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
28469424
label
Rockefeller, Nelson - General (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
28469424
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Rockefeller, Nelson - General (2)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Vice-Presidents
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
28469424
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
80af9a59ee335c09
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 60, folder "Rockefeller, Nelson - General (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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box 56 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Vice President
role
January 13, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Peter Wallison
FROM:
Phil Buchen
Here is the material from Bill Casselman's
files when he was Counsel to Vice President
Ford.
It may be useful to you.
Attachment
PWBuchen:ed
SERIAL 1. FORD DIBRARY
Department of Justice
Mashington, B.C. 20530
JUL 29 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. CASSELMAN, II
Legal Counsel to the Vice-President
Re: The employment of advancemen by the Vice-President
This is in response to your memorandum dated July 15,
1974, in which you ask for our advice on four questions re-
lating to the utilization as volunteers of advancemen from
the private sector for occasional duty at political and
official events at which the Vice President makes an
appearance. These persons are not officially employed by
the Office of the Vice President, nor do they receive salary
or per diem from public funds. Their expenses are reimbursed
by the Republican National Committee.
The four questions you pose are:
1. Are these persons considered to be "special
government employees" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
202 (a) and 3 CFR 100.735-2(d), and are they required
by 3 CFR 100.735-25 to submit a statement of employment
and financial interests?
2. While assisting in the preparation of a political
appearance by the Vice President on behalf of a candidate
for an elective Federal office, and to the extent the
advanceman while on leave status continues to receive health
insurance and similar benefits from his employer, are
these contributions to a Federal election campaign within
the meaning of 2 U.S.C. 431(e)?
3. If so, would the provision of such benefits
by a corporate employer constitute corporate campaign
contributions which are proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 610?
4. In the case of non-corporate employees could
this amount to a contribution that is otherwise proscribed
by 18 U.S.C. 611?
When the Vice President's appearances relate solely to
political, as distinguished from official, matters, we find
no legal barrier to the utilization of advancemen on leave
from the private sector. In our view, the retention of
employee benefits by the advancemen, while they are on annual
leave or leave without pay and performing political functions,
does not constitute a prohibited campaign contribution.
On the other hand, when the Vice President travels in his
official capacity, the advance handling of arrangements
becomes a governmental function and persons who perform
these duties could be viewed as government employees,
whether or not they receive compensation. Accordingly, it
would be advisable to treat advancemen on official trips as
special government employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202,
or utilize full-time government employees for this work. Our
reasons for reaching these conclusions follow.
A. Political Activities
1. The advancemen employed on political trips are not special
government employees within the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 202(a).
Section 202 (a) of Title 18 defines a special Government
employee (SGE) for the purpose of succeeding Sections 203,
205, 207, 208 and 209 as
"an officer or employee of the executive or legislative
branch
who is
employed to perform, with
or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred
and thirty days during any period of three hundred and
sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties on a
full-time or intermittent basis
"
18 U.S.C.
§ 202(a).
In the context in which the definition appears, it is clear
that the "temporary duties" referred to are duties of a
governmental nature.
An advanceman for purely political trips of the Vice
President is performing political, not governmental, duties.
We assume the duties he would undertake are similar to those
which have been performed in the past by State or local
Republican committeemen or other party functionaries. The
fact that the Republican National Committee, rather than the
Government, underwrites expenses underscores the political
nature of the duties performed.
Since the duties involved are not governmental, it seems
clear that the person voluntarily undertaking those duties
is not in any sense a government employee. The fact that the
Vice-President benefits from the services of these advancemen
does not alter this conclusion since he benefits in his
political, not his official, capacity. Neither 18 U.S.C.
202(a) nor 3 CFR 100.732-2(d), which implements the statute,
is applicable here.
2
2. Benefits received by an advanceman from an employer
while on annual leave or leave without pay are not
generally contributions to a Federal election campaign
as defined by 2 U.S.C. § 431(e).
Of the several provisions of 2 U.S.C. § 431 (e) defining
"contribution", the two which might be applicable here are:
"(1) a gift or anything of value, made for
the purpose of influencing the nomination for
election, or election of any person to Federal
office
"
2 U.S.C. § 431(e) (1).
*
"(4) the payment by any person other than a candidate
or political committee, of compensation for the personal
services of another person which are rendered to such
candidate or committee without charge for any such
purpose. " 2 U.S.C. § 431 (e) (4).
