preparation and Justification of Matching Fund Requests
19. Other Outside Services
Arthur Andersen & Co.
Matching Fund Aid
Arthur Andersen & Co.
Callaway Mgs. System
AMS
Callaway Mgs. System
Arthur Andersen & Co. Systems Assistance
-6-
20. AMS Computer Expense System with data Bank
to provide General Ledger data re
expenditure categories and FEC Expenditure
Reporting.
In addition, we believe that the following items reflect
activities of the Treasurer's office which should be viewed as
support functions directly related to the preparation for, adherence
to and compliance with all reporting, disclosure and other legal
aspects of the Federal Election Campaign Act:
1.
Opening of Treasurer's Office Mail, Sorting, Distributing
7. Receipt of Invoices verifying delivery, writing checks for
payment.
9. Maintaining General Ledgers, reconciling bank accounts,
internal financial reporting.
10. Supervision of Expense Coding
12. Overall Accounting Supervision
14. Preparation and Maintenance of entire Headquarters & Campaign
Payroll
Riggs Payroll Service
Staff Service
15. Financing of Field Campaign Operations, State by State -
Campaign & Fund Raising
16. Secretarial Service
17. Receptionist/Typist Service
on
FORD
18. Other related costs -
Insurance
LIBRARY
Taxes
Bank Charges
21. Overall Treasurer Supervision
22. Allocation of Overhead - Rent, Supplies, Telephone, Etc.
Based upon our discussions, we believe that it would be appro-
priate to aggregate all of the expenses relating to the above support
categories and allocate percent (80%) of the cost of all such expen-
ditures to the excluded category for ceiling purposes.
-7-
In addition, it is my understanding that the Treasurer's
office has incurred certain direct transportation expenditures
in connection with Field Audits and other services requiring
outside travel in connection with monitoring and supervision of
state finance and campaign committee offices for the purpose of
complying with the Federal election laws. All such travel expenditures
would, of course, not count against the expenditure ceiling.
III. Miscellaneous
Finally, this is to confirm that during my discussions with
Jack Murphy, I raised the issue of post-nomination incurred conven-
tion expenses which are not directly related to the General Election.
Jack advised me that several questions have been asked with regard
to such expenditures and that it was his personal belief that there
may be certain categories of expense which have been incurred following
the nomination and which are not directly related or attributable to
General Election functions or activities (for example, thank you
letters may be viewed as a General Election expense under the theory
that it is a mechanism by which you encourage participation in the
General Election). We will submit a written question to the Commission
on this regarding categories of expense (including clean up and travel
expenditures incurred after the nomination) for the Commission's
determination. I am uncertain as to whether or not the Commission
will view such expenditures as separate and distinct from the general
primary expenditures made for the purpose of securing the nomination.
As a result, I would suggest that we maintain a factor for such
R. to:
expenditures in our current ceiling projections.
CANADA
IV. General Counsel's Office
This is to advise you that Tim Ryan and I have again reviewed
-8-
the functions of the General Counsel's office with regard to
activities. undertaken other than those directly or indirectly related
to legal matters relating to the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Following this review, we believe that a fair allocation of all
of our direct and indirect expenditures, including travel, would be
ninety-five percent (95%) .
CC:
Rogers C. B. Morton
Roy Hughes
Stu Spencer
1. FORD: LIBRAR,
THE PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE
Functions of the Treasurer's Office
Solely to
Normal
Mixed
Ensure Act
Mgement
Mgement &
#
FUNCTION
Compliance
Functions
Complianc
1.
Opening of Treasurer's Office Mail, Sorting,
LIBRARY
Distributing
TOMA
2.
Processing Checks for Bank Deposit:
Riggs Lock Box Service
Staff making up Deposits for checks received direct
STAMP
3.
Contribution Coding to identify Contributors Occupation,
Title, Solicitation I.D. number, etc.
4.
Contribution Computer Processing including integrated
data bank for multiple purpose of recording and
accounting for contributions, providing print-outs
for acknowledgement, for state fund raisers, for
re-solicitation, for matching fund requests and
for FEC Reporting.
5.
Contribution Processing Supervision
6.
Follow-up Contributions to secure information required
by law re Full Name, Address, Occupation, etc.
7.
Receipt of Invoices verifying delivery, writing checks for
payment
8.
Coding of Invoices to provide information required by law, i.e.,
vendor identification, state limitation charged, fund raising
vs campaign cost, etc.
9.
Maintaining General Ledgers, reconciling bank accounts,
internal financial reporting.
10.
Supervision of expense coding
cont'd
11.
Preparation of FEC Receipt & Expenditure Monthly Reports
12.
Overall Accounting Supervision
13.
Preparation and Justification of Matching Fund Requests
SAMPLE
14.
Preparation and Maintenance of entire Hdqts & Campaign Payroll
Riggs Payroll Service
Staff Service
15.
Financing of Field Campaign Operations
State by State - Campaign & Fund Raising
16.
Secretarial Service
17.
Receptionist/Typist Service
18.
Other related costs -
Insurance
Taxes
Bank Charges
19.
Other Outside Services
Arthur Andersen & Co. Matching Fund Air
Arthur Andersen & Co. Callaway Mgs. System
AMS
Callaway Mgs. System
Arthur Andersen & Co. Systems Assistance
20.
AMS Computer Expense System with data Bank to provide General Ledger data re
expenditure categories and FEC Expenditure Reporting
21.
Overall Treasurer Supervision
22.
Allocation of Overhead - Rent, Supplies, Telephone, Etc.