However, 2 U.S.C. 431 (e) (5) specifically excludes from the
meaning of "contribution" "services provided without compen-
sation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their
time on behalf of a candidate or political committee."
The statute thus distinguishes between the services of
individual volunteers and the payment of the salary of an
employee of a candidate or party. The former is not viewed
as a contribution; the latter is. If corporations or other
employers were furnishing the services of advancemen on the
employer's time, this would constitute a contribution under
2 U.S.C. 431(e). As explained in your memorandum, however,
the services being rendered are performed by individuals
volunteering their own time - either annual leave or leave
without pay - and thus fall within the exception provided
in 2 U.S.C. 431(e) (5).
The retention of benefits incidental to employment,
such as group insurance or pension rights, would not alter
the situation provided the individuals serving as advancemen
receive no special treatment. If all employees of the
same employer continue their benefit coverage while on
vacation, other leave status, or leave without pay, then
no political contribution is involved in treating the advance-
men in the same manner. If, on the other hand, only those
employees who take leave to perform political work are
favored with such benefits, then the political activity
incentive offered by the employer might be viewed as a con-
tribution.
is
FORD
CLASS
en
3
3. The provision of such benefits by a corporate employer
would not amount to a corporate campaign contribution
proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 610.
Corporate contributions or expenditures in connection
with any general or primary election in which Federal offices
are at stake are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 610.
The definition of "contribution" in 18 U.S.C. 591 (e),
which applies to 18 U.S.C. 610, is identical to the
definition in 2 U.S.C. 431(e) discussed above. While 18 U.S.C.
610 further defines "contribution" by reference to direct or
indirect gifts of money or services as well as other items,
we find nothing in the statute or its legislative history
that suggests an intent to include as a contribution" the
volunteer services of individuals. Indeed, 18 U.S.C. 591 (e) (5)
expressly. excludes such services from the definition of
"contribution."
As the preceding discussion in Part A. 2. points out,
volunteer service by an employee on leave who is given no
special benefits because of his political activity is not
a contribution by the employer. Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. 610
does not bar volunteer services for political activities by
corporate employees when the employees are on leave.
4. With respect to non-corporate employees, such benefits
would not be contributions proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 611.
Section 611 of Title 18 deals with political contributions
by persons, including individuals, partnerships, associations,
or "any other
group of persons, who are either negotiating
for or have contracted to render services, furnish supplies
or equipment, or sell land or buildings to the Government.
Since "contribution" for the purposes of Section 611 is also
defined by Section 591 (e), volunteer services are excluded
and the services of advancemen would not be prohibited.
B. Official Activities
Persons serving as advancemen for official trips may
be considered special government employees" under
18 U.S.C. 202(a).
Your memorandum suggests that the services of volunteer
advancemen may also be utilized when the Vice-President is
travelling in his official capacity. In these circumstances,
the advancemen could be considered special government employees
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 202 (a) and 3 CFR 100.735-25.
As indicated in Part A.1., the test of whether an indi-
vidual is a special government employee is whether he is
performing governmental duties. Compensation is irrelevant
4
since the statute refers to employment "with or without
compensation.' In our view making arrangements for the
official travel of a government officer and facilitating that
travel is a governmental function. If such work is being
done by persons who are not in the full-time employ of the
Federal Government, those persons should be viewed as special
government employees and should comply with the applicable
laws.
In this connection, 18 U.S.C. 209 does not prohibit the
payment from other sources of the compensation of a special
government employee. However, we question the propriety of
the Republican National Committee paying the travel expenses
of special government employees performing governmental,
as distinguished from political, duties. If the advancemen are
requested by the Vice President to perform these duties in
connection with official trips, then they should travel under
government travel authorization and be reimbursed from govern-
ment funds.
Poliet M. Dixon, &
Robert G. Dixon, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
FORD
3-3-70
For the purpose of applying the restrictions of the Hatch Act to advance-
men, Presidential trips can be placed in three categories. These are:
1. Purely official and related solely to the President's
official duties as Chief Executive.
2.
Purely political where the trip on its face can clearly
be said to be a political-party mission by the President
in his capacity as head of his political party.
3. Mixed trips, where the President performs duties incident
to category 1 and 2 above.
No comments are in order for category 1, as it is assumed that no
political business will be conducted.
As to category 2, advancemen subject to the Hatch Act should not
be used under any circumstances.
In category 3, all duties incident to the President's official
duties as Chief Executive are permissible. With respect to the
President's activities incident to the political-party mission, i.e.,
fund-raising and meetings with local party leaders, a distinction can
be made between those advanceman duties that pertain to a ministerial
function incident to the safety, comfort, and convenience of the
President, and those duties that take on a character of political
management and campaigning that can be reasonably construed to further
the aims and success of a political party or candidate.
The following activities can be said to be incident to the safety,
comfort, and convenience of the President, and therefore permissible:
2
--
Inspect sites for political rallys for the purpose of
determining which would be most accessible to Presidential
helicopters, etc.
-- Determine the suitability of a designated airport for
Presidential arrival.
- Determine the best parking places for airplanes, helicopters
and motorcades.
- Check local traffic rush hours to be avoided.
-
Arranging for hotel accommodations for the President and
his party.
--
Checking out every microphone and chair that the President
will use to insure that they are the right height.
- Ascertaining the location of available restrooms.
-
Coordinating teams of experts-secret service, communications,
military, press-to assist with the facts in any situation.
- Consideration of logistical problems associated with streets
and building entrances-all access routes.
--
Checking on all sound equipment.
- Ascertaining the availability of lighting need in buildings-
on airstrips.
-- Screening crowds for "type." Stationing marshals throughout
crowd with an eye for troublemakers.
- Ascertaining the safety and desirable "color" involved in all
travel routes.
3
--
Arranging for telephone switchboard service and making
telephone calls incident to the normal housekeeping chores
not related to any political party duties or political
fund raising events. This would include calls for the
purpose of securing accommodations for the President and
his party, making travel arrangements, arranging for the
press and any official meetings unconnected with political
party business, and other similar day-to-day business calls
incident to the official duties of the President as Chief
Executive.
The following activities take on a character of political management and
campaigning and are not permissible:
-- Meetings or discussions with the candidate's campaign manager
in order to assess the general political climate for the
purpose of planning party campaign strategy, tactics, or
organization.
-- Organizing or conducting a political meeting in support of
a political party by inviting individuals or candidates to
attend.
--
Inviting persons by mail or phone to a political meeting
held for the purpose of organizing a political club or unit
and discussing possible candidates for political office.
--- Making telephone calls and performing other duties that are
in connection with any political fund-raising functions
FORE
4
related to Presidential visits. For example, placing calls
for the purpose of insuring a good turn-out, inviting and
soliciting persons to attend, and the like would be
prohibited since they are directly related and incident
to the fund-raising.
- Preparing or arranging for seating at a head table at a
political fund-raising affair.
- Acting as master of ceremonies or introducing speakers at
a political fund-raising affair.
- Making political speeches at a political fund-raising dinner,
gala, rally, or other affair held for the purpose of raising
campaign funds
- Soliciting ads or contributions for a political party campaign
book, program, or brochure, and performing any other duties
connected with the printing, layout, or preparation of such
materials.
-- Supervising, directing, or participating in the mailing of
any political campaign literature. This would include the
typing or preparation of mailing lists, preparation of envelopes
for mailings, delivery to the post office and/or any other
means of delivery.
-- Preparing or supervising the preparation of acknowledgment or
"thank you" letters in connection with a political fund-raising
affair.
SIZE
5
- Enlisting the support of local volunteers for a campaign
through local political contacts.
-- Aiding and advising a candidate in the management of his
campaign and soliciting support for the candidate either
directly or indirectly through introducing him at social
gatherings held to further his candidacy or campaign.
-- Organizing or assembling people to handle decorations,
posters, handbills, publicity, entertainment, transportation,
and "Candidate Girls," for fund-raising or campaign functions
held in behalf of the candidate or the party.
- Organizing a rally for the support of the candidate or the
party.
Check
FEB 2 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR HONORABLE JOHN W. DEAN III
Counsel to the President
Re: Proposed advance corps for the President
"
This is in response to your telephone request for our
3
views as to the legal implications involved in establishing
a system of "advance men" for the President whose function
would be, if we comprehend it correctly, to make a variety
of support arrangements for the President in connection with
his trips throughout the country to mobilize public opinion
for his legislative program. As we understand the proposed
system it would include: persons in the private sector who
remain on private payrolls but receive briefings from White
House staff and travel expenses from the Republican National
Committee; persons on the federal payroll whose travel might
be paid for by the Republican National Committee; and combi-
nations of both groups. Without specific details as to the
exact operations of these advance men, we feel that we can
venture only general observations.