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
July 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rog Morton
Stu Spencer
FROM: Bob Visser
RV
Tim Ryan
RE: Citizens for Reagan - Rooms and Convention Tickets
Attached is a self-explanatory letter from Loren A. Smith,
General Counsel to the Citizens for Reagan campaign committee,
alleging that the President Ford Committee has received prefer-
ential treatment regarding the assignment of rooms and convention
tickets at the Republican National Convention in violation of
Section 9008(c), Title 26, United States Code. In particular,
the Citizens for Reagan Committee has alleged that the allocation
of Convention rooms and passes to the White House is grossly
improper in that 388 hotel rooms are allocated to the Ford Campaign
and White House, whereas only 100 rooms are allocated to the
Reagan Campaign. In addition, the Ford "group" has been given 650
Gallery passes whereas the Reagan Campaign has been allotted only
300. Realistically, the facts in this matter are as follows.
The PFC has been afforded 200 Gallery passes and the Reagan
Committee has been afforded 300 Gallery passes. In addition, the
White House has been allocated 450 such passes to accommodate the
official White House Staff, Cabinet and the like. With regard to
rooms, both the PFC and the Citizens for Reagan Committee have
received assignment of 100 rooms apiece and the White House has
received an allotment of 288 rooms to provide for the President,
Cabinet, Vice President and his staff, WHACA, and the Secret Service.
It should also be noted that the PFC and Reagan Committee have each
received 15 floor passes to the Convention. As you can see, the factual
basis of the Reagan argument is specious and, in fact, the PFC has
received a third less Gallery tickets than the Reagan Committee.
The argument that the above allocation of rooms and floor
passes represents a "serious misuse of government funds and the
incumbency by the Ford campaign" is ill founded. First, there is
STRALD ANVOICE ? FORD
The President Ford Committee. Rogers C.B. Morton, Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A copy of our Report is filed with
the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.
Citizens for Reagan - Rooms
and Convention Tickets Memo
July 2, 1976
Page Two
no expenditure of funds involved with respect to the allocation
of such rooms and passes. Moreover, of course, the extension
of such courtesies to the Executive Branch of the Government
by the Republican National Committee at the National Convention
is a matter of long-standing tradition.
Second, Section 9008 (c), Title 26, United States Code, is
inapplicable. This Section of the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund Act, entitled "Payments for Presidential Nominating Conventions"
provides as follows:
Use of funds. No part of any payment made under
subsection (b) shall be used to defray the expenses
of any candidate or delegate who is participating in
any presidential nominating convention. Such payments
shall be used only --
(1) to defray expenses incurred with respect to
a presidential nominating convention (including the
payment of deposits) by or on behalf of the national
committee receiving such payments; or
(2) to repay loans the proceeds of which were used
to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds
(other than contributions to defray such expenses received
by such committee) used to defray such expenses.
As noted above, no part of such funds would be used to defray the
expenses of any candidate who is participating in the Republican
National Nominating Convention.
Finally, following the basic tenants of Cousins v. Wagoda,
419 U. S. 477 (1975), the Federal election campaign laws do not
apply to the determinations of the Convention or the Republican
National Committee except as specifically provided in the Act as
above. Accordingly, I do not believe that the Federal Election
Commission has or will assume jurisdiction over this claim. It is
more likely that this is another step in the Reagan public relations
campaign to attempt to paint the Ford campaign as railroading the
Republican National Convention and subsequent nomination. We should
be alert to this tactic and be prepared to respond with our own
public relations activities.
SEAL FORD LIBRARY
CITIZENS FOR REAGAN
1835 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
202/452-7676
June 30, 1976
Honorable Mary Louise Smith
HAND DELIVERED
Chairman, Republican National Committee
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D. C. 20003
Dear Mrs. Smith:
In recent days, as you know, we have sought to obtain
equitable treatment from the Republican National Committee
regarding rooms and convention tickets at the Republican
National Convention for Citizens for Reagan, the official
presidential campaign organization of Ronald Reagan. Because
we have been unable to obtain equal treatment through amicable
negotiations, Citizens for Reagan is insisting that the
Republican National Committee fully comply with its legal
obligation, under 26 U.S.C. Section 9008(c), to stage a
national convention that does not benefit any Republican
candidate for the nomination in any way over any other
candidate.
As you, of course, know, this year for the first time the
national convention of our party is fully funded by the tax-
payers. Through a system of equal payments to both major parties,
a public decision has been made to take the funding of this part of
the nominating process out of private hands. In so doing,
however, the legal mandate is clear: the convention shall
not be a vehicle to advance the candidacy of any one person
over another.
In Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion - 1975 -
72, which you requested, the Federal Election Commission dealt
with the problem of a political party benefiting only one
candidate for its nomination. In that Advisory Opinion, the
Commission found that it would be presumed an impermissible
campaign contribution to pay Mr. Ford's travel to party events
after January 1, 1976. Before that date the Commission noted:
"/I/ n the period prior to January 1, 1976,/ during
which the Republican National Committee paid over
FORD LIBRARY
Citizens for Reagan - Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman Henry M Buchanan. Treasure:
A copy of our report is filed with and available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission. Washington, D.C. 20463
Mrs. Smith
June 30, 1976
Page two
three hundred thousand dollars in Ford travel
expenses7, the RNC will accord equitable treat-
ment to all of its presidential candidates. 11
40 Fed. Reg. 56589 (1975).
If the Republican National Committee is going to do some-
thing for one candidate, it must do it for every candidate for
that same office.
Our committee is concerned about preferential treatment
given by the convention managers and the Republican National
Committee to the White House and, therefore, to the Ford
Committee. The allocation of a quota of rooms and passes
to the White House is grossly improper. Currently, 388 hotel
rooms are allocated to the Ford campaign and White House, while
only 100 rooms are allocated to the Reagan campaign. The Ford
groups have received 650 gallery passes, while the Reagan
campaign has received only 300. We must demand absolute numerical
equality in all of these areas.
The White House and the incumbency have no proper role
in this convention. Any special functional role granted to the
White House officially recognizes a serious misuse of govern-
ment funds and the incumbency by the Ford campaign.
I recognize that these are strong words, but they express
deep concerns for a fair and honest convention. I am having
this letter hand-delivered so we may resolve this matter this week.
I will call you at 11:00 A.M. Friday hoping that this matter
can be resolved. If we do not reach a mutually acceptable
solution at that time, then I'm afraid we will have no recourse
but to initiate litigation or complaint proceedings before
the Federal Election Commission.
Sincerely,
Lora a.Smith
Loren A. Smith
General Counsel
CC: Honorable Ody J. Fish, Vice Chairman
Arrangements Committee, Republican National Committee
William C. Cramer, Esq., General Counsel
Republican National Committee
Robert P. Visser, Esq., General Counsel
President Ford Committee
FORD
I
LIBRANY
suchen
July 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peter Kaye
FROM: Bob Visser
Tim Ryan
RE: Reagan Request for Temporary Injunction
At 1:30 a.m. on July 2, 1976, a Mr. Huffman, Ohio
counsel for the Citizens for Reagan, filed a request for a
Temporary Injunction with the Court of Common Pleas in
Franklin County (Columbus) Ohio. This request, filed on
behalf of three delegate candidates who ran on Reagan's
behalf in the 12th Congressional District charged gross
negligence and fraud on the part of the Franklin County
Board of Elections.
This request for a temporary injunction eminates
from the final recount results issued on July 1, 1976, which
found that President Ford defeated Ronald Reagan by 20 votes.
At 4:30 a.m., July 2, 1976, a Temporary Injunction Order was
issued by a Judge in Columbus restraining the Franklin County
Board of Elections from certifying the results of the election
in the 12th Congressional Distrist. A hearing on the injunction
has been set for 9:00 a.m. July 2, 1976.
We think it is very important at this juncture that the
PFC aggressively set forth the facts regarding the Reagan tac-
tics. In other words, we should point out that the Reagan
campaign was so disorganized in Ohio that it failed to file
delegate slates in 8 Congressional Districts and the only reason
Mr. Reagan was on the at-large ballot was because of an appeal
to the Secretary of State. In addition, the Reagan Ohio campaign
was SO ineptly conducted that they defeated the President in only
two Congressional Districts out of 23. Now, because of the
desperate situation in which the Reagan campaign finds itself,
behind the President in the delegate count, the Reagan committee
has taken to the Courts with a frivolous and spurious legal action.
A strong charge of "gross negligence and fraud" on the part of a
county Board of Elections is nothing other than a smoke screen
and really an attempt by the Reagan Committee to set up a challenge
to the Ohio delegation to the National Convention. The end result
of such a challenge is obvious--since the Reagan forces cannot win
the nomination fairly they will attempt to steal the nomina
K. FORD
LEGURAT
pFC
President Ford Committee
Fill
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
July 16, 1976
The Honorable
Philip Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Phil:
Thanks for the copy of the letter from Maurice Gersten.
His suggestions are good ones and, with minor variations, we
have been following these procedures since I arrived here in
May.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Jan Chairman
BAKER III
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
The President Ford Committee, Rogers C.B. Morton, Chairman, Robert Mosbacher, National Finance Chairman, Robert C. Moot, Treasurer. A copy of our
Report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.
Jefferson
PFC
HOTEL
1200 SIXTEENTH STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 DISTRICT 7.4704
July 13, 1976
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is a thoughtful letter from an attorney
in Hartford, Connecticut who writes to me because
of his relationship to a man on my staff.
I am sure you are flooded with various suggestions
and may not find these practical, but I think they
are worth considering.
Sincerely,
This
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable James Baker
Deputy Chairman
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N. W.
Suite 250
Washington, D. C. 20036
Enclosure
STATE 1. 1013
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 13, 1976
Dear Mr. Gersten:
Many thanks for your thoughtful letter.
I am immediately conveying your ideas
to those in a position to consider
their feasibility.
We are delighted to have H.P. working
on our staff, and he seems to be
enjoying the experience very much.
Sincerely,
They Buchen
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Maurice R. Gersten
234 Pearl Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
FORD LIBRARY
Law Offices
Gersten, Butler & Gersten
Maurice R. Gersten
Charles D. Gersten
234 Pearl Street
Aaron L. Gerstens
Harold Gersten
Hartford, Conn: 06103
William of Butler
203-522-0173
Michael E. Gressmann
Edward S. Klemonski
John K. Atticks
July 8, 1976
Philip W. Buchen, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Buchen:
My nephew, Harold Peter Goldfield, who is a student employee with your
office has asked me from time to time why I cannot make some sort of
significant contribution to the President's efforts, perhaps because
I had served as a state legislator and at one time I was president of
the Hartford County Republican Associates, and have attended Republican
conventions.
For several weeks I have been thinking of how some bold stroke could be
taken by the President which would indicate a masterful leadership
LIBRARY
quality and not only win the nomination handily, but even have the
delegates and alternates, guests at the convention and even those who
are forced to cast a vote against him go back to their homes exhilerated
with a drive to work laboriously for their President in the general
election.
It was an article in the Boston Globe of July 4, 1976, concerning Mr.
John Sears, a copy of which article is enclosed, which created the impetus
for this letter. I had once worked with Mr. Sears and I believe that the
simple proposals in this letter, when efficiently carried out, would make
him wonder just what happened!
I propose that the President make one or one-half minute telephone calls
personally to each delegate and/or each alternate. First, however, this
should be done very carefully and systematically by setting up a short
profile on each person so that if the President has met or spoken to the
lady or gentleman, the telephone call could be more cordial. It could be
likely that the President might have shared an event at one time or another
Law Offices
Gersten, Butler & Gersten
Philip W. Buchen, Esq.
Counsel to the President
July 8, 1976
Page 2
if he had not met the delegate or alternate, or that the characteristics
of the city or town might be recalled to create an emotional everlasting
warmth.
Expenses: Expenses should be carefully segregated so that there could
be no expenses whatsoever charged to the Government.
Notification: The State Chairman should be notified, but only just prior
to the telephone calls so that the idea cannot be used by anyone else.
The National Committeeman should also be notified in a similar way.
Letters: Letters also should be prepared and signed by the President and
sent to every delegate and alternate with the most precise attention given
to the proper spelling of the names and addresses. Where possible if the
first name can be used properly, based upon previous experiences, this
could be an extremely effective rapport.