1. We are not aware of any federal statutory provisions
which would prohibit using persons in the private sector in the
manner contemplated so long as no appropriated funds are in-
volved. Apparently political committeemen and others have
performed such functions in the past with no questions being
raised. The mere fact that White House staff members would
brief these advance men does not, in our opinion, create legal
obstacles. However, no appropriated funds should be used to
pay any expenses of these advance men. /
/ We do not address ourselves to the question of whether under
general corporate law it would be permissible for 2 corporation
to use its funds to pay the expenses of advance men who are cor-
porate employees. This is a matter for the corporations which
might be involved. Also to the extent that the activities of
such advance men could properly be considered as being in con-
nection with a Presidential election a question might arise
under 18 U.S.C. 610 prohibiting corporations and labor organi-
zations from making expenditures for such an election.
2. The use of federal personnel as advance men in-
volves quite different considerations. The first is the
Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 7324) which prohibits all federal per-
sonnel from using their official position to influence or
interfere with an election and prohibits all except certain
limited categories (notably those appointed with the advice
and consent of the Senate and those paid from appropriations
for the office of the President) from engaging in political
campaigns. The second is the criminal provision (18 U.S.C.
1913) which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for lobby-
ing and the specific appropriation restrictions which reinforce
it, The applicability of either of these statutes to the use
of federal personnel as advance men will depend largely upon
the circumstances in which they operate.
The prohibition in the Hatch Act against improper use of
office to influence elections applies to all federal personnel
including Cabinet officers. However, it is aimed at such things
as coercive tactics, e.g., withholding welfare payments to in-
fluence a vote, and is unlikely to be involved in the advance
system contemplated. The prohibition on staff level personnel
engaging in political campaigns is directed at a broader class
of activity. It does not prevent federal officials from ad-
dressing citizen groups on the past accomplishments of their
agencies or explaining current proposals relating to their
agency. It does prohibit calling for the defeat of a par-
ticular Congressman who opposes an agency proposal. Between
these two poles are a wide variety of circumstances which give
greater or lesser political character to the activities of
federal officials.
The express language of the Hatch Act prohibits taking
an "active part in political management or in political cam-
paigns. These terms are not specifically defined and conse-
quently it is sometimes difficult to determine whether par-
ticular conduct falls within the prohibition. However, aside
- 2 -
SW94
from the literal application of the statute, consideration
must always be given to the question whether certain conduct
will be viewed as a violation of the intent or spirit of the
Act.
In a general sense, the President's trips could be viewed
by some as the beginnings of a Presidential campaign. If there
are too many political overtones to the trips the chances of
their being viewed in this light are increased. In our view,
payment of travel expenses for federal staff officials by a
political party would give a distinct political coloration to
their activities as advance men. If the President's trips in-
volve general communication with the public, then federal offi-
cials travelling as advance men would be performing functions
properly connected with their official duties and the travel
expenses should normally be paid for from appropriated funds.
If travel expenses are paid by a political party, then it could
be contended that the purpose of the trips is political, not of-
ficial, and that the federal officials, acting as advance men,
are taking part in "political management" or a "political cam-
paign.' For those subject to the Hatch Act, such activities
might then be viewed as a violation of the Act.
Other factors affecting the political coloration of the
advance man program would be work they are called upon to per-
form, the sources for arranging their schedule, etc. For ex-
ample, if the advance man's job is to contact and brief only
Republican precinct chairmen, the participation by a federal
staff official would be questionable. Similarly, if the advance
man's schedules and appointments are arranged exclusively by the
local Republican Committeeman, it would be questionable. If the
Presidential appearances themselves involve political speeches
or are limited to obviously partisan audiences, then the in-
volvement of a federal official as advance man might also be
questioned. As is evident, the propriety of using federal
staff personnel is largely dependent on the circumstances in
which they are used, but clear political implications should
be avoided.