The convention for many people is somewhat cold, but the warmth generated
by the telephone calls and the letters of the President would harness the
most genuine feeling of sincerity. I venture to state that these letters
would be framed and treasured and shown. They would be the subject of
family and community discussions whith the most gratifying feeling that
the President found the time from his onerous schedule of world affairs,
"to think of me personally."
When the President speaks at the convention, after following these suggestions,
there will be unprecedented admiration. An incredible affinity will have been
created and the contagion will spread throughout the land. A "one-to-one"
basis with the President will be established. If the President has his
picture taken with all the delegates individually, as is customary, I think
that there will be such unanimous feeling again which will last far beyond
the election. Just imagine the ovation he will receive from the audience
which feels that it already knows him personally. This will create a very
effective television audience rating and the press will pick it up from there.
Will we not be off to a glorious start in bringing about the President's
re-election with the recognition and attention outlined.
With all good wishes for success.
Mary er Very truly yours,
I
This
LIBRANT
Maurice R. Gersten
MRG:ahj
of
DEPARTO
30
BOSTON SUNDAY GLOBE July 4, 1976
Leaver
PROFILE
The man who
C
h
H
engineered the
IT
C)
le
h
Reagan drive
A
th
By David Nyhan
tage," he muttered drolly,
vid
Globe Washington Bureau
"that they only hear cer-
tain parts of it."
WASHINGTON - The
no
hottest hired gun of this
Beginning with North
N
political year is a 35-year-
Carolina on March 23, the
JOHN SEARS
old lawyer who was
hired political gun
65-year-old Reagan ripped
ch
dumped early by the
off a total of 12 primary
pr
Misson White ITex: and
L..
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
The amended election law permits Presidential
candidates and their immediate families to spend
up to $50,000 of personal funds during the primary
campaign period and an additional $50,000 during
the general election campaign. Although the
$50,000 which can be spent in the primary period is
subject to the overall primary spending ceiling, the
$50,000 which can be spent in the general election
is in addition to the $21.8 million in Federal funds.
The PFC indicates that it soon will have raised funds
equal to or in excess of the primary ceiling. Accord-
ingly, the PFC suggests that you not now make further
contributions to the PFC, even though you had once
thought of doing SO to make up for certain travel
expenses of Jack, Susan, and Julius Riekstins during
the primary period which were paid or are payable by
PFC. After the convention, you can assist your cam-
paign efforts in the general election by personally
covering travel expenditures by members of your family
or friends, and such expenditures would be properly in
addition to those possible from the $21.8 million in
Federal funds.
Therefore, I recommend no further contributions by
you at this time to the PFC.
Approved
Disapproved
FORD CIBRARY
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
August 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM
Rev
FROM: Robert P. Visser, General Counsel
T. Timothy Ryan, Assistant General Counsel
RE: Expenditures by State and Local Republican Parties
Which are Exempt from PFC Expenditure Limitation
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has recently
issued its Opinion with regard to expenditures by state,
county, city or congressional district Republican parties
which may benefit the President's campaign but are not
counted against the President Ford Committee expenditure
limitation. This Opinion directed to the Carter-Mondale
Campaign Committee, attached hereto, contains the following
important information:
1. SLATE CARD EXEMPTION -- The payment for the
distribution, display or mailing or other distribution of
printed "slate cards", sample ballots, palm cards or other
printed listings is not considered a contribution or expen-
diture on behalf of the candidates listed. Accordingly,
"slate cards" will not count against the President's expendi-
ture limitation.
"Slate cards" included in this exemption are limited to
information such as the listing of the names of the candidates,
the current office or position held by the candidate, the office
sought, the party affiliation, and information about voting,
such as the time and place of election or the method which may
be used to vote a straight party ticket on November 2nd. Such
"slate cards" must refer to at least three candidates for
public office (federal, state or local) and may be distributed
by the local party as many times as they deem necessary.
Included in this "slate card" exemption are outdoor signs
clearly designating a party headquarters and noting the candi-
dates which that party supports. For example, the FEC has
decided that local party headquarters may have signs. designating
Ford/Dole or any other candidates they may desire. Expenses for
such signs do not count against the PFC ceiling.
There is no requirement under the Federal election campaign
laws to report expenditures by committees for "slate cards". If,
FORD
BERALD
LIBRARY
The President Ford Committee, Rogers C. B. Morton, Chairman, Robert Mosbacher, National Finance Chairman, Robert a Moot, Treasurer. A copy of our
Report is filed with the Federal Election Commission and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C. 20463.
- 2 -
however, the payments are made from a committee which is
presently reporting to the Federal Election Commission,
then the payments must be reported as disbursements by the
reporting committee but are not allocated to any of the
candidates.
2. GENERAL PARTY EXPENDITURES -- Included as general
party expenditures are the costs for rent for headquarters,
salaries and expenses for field and headquarters staff, over-
head costs, general administrative costs, and other day-to-day
costs of running the party headquarters for educational cam-
paign seminars for training campaign workers.
For example, under the general party expenditure provi-
sions, a county headquarters may employ a headquarters and
field staff to work for all Republican candidates, including
the President, in that county. The payment of overhead costs,
general administrative costs, salaries and expenses for these
persons are not allocated to the individual candidates. If,
however, activities are undertaken on behalf of a clearly
identified candidate, such as running an office solely for one
candidate on the ticket, the cost of running that office must
be attributed to the candidate. Thus, if the county office is
run for more than one candidate and personnel are involved in
electing more than one candidate, none of the expenses for that
headquarters or related expenses are counted against the candi-
dates" limitation. Although the general operating expenses are
not allocated among particular candidates, party committees who
report to the Federal Election Commission must allocate these
expenses on a reasonable basis between their federal and non-
federal committees. Reasonable allocation plans are set forth
in the attached memorandum.