- 3 -
FORD
3. The other major consideration involved in using
federal personnel, whether Cabinet level or otherwise, is the
anti-lobbying provision. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 1913 pro-
vides:
"No part of the money appropriated by any
enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of
express authorization by Congress, be used directly
or indirectly to pay for any personal service, ad-
vertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed
or written matter, or other device, intended or de-
signed to influence in any manner a Member of Con-
gress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise,
any legislation or appropriation by Congress,
whether before or after the introduction of any bill
or resolution proposing such legislation or approp-
riation, but this shall not prevent officers or em-
ployees of the United States or its departments or
agencies from communicating to Members of Congress,
through the proper official channels, requests for
legislation or appropriations which they deem neces-
sary for the efficient conduct of the public business."
The penalty for violation is removal from office and one year's
imprisonment, a fine of $500, or both,
For some years this provision has been further reinforced
by specific language in individual appropriations Acts. For
example, section 504 of the current Independent Offices Ap-
propriation Act (P.L. 91-556) provides:
"No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act, or the funds available for expenditure by any
corporation or agency included in this Act, shall be
used for publicity or propaganda purposes designed
to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress.'
- 4 -
Similar although not identical language is found in section
701 of the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation Act (P.L.
91-472).
These provisions evince a congressional recognition of
the legislative role of the Executive Branch coupled with a
concern about using federal funds to influence Congress. The
line between what is and what is not permissible is difficult
to draw, as was recognized by a House Select Committee on
lobbying activities which investigated the problem in 1950.
See H. Rept. 3138, 81st Cong., 2d sess. pp. 51-62 (1950) ;
H. Rept. 3239, 81st Cong., 2d sess. part 2--Minority Views
(1951). That investigation focused to some degree on official
speeches designed to mold public opinion behind Administration
programs but, after investigation by the GAO, found nothing
improper. The Republican minority questioned this conclusion.
This Office had occasion to review a similar question in
1961 when President Kennedy announced a series of regional con-
ferences in different parts of the country to talk "about some
of the domestic programs we have worked on and could work on in
the future. " Public Papers of the Presidents, John F. Kennedy--
1961 PP. 660, 700. It was noted that the line between informing
the public and "propaganda designed to influence legislation" is
difficult to draw. The suggestion was made that if the content
of those meetings stressed the informational aspect and scrupu-
lously avoided any idea that Members of Congress be pressured to
support legislation, the law would not be violated. / One sub-
stantial difference between those Conferences and the advance
program contemplated here, however, was that the Congress was
not then in session in 1961.
While Congress is now in session, we do not believe this
factor alone would bar the advance man system. However, it does
make it all the more important to avoid any conduct which can be
construed as soliciting pressure on Members of Congress to secure
the passage of particular legislative programs. Under no circum-
stances should federal personnel exhort or participate in the ex-
hortation of citizens to write or otherwise apply pressure on
Members of Congress.
We are attaching a copy of the 1961 memorandum (undated)
E.
5
Special
nicholas
do
There are no legal barriers to using a combined system
of both private and federal advance men. However, the re-
strictions both with respect to political activity and lobby-
ing which apply to federal personnel' apply whether they are
used alone or in conjunction with others.
If specific questions arise, in light of these general
guidelines, we will, of course, be happy to consider them
further.
William H. Rehnquist
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
Attachment
- 6 -
MdeBK:HFR:sgc:bh
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE FREDERICK C. DUTTON
Special Assistant to the President
Re: White House Regional Conferences.
This is in response to your memorandum of October 13 in-
quiring as to the legal problems, 1f any, which night be en-
countered in comection with the proposed White House conferences
to be held in various cities during the month of November.
I understand that these conferences will include as partici-
pants members of the Cabinet and other senior federal officials
whose expenses will be paid from appropriated funds, including
scae who are not exempt from any of the provisions of the Ratch
Act; that they will appear and address civic groupa, upon the
invitation of public officials to those cities who will sponsor
the conferences; that state and sunicipal officials, special
civic groups and interested citizens will be invited to attend;
and that the purpose of the conferences is "to inform citizens
of recent legislative and administrative developments end 80-
complishments, with particular emphasis upon the impact of legis-
lation upon the region in which the conference is held." y In
addition, I understand that "the views of citizens and groups
will be solicited and a report made to President John F. Kennedy
OD these views." 2/
For the purposes of this memorandum I am further assuming
that these conferences may have indirect political effect 1a
that (1) they may increase public support of the President's
program in the next Congress which may ba unifested in a vari-
ety of ways and (2) what is said at these conferences may be
used in campaign material in the 1952 elections for Members of
Congress. I as, however, also assuming that participants in the
conferences will refrain from directly soliciting public support
White House Press Helease October 11, 1961.
hite House Press Release October 11, 1961.
not C. 11/30/61 (Tanate)
FORD LIBRARY
through urging pressures upon Members of Congress with respect
to any particular legislation and will not urge the election
or defeat of any particular Senator or Member of. the House of
Representatives. These qualifications have, 23. this memorandum
indicates, considerable relevance.