3. REGISTRATION AND GET-OUT-THE-VOTE DRIVES -- As a
general rule, costs for registration or get-out-the-vote drives
of a Republican party committee are not attributed to individual
candidates unless the drives are made on behalf of particular
candidates. Since most get-out-the-vote drives are made on behalf
of particular candidates, the costs of the drives must be divided
among the candidates supported and will be considered an expendi-
ture on behalf of those candidates. For example, if a voter
registration drive is conducted on behalf of the President, the
local Senatorial candidate, congressional candidate and two state
party candidates, one-fifth of the cost of the voter registration
drive is allocated to each one of those candidates. However, of
special significance is the fact that funds for federal candidates
must be used to pay for the drive allocated to the federal candi-
dates and funds from the state fund will be used for the state
candidates. Thus, in states where corporate contributions are
permitted for state candidates, using the above example, two-fifths
of the cost of the voter registration drive may be paid from funds
derived from corporations or labor unions.
- 3 -
STATE OR LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE --
Each political party committee of a state, county,
city or congressional district may make expenditures up to
$1,000 which further the general election campaign. These
committees must be part of the official party structure. Each
separate committee has a $1,000 limitation. Committees may not
pool their money for media buys; however, committees may pool
their money for mass buys, for example, for buttons or bumper
stickers. If the money is combined for this purpose, then each
committee must receive a portion of material equal to the
amount purchased with its contribution or money.
Of special significance is the fact that the $1,000
contribution expended by each of these committees does not
county against the President's expenditure limitation nor is it
reportable to the Federal Election Commission. If, however,
the payments are made from a committee which is presently reporting
to the Federal Election Commission, then the payments must be
reported as disbursements by the reporting committee but are not
allocated to any of the candidates.
5. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES -- Party committees, as
set forth above, may not make independent expenditures on behalf
of the President.
If there are any questions with regard to this memorandum
or the attached letter to the Carter-Mondale Campaign Committee,
please contact the office of the General Counsel of The President
Ford Committee at (202) 457-6424.
ELECTION
SECURITY
COMMISSIONS
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
1325 K STREET N.W.
UNITED
AMERICA
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20463
August 31, 1976
STATES
3
O/R #715
Mr. Douglas Huron
Carter-Mondale Campaign
Legal Department
Box 1976
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Dear Mr. Huron:
This letter is in response to your letter of July 30, 1976,
in which you raised a number of questions about activities of
political parties. Your letter raised questions about slate card
expenditures, general party expenditures, registration and get-out-
the-vote drives, and State or local party activities on behalf of
Presidential candidates. Each general area is addressed separately.
I. SLATE CARD EXEMPTION
(A) Type of Expenditures
The payment for the preparation, display, or mailing or other
distribution of printed slate cards, sample ballots, palm cards,
or other printed listings is not considered a contribution or
expenditure on behalf of the candidates listed. $100.4 (b) (7),
@100.7(b). The materials must refer to at least three candidates
for public office (Federal, State or local). Listings in general
political advertising, such as television, radio, newspapers,
magazines, and outdoor advertising which is accessible to the general
public, such as billboards, signs (bus, taxi and car tops), bumper
stickers, and other types of posters, which are clearly in view of the
general public are not included within this exemption. However,
outdoor signs clearly designating a party headquarters are allowed
under this exemption.
The phrase "or other printed listing" does not include the
printing of pamphlets or brochures giving background information
or the positions of the candidates on the issue. Rather the
exemption is limited to information such as the listing of the names
of the candidates, the current office or position held by the
candidate, the office sought, the party affiliation, and informa-
tion about voting, such as the time and place of election or the
FORD
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
LIBRARY
1778-1978
Mr. Douglas Huron
August 31, 1976
Page Two
method which may be used to vote a straight party ticket. The
slate card exemption is not intended as a device for party committees
to circumvent the reporting provisions and the limitations on
contributions and expenditures by undertaking extensive campaigning
on behalf of the candidates. See statement of Congressman Frenzel,
120 Cong. Record H10334 (daily ed. October 10, 1974). Rather,
the purpose of this exemption is to allow State and local parties
"to educate the general public as to the identity of the candidates
of the party. H. Conf. Rept. 1438, 93d Congress, 2d Sess., P. 65
(1974). The party expenditure provisions, $110.7, provide a
means for political parties to do overt campaigning for their party
nominees.
(B) Allocation of Costs
The costs of the materials permitted under this exemption need
not be allocated among the candidates since the exemption from the
definition of contribution and expenditure means that the cost is
not a contribution to or an expenditure on behalf of the candidates.
(c) Reporting
A party committee will not, by reason of payments for "slate
cards," become a reporting political committee under the Act. If
however, the payments are made from a Federal committee which already
has a reporting obligation under the Act, the payments must be
reported as disbursements by the reporting committee. #104.2(b).
II. GENERAL PARTY EXPENDITURE
(A) Types of Expenditures
The types of expenditures under this heading include rent for
party headquarters, party staff, overhead costs, general administra-
tive costs, other day-to-day costs of running the party headquarters
and expenditures for educational campaign seminars for training
campaign workers.
(B) Allocation of expenditures among or between candidates
The general operating expenses of running the party headquarters
need not be allocated to individual candidates. @106.1(c). If
however, activities are undertaken on behalf of a clearly identified
candidate, such as running an office solely for one of the candidates
on the ticket, the cost of running that office must be attributed to
that candidate both for reporting and limitation purposes.
Mr. Douglas Huron
August 31, 1976
Page Three
(C) Allocation of General Operating Costs between State and
Federal Purposes
Although the general operating expenses of the party head-
quarters and activities need not be allocated among particular
candidates, party committees which have established Federal
campaign committees pursuant to $102.6 must allocate the administra-
tive expenses on a reasonable basis between their Federal and non-
Federal committees. Reasonable allocation plans include, but are
not limited to, the number of ballot positions for Federal office
and the number of ballot positions for comparable State offices or
the amount of funds expended for Federal election purposes in
proportion to the amount of funds spent for non-Federal election
purposes. That portion of administrative expenses attributable to
Federal elections must come from money contributed in accord with
@102.6(b). - that is, the money contributed for such purposes is
subject to the limitations on contributions to the party committee
under the Act and the prohibitions on contributions such as
contributions from corporations and labor organizations.
If the political committee has not created a separate Federal
campaign committee but is itself a "political committee" under the
Act, all expenditures for operating expenses would be reportable.
If the party committee has a separate Federal campaign committee,
the reporting Federal committee need only report those expenditures
generally allocable to Federal election purposes.
III. REGISTRATION AND GET-OUT-THE-VOTE DRIVES
As a general rule, costs for registration or get-out-the-vote
drives of party committees need not be attributed to individual
candidates unless the drives are made on behalf of particular
candidates. 8106.1(c)(2). If the drive is made on behalf of a
particular candidate or candidates, then the cost of the drive must
be divided among the particular candidate or candidates supported
and will be considered either a contribution to or an expenditure
on behalf of those particular candidates.
The drive will be considered to be made on behalf of a particular
candidate or candidates if, for example, the purpose of the drive
and the printed material used for the drive suggests that the voter,
"Vote for Smith," or "Vote for Smith and Jones."
A party may identify all or a portion of its candidates by
using the slate card exemption and the registration and get-out-the-
vote drive in conjunction. For example, if the printed material
Mr. Douglas Huron
August 31, 1976
Page Four
distributed during the drive is exempted from allocation require-
ments because of the slate card exemption, the use of such literature
will not make the costs of the drive allocable.
Again, although a registration or get-out-the-vote drive may
not be allocable among or between candidates, party committees
which have established Federal campaign committees may consider a
portion of the expenditures made for the purpose of influencing a
Federal election and a portion made for the purpose of influencing
State election. The party committee may divide the costs on a
reasonable basis. A reasonable apportionment formula to use is the
number of ballot positions for Federal office and the number of
ballot positions for comparable State offices on the ballot in the
next election.
IV. STATE OR LOCAL PARTY ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
Each political party committee of a State, county, city, or
congressional district may make expenditures not to exceed $1,000
which further the general election campaign of the party's nominee
or nominees, including the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
nominees. These committees must be part of the official party
structure. There is one limitation at each level of the party -
i.e., State, county city or congressional district. Multiple
party committees occupying the same level (i.e., two district-level
committees in the same Congressional district) would be entitled
to only one limit, even if the committees are independent. The
expenditure right is not applicable to party committees which are
established just for the purpose of making such expenditures.
There is no qualification on the type of expenditure that
may be made under this provision. Radio or newspaper ads or
billboards - expenditures which would not come within the "slate
card" exemption - may be made.
There is no minimum number of candidates that have to be named
in such expenditures, except the Presidential nominee must be named.
Any materials purchased under this exemption, may, of course, list
all or a limited group of the party's nominees. If for example, a
bumper sticker or local newspaper ad contained the name of the
Presidential candidate, a Senatorial candidate, and a House candidate,
the total cost of the bumper stickers or ads could not exceed $1,000.
The party committee need not attribute the cost among the three
Mr. Douglas Huron
August 3I, 1976
Page Five
Federal candidates since the $1,000 expenditure limitation is over
and above any other limitations which the party has with respect to
contributions to or expenditures on behalf of Congressional
candidates.
The expenditures under this limitation apply separately to each
party committee within the official party structure. Party
committees may consult with each committee or the nominees concerning
their expenditure. The committees may not, however, "pool" this
expenditure limitation as, for example, by making asingle media
buy of $10,000. This is in contrast to the limitations in 8110.7(b)(2)
which, as a general rule, apply to all of the party committees in
the State.
Although the $1,000 expenditure in $110.7 (b) (5) is not
considered a contribution or expenditure for the purpose of limitations,
there is not a corresponding exemption to the definition of
contribution or expenditure in the disclosure definitions. Accordingly,
receipts and payments for the purpose of the $1,000 expenditure
count toward the threshold registration and reporting requirements.
2 U.S.C. 88433, 434.
Party committees may not make independent expenditures on
behalf of the party nominees. $110.7 (a) (5) and (b) (4).
This response is for informational purposes only and should
not be regarded as an Advisory Opinion. 2 U.S.C. 0437f. It may
however, be regarded as an informal expression of the Commission's
views as to how the proposed regulations would apply to the various
situations described in your letter. The proposed regulations were
submitted to the Congress on August 3, 1976 and may be prescribed
by the Commission in final form after expiration of 30 legislative
days without disapproval by either the House or the Senate.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Vernon W. Thomson
Chairman for the
Federal Election Commission
September 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
JACK Jan
I have been asked by Stan Parris as a member
of the Steering Committee for the Ford campaign in
the State of Virginia.
This is something I would like to do, but I thought
I better touch base with you to get a clearance
beforehand.
Advice please?
CC: Stan Parris
Called hum 9/27
q told him "O.K"
P.
1040 I
1828 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
People
for
Ford
October 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Elly Peterson/Judy McLennan Volunteer Desk
RE:
Kathy Dearborn
After a great deal of trouble trying to
reach Kathy due to her line being busy
or not answering, I talked with her
today. I gave her the names, addresses
and phone numbers of the People for Ford
Chairman and the President Ford Committee
Chairman in Illinois. I have also sent
her resume to the People for Ford Chairman
with an attached note. Thank you for
forwarding her name to me.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
The President Ford Committee, James A. Baker, III, Chairman, Royston C. Hughes, Treasurer.
1828 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-640
People
for
Ford
October 2, 1976
Mary Alice Erickson
6707 North Greenmont
Peoria, Illinois
Dear Mary Alice:
Please find enclosed the resume of Kathy Dearborn.
She is a personal friend of Mr. Phillip Buchen,
Counsel to the President, and she is most anxious
to help. I'm sure her talents and enthusiasm will
be to your benefit.
I spoke with Kathy today and gave her your name and
address, so I'm sure you will be hearing from her.