There are three statutes which have potential relevance to
the conduct of these conferences. The first of these, the Hatch
Act, contains two types of prohibitions. The first sentence of
Section 9 (5 U.S.C. 1131) makes it unlawful for "any person" em-
ployed in the executive branch of the government "to use his of-
flcial authority or influence for the purpose of interfering
with an election or affecting the results thereof." The prohibi-
tion is applicable without exception to "any employee" of the 03-
ecutive branch including even Cabinet officers. Although Section
9 meraly provides for the removal of a person violating its pro-
visions, 18 U.S.C. 595 makes acts which violate the first sen-
tence of Section 9 criminal offenses. The second prohibition in
the Eatch Act is contained in the second sentence of section 9
and, with designated exceptions, prohibits employees of executive
agencies and departments from taking "any active part in political
management or in political campaigns." Generally speaking any of-
ficial appointed subject to Senatorial confirmation is exempted
from this prohibition.
The first prohibition seems to be clearly inapplicable to
participation in the conferences. Although there are no reported
cases, 10 has been administratively construed by the Civil Ser-
vice Commission to be applicable only to obvieusly improper uses
of official position, such as the use of government property for
campaign purposes, the improper influencing of subordinates to
vote for a particular party and the like. The validity of this
view 1s demonstrated by the fact that a person exempt from the
second prohibition may cngage in political management and politi-
cal compaigns without necessarily violating the first sentence.
And the first prohibition imposes no greater limitations upon of-
ficials who may not engage in political management and political
campaigns than it does upon officials who may. However, neither
could use a government car to transport voters. Finally, even if
it should be contended that the use of government funds for trans-
portation and similar expenses constituted a use of "official au-
thority or influence" the remote relationship to an "election"
would make the first prohibition inapplicable.
22 , 1
SERIAL i. FORD LIBRARY
The second sentence of section 9(a) prohibits civil ser-
vants, other than those exempted, from taking an active part in
"political management or in political campaigns." These words
are clearly related by their context to the solicitation of votes
for a candidate or party seeking office in an election; that is,
the normal and everyday meaning of the words "political manage-,
ment" end "political cammaigns." This is the view which the Civil
Service has consistently taken with respect to the Act and I see
to reason to differ with their construction. The Commission
would regard a program of appearances by civil servents mercly to
laud the efficiency of the administration in power as a violation
of 20 least the spirit of the Eatch Act. However, nothing in the
Batch Act would prohibit such an employee from appearing before a
nonpartisan group to describe, explain and promote the activities
of his agency, including its legislative program, even though the
latter may contain politically controversial items. This view 13
substantiated by the legislative history of the Act, particularly
the message of President Roosevelt when be approved it. At this
time he said:
"The same definition of fair and proper adminis-
tration of the bill applies to the right of any Govern-
ment employee, from the highest to the lowest, to give
to the public factual information relating to the con-
duct of Government affairs. To rule otherwise would
make 1F impossible for the people of the United States
to learn from those who serve the Government vital,
necessary, and interesting facts relating to the mani-
fold activities of the Federal Government."
I am satisfied that there is nothing in the proposed White
House conferences which approaches a violation of these provisions
1a either their letter or spirit. I think that partisanship would
have to be carried very far, in view of the absence of any current
election, before even the spirit of the statute would be violated.
It should, however, be unnecessary to add that the more partisan
the speeches, the setting, the invited participants, end such
factors, the more one approaches the sort of impropriety which the
Act was aimed at even if its letter is not violated.
The second two statutes present a more difficult problem.
These deal with the use of appropriated funds for "lobbying" ac-
civities by government officials. The older of the two statutes,
- 3 -
GERALD .FORD ZIBRARY
13 U.S.C. $ 1913 is a criminal statute first enacted in 1919,
which reads AS follows:
"§ 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys.