Sincerely,
Judy McLennan
National Volunteer Chairman
People for Ford
CC: Phil Buchen
GENERAL 1. FORD
The President Ford Committee. James A Baker. III. Chairman, Rovsion C. Hughes. Treasurer
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
October 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jim Baker
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Bob Visser
RSV
RE:
Department of Justice Investigation re
Delegates
This is to advise you that Tom Henderson,
Chief, Public Integrity Section of the Department of
Justice, advised me by telephone today that the
Department of Justice has now officially closed its
files on this matter. Mr. Henderson further stated
that as soon as a letter has been cleared through
the "chain of command" in the Department of Justice
we would receive a formal letter confirming this
advice.
RPV/nh
CC:
Dick Cheney
TORD is and LIDRARY
&
FOOD
STEWS
The President Ford Committee, James A. Baker III, Chairman, Royston C. Hughes, Treasurer.
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
November 15, 1976
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Phil Buchen
Ed Schmults
FROM:
Bob Visser
Rev
General Counsel
RE:
Department of Justice Investigation
Attached is a copy of the letter from
the Department of Justice regarding the above
matter for your information and files. This letter
advises the President Ford Committee that the
Department of Justice has officially closed its
files on this investigation.
/nh
CC:
Dick Cheney
Rogers Morton
Jim Baker
a. FORD LIBRARY
The President Ford Committee, James A. Baker III, Chairman, Royston C. Hughes, Treasurer.
OF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
Address Reply to the
Division Indicated
and Refer to Initials and Number
RLT: THH: RAH:ph
186-16-75
Robert P. Visser
General Counsel
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Mr. Visser:
As you know, a complaint was made to the Attorney General
alleging that the use of the White House and its facilities for
the purpose of entertaining prospective delegates to the
Republican National Convention constituted possible violations
of various election and political activities offenses set forth
in Title 18 of the United States Code.
We have reviewed the facts set forth in this complaint
carefully in the context of various election law statutes, and
have concluded that violations are not indicated.
A close reading of the information contained in this
complaint did indicate what we believe was a remote poss-
ibility that the White House appropriation may have been im-
properly used to defray the costs of the items and activities
mentioned in the complaint. We have conducted what we believe
has been a thorough investigation of this possibility, and have
determined to our satisfaction that no White House funds were
used in connection with the delegate visits last summer. These
costs were born either by the President Ford Committee, or in
the case of travel, by the delegates themselves.
For the reasons set forth above, we are closing this matter
in the Criminal Division.
Sincerely,
RICHARD L. THORNBURGH
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
By
MA
THOMAS H. HENDERSON, JR
Chief, Public Integrity Section
REVOLUTION
1776-1976
OF
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Pho
/
JUSTITIA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
Address Reply to the
Division Indicated
and Refer to Initials and Number
RLT: THH: RAH:ph
186-16-75
Robert P. visser
General Counsel
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
Dear Mr. Visser:
As you know, a complaint was made to the Attorney General
alleging that the use of the White House and its facilities for
the purpose of entertaining prospective delegates to the
Republican National Convention constituted possible violations
of various election and political activities offenses set forth
in Title 18 of the United States Code.
We have reviewed the facts set forth in this complaint
carefully in the context of various election law statutes, and
have concluded that violations are not indicated.
A close reading of the information contained in this
complaint did indicate what we believe was a remote poss-
ibility that the White House appropriation may have been im-
properly used to defray the costs of the items and activities
mentioned in the complaint. We have conducted what we believe
has been a thorough investigation of this possibility, and have
determined to our satisfaction that no White House funds were
used in connection with the delegate visits last summer. These
costs were born either by the President Ford Committee, or in
the case of travel, by the delegates themselves.
For the reasons set forth above, we are closing this matter
in the Criminal Division.
Sincerely,
FORD
RICHARD L. THORNBURGH
SERALE
Assistant Attorney General
LIBRAIRY
Criminal Division
By
THOMAS H. HENDERSON, JR.
Chief, Public Integrity Section
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
Phil
2
tabled I called
Visan d Pr and
Pt would complex a
& will all
him. -
Hinds discuss
the we with $
aND V I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
niel Weathers
(616)459-1116
Live
D telen of
Uu len 6
mil
work lin't
D the W with
54.8
President Ford Committee
1828 L STREET, N.W., SUITE 250, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6400
PRi
November 30, 1976
MEMORANDUM
X
TO:
Ed Schmults
FROM:
Tim Ryan TR
RE:
Grand Rapids Legal Services
Attached hereto are copies of the Miller,
Johnson, Snell and Cummiskey bills totaling $7,020.40
and accompanying letters from Bob Eleveled. We would
appreciate your assistance in determining if the
President or any member of his staff requested these
services or, in the event such had not been requested,
whether the PFC should pay for the legal services.
Finally, in order to ensure that these expenses would
fall within the requirements of the Federal Election
Campaign Laws, that is, as qualified campaign expenses,
we have requested a detailed bill from the Miller,
Johnson firm.
-
RNC-
TTR/nh
Attachments
RNC
2
fors
3
OERALO R. FORD LIBRARY
PFC Westers tis time $3,500 her
The President Ford Committee, James A. Baker III, Chairman, Royston C. Hughes, Treasurer.
19 November 1976
Mr. Tom Moran, Comptroller
President Ford Committee
1828 L Street NW Suite 708
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Tom:
Attached you will find original letters and bills for legal
services rendered to the Kent County Republican Committee
during the federal investigation of the President's campaign
finances dating back to the days when he was a member of
Congress.
Mr. Robert Eleveld and Mr. Steve Bransdorfer are your contact
people for additional information. Mr. Eleveld is the Fifth
District (Michigan) GOP Chairman. The billings were sent to
the Kent County GOP, by them to Mr. Eleveld, by him to me, etc.