"Do part of the money appropriated by any
enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of
express authorization by Congress, be used directly
or indiractly to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter,
printed or written matter, or other device, in-
tended or designed to influence in any manner
a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote
or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by
Congress, whether before or after the introduction
of any bill or resolution proposing such legis-
lation or appropriation; 11
Since this section is almed at influencing in specified
ways a particular Member of Congress, Its violation by the
proposed conferences is unlikely. However, a similar prohibition,
without criminal panalties, has been annually enacted in the
appropriation acts since 1951 and now appears as Section 509
of the General Government Matters, Department of Commerce
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1962 (P.L. 37-125).
It provides:
"No part of any appropriation contained in
this or any other Act, or of the funds available
for expenditure by any individual, corporation,
or agency included in this or any other Act, shall
be used for publicity or propaganda purposes
designed to support or defeat legislation pending
before Congress."
A strict reading of this latter Act might preclude
spending government appropriations for the purposes of these
conferences, if their purpose can accurately be characterized
1. FORD LIBRARY
as "publicity or propaganda
designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress." I doubt that the pro-
posed activities can accurately be so described, and in any
event, I do not believe that an interpretation of the Act
extending to informational activities would be a correct one.
The legislative history in the case of both Acts, 29 well as
collon sense and past precedent, makes it moderately clear
that both Acts were aimed at specific evils related to using
federal funds to generate public pressure on the Congress
through the kind of acts set forth in Section 1913. This is
more clear in the case of Section 1913 than Section 509, but
I think acts this closely related should be similarly read
as reflecting a consistent Congressional view.
The intent of Congress was, I believe, to attempt to
distinguish "publicity or propaganda purposes" which were
directly designed to put pressure upon the Congress through
arousing public opinion, and activities which were educational
or informational and designed to explain and elaborate and
defend past or future Executive or Legislative action. Ad-
mittedly the line is not always an easy one to drew. But the
fact that most departments of the Government maintain informa-
tion offices and that Congress appropriates funds to maintain
and support these offices indicates that it was not the
congressional intent to preclude a wide category of publicity
activities, even though these activities might well result in
publicity which would influence pending legislation. What
they did clearly wish to prevent was the use of appropriated
funds by the Executive to create artificial pressures on
Congress during its legislative considerations.
The legislative history of the Appropriation Act pro-
vision is not extensive. It was added by means OE a floor
amendment in the House in 1952. The sponsor of the amendment,
Congressian Smith of Wisconsin, was critical of the number of
public relations personnel in the Government agencies and of
-3-
I FORD LIBRARY
the great volume of government publications. No recommended
his amendment and 15 was adopted in the context of stemming
the flow of such publications. Although there was no dis-
cussion of this amendment in the Senate Committee Report and
no mention of it in debate on the Senate floor, Senate dis-
cussion of the same amendment in the Independent Offices
Appropriations Act disclosed 2 concern only with the expendi-
ture of government funds for personal services and publications
intended to affect the course of legislation by molding public
opinion. The enactment of this provision in the years since
1931 have been routine and without significant congressional
comment.
There is no question that Congress is sensitive to the
use of appropriated funds to pay for alleged lobbying activities
by government officials. This sensitivity is evidenced not
only by these statutes but also by congressional investiga-
tions which have occurred from time to time. Perhaps the most
important was the 1949 investigation by a House Select Com-
mittee on Lobbying Activities which examined, among other
things, "all activities of sgencies of the Federal Government
intended to influence, encourage, promote or retard legis-
lation.' (ii. Res. 293, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.) Among the
matters considered by the Select Committee were charges that
Secretary of Agriculture Brannan had violated 18 U.S.C. $ 1913
by making a speech on agricultural policy before a large
gathering of Production and Marketing Administration Committee-
men brought together at government expense in St. Paul, Min-
resota, for the purpose of receiving instruction and informa-
tion regarding their functions. The General Accounting
Office, siter an investigation, concluded that Mr. Brannan
had not violated $ 1913 but the Assistent to the Comptroller
General, in testifying before the Select Committee, stated
that:
"
$
# an evil in public expenditures
for lobbying consists
or
13 the campaigns put on
throughest the country at large for the purpose of
inducing the electorate to put pressure on Congress-
man and Senators, The expenditures may take the
-D-
SEAL E. FORD TIBRARY
Entro of distributing printed material of SODE Mod,
the purchase of time on radio programs, or travel
and pay-roll expense for attendance at metings."