Your payment of these has been requested by both Kent County
and the Fifth District GOP leadership. We concur.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Rule Simonson
Director
PFC, Michigan
in
EMERICA
FORD
LAW OFFICES OF
LAURENT K. VARNUM
VARNUM, RIDDERING, WIERENGO & CHRISTENSON
CARL J. RIDDERING
OF COUNSEL
666 OLD KENT BUILDING
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49502
JOHN L. WIERENGO, JR.
DIRK HOFFIUS
CLIFFORD C. CHRISTENSON
J. TERRY MORAN
F. WILLIAM HUTCHINSON
THOMAS J. HEIDEN
TELEPHONE 616 . 459-4186
JAMES N. DEBOER. JR.
THOMAS J. MULDER
GORDON B. BOOZER
THOMAS J. BARNES
EUGENE ALKEMA
DENNIS C. KOLENDA
November 4, 1976
PETER ARMSTRONG
JEFFREY L. SCHAD
ROBERT J. ELEVELD
STEPHEN R. SAWYER
CARL E. VER BEEK
THOMAS G. DEMLING
JON F. DEWITT
JAMES A. SCHRIEMER
DONALD L. JOHNSON
JOHN W. PESTLE
DANIEL C. MOLHOEK
FRANK G. DUNTEN
GARY P. SKINNER
CARL R. FLEETWOOD
Mr. Peter Fletcher
Chairman
Michigan President Ford Committee
223 North Walnut
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Dear Peter:
I am enclosing herewith our statement for legal services
rendered with regard to the investigation of the Kent County
Republican Committee and Kent County Republican Finance Committee
concerning President Ford's finances. The handling of this
investigation clearly benefited President Ford's campaign,
therefore, I think it would be a legitimate campaign expense.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible with
regard to this expense.
Yours very truly
Robert J. Eleveld
RJE:pm
Enclosure
FORD
LIBRARY
MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY
465 OLD KENT BUILDING
GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 49502
616-459-8311
KENT COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMM.
DATE OCT. 14, 1976
666 OLD KENT BLDG.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49502
I.D. NO. 38-1603110
Attn: Mr. Robert Eleveld
FOR SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1976
IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR BUSINESS MATTERS
$ 6,995.00
....
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
REPRODUCTIONS
$ 21.00
TELEPHONE EXPENSE
4.40
25.40
AMOUNT DUE
$ 7,020.40
Sleve Bransdarfer.
LAW OFFICES OF
LAURENT K. VARNUM
VARNUM, RIDDERING, WIERENGO & CHRISTENSON
CARL J. RIDDERING
OF COUNSEL
666 OLD KENT BUILDING
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49503
JOHN L. WIERENGO, JR.
THOMAS J. BARNES
CLIFFORD C. CHRISTENSON
DENNIS C.KOLENDA
TELEPHONE 616 459-4186
F. WILLIAM HUTCHINSON
JEFFREY L. SCHAD
JAMES N. DEBOER, JR.
STEPHEN R. SAWYER
GORDON B. BOOZER
THOMAS G. DEMLING
EUGENE ALKEMA
JAMES A. SCHRIEMER
PETER ARMSTRONG
JOHN W. PESTLE
November 18, 1976
ROBERT J. ELEVELD
FRANK G. DUNTEN
CARL E. VER BEEK
ROBERT A. PARKER
JON F. DEWITT
TERRANCE R. BACON
DONALD L. JOHNSON
DANIEL C. MOLHOE
GARY P. SKINNER
CARL R. FLEETWOOD
DIRK HOFFIUS
J. TERRY MORAN
THOMAS J. HEIDEN
THOMAS J. MULDER
Mr. Rick Simonson
Michigan President Ford Committee
223 North Walnut
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Dear Rick:
In accordance with our telephone conversation, I am enclosing
herewith an updated and what I consider to be final billing for
legal services with regard to the investigation here in Grand Rapids.
This is the amount we are requesting from the President Ford Com-
mittee. If I can provide you with anything further, please let
me know.
Yours very truly,
VARNUM, RIDDERING, WIERENCO & CHRISTENSON
Robert J Fleveld
RJE:kh
Enclosure
CC: Steve Bransdorfer
Telly
LIBRARY
MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY
465 OLD KENT BUILDING
GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 49502
616-459-8311
KENT COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMM.
DATE NOV. 15, 1976
666 OLD KENT BLDG.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49502
I.D. NO. 38-1603110
FOR SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH OCTOBER 1976
IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR BUSINESS MATTERS
$ 2,665.00
....
CASH DISBURSEMENTS
.....
REPRODUCTIONS
$ 2.30
TELEPHONE EXPENSE
29.61
31.91
$ 2,696.91
....
PRIOR UNPAID BILLS
.....
BILL ISSUED ON OCT. 14, 1976 FOR
7,020.40
AMOUNT DUE
$ 9,717.31
LA7 PM
ALWAYS
22 NOV
ZIRICOD
President Ford Committee, Michigan
1976
223 N. Walnut
LIBE Y TREE LIBERTY TREE
Lansing, Michigan 48933
USA 13c
Mr. Tom Moran
PRESIDENT FORD COMMITTEE
1828 L Street NW Suite
708
709
Washington, D.C. 20036
THE WHITE HOUSE
Campain
WASHINGTON
January 11, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.
The attached bill from the University of Michigan is
for the costs of copying and delivery of materials at
the University of Michigan that were needed in connection
with the campaign.
Please forward it to the President Ford Committee for
direct payment to the University of Michigan, the Bentley
Historical Library.
Attachment
Veho VERSIT
The University of Michigan
Bentley Historical Library
seek to
"lichigan Historical Collections
ERT M. WARNER, Director
1 1
INVOICE FOR XEROX SERVICES
October 4, 1976
The Hon. Gerald R. Ford
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20501
Attention: The Hon. Philip Buchen
159 pages, regular size, 10¢ each
15.90
Round trip to Metro airport 46 Mi. at 14¢
7.84
Airline charges on small package
25.00
First class postage
2.78
$51.52
Total
Kent Cty.
1150 BEAL AVENUE, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105, TELEPHONE (313) 764-3482