(Poerings before the Select Committee, Stat Cong.,
pt. 10, PP. 34-35)
In its own reports, however, the Select Consittee took
cognizance of the Eact that the President has responsibilities
in the legislative srona and noted, without disapproval, various
activities before Congress and before the public which be and
his subordinates carry on in order to influence the course of
legislation. (8. Rept. 3133, Blst Cong., 24 SOBS., PP- 52-
62 and R. Rept. 3239, Sist Cong., 2d 3993., PP. 35-36) In
substance the Committee took the position voiced by the chair-
D3B at the beginning of 1ts hearings on the please of its
assignment coscerned with the conduct of federal officials:
What 1 sa trying to make abundently class
here at the start La that the executive agencies
have the right and responsibility to seek to
'influmes, ancourage, promote or record lagis-
Letion' to many clear and proper -- and often
extramaly affective - respects and definite
mechinary 10 provided by Low and by established
custom for the exaccise of these rights but that
under certain conditions Federal funds cannot be
spent to influence Congress." (Hearings, SUDER, p. 2).
It is important in interpreting the foregoing noti-
lobbying provisions to recognize, 25 has Congrass, the Hoover
Consission, and the leading scholars en the Fresidency, that
the President has constitutional duties in the logislative
areas. Be has a duty to report to the Congress from time to
time, to recorded lagislation, and actively to seek Los on-
naturat. It must be conceded that the President, and
subordinate officers of the executive branch seting on his
buhalf ; influence legisletion, can, 03 in other creas of
constitutional suthority, be subjected to a cansure of
-/-
FORD LIBRARY
control by limitations imposed by Congress upon the use of
appropriated funds. Congress "may grant or withhold ap-
propristions as it chooses, and when making an appropriation
may direct the purposes to which the appropriation shall be
devoted. It may also impose conditions with respect to the
use of the appropriation, provided always that the conditions
do not require operation of the Government in a WAY forbidden
by the Constitution. H 41 Op. A.G. No. 32 (July 13, 1955,
P. 4, emphasis supplied); see also United States V. Butler,
297 U.S. 1, 73-74. I would therefore consider it most doubt-
ful whether Congress could impose limitations upon the use of
appropriated funds which go so far as to render it altogather
impractical or impossible for the President, and those acting
pursuant to his direction, to carry out a basic Constitutional
function.
While not strictly relevant to the interpretation of the
Appropriation Act, the same point was made by Senator Match
in discussing the Hatch Act prohibitions. ite said:
19
As I have often seld, when policy-
making officials of the Government such 83 the
President and members of the Cabinet insugurate
and carry on great policies of government, they
must necessarily frequently go before the
country and the people and explain their policies,
and often 10 is true that they must defend them
when they are assailed, It is but right and proper
that they should have the full privilege of doing
30, and the bill DOW so provides." (34 Cong. Rec.
9572).
I would not be prepared to interpret the limitation con-
tained to the Appropriation Act on the use of appropriated
funds for publicity or propaganda compaigns as over-reaching
constitutional prohibitions. I think that Congress may properly
limit such activities, but I do not believe that it may
constitutionally, or that this legislation intends to preclude
-8-
SEAL R. FORD LIBRARY
the President from explaining his program and legislative
proposals to the general public by any appropriate means.
In the total context of such legislation I think that "informa-
tion and explanation" turn into "publicity and propaganda"
at the point where an honest evaluation of the activities in
question would characterize then as primarily intended to
put the heat on Congress with respect to specific legislation
under consideration in the Senate and the House. Aa I have
said, this is not an easy line to draw, but 1£ the format
described in the White House press release of October 11 1s
scrupulously adhered to, then I do not believe these confer-
ences overstep the line. If the primary emphasis of the con-
ferences 1s to be on proposed legislation, LE this legisla-
tion is not marely explained but vigorously promoted and if
the audiance is encouraged, through exhortation and through
the distribution of large quantities of printed matter, to
appeal to their Senators or Representatives for the enactment
of the program-then I believe the prohibition contained in
the General Appropriation Act may well be applicable. Univoidably,
NO are dealing with a question of dagree: I cannot read
oducation, information, and the solicitation of the views of
participants and the general public for the Fresident as being
"publicity or propagends"; on the other hand, too active and
too entimelastic promotion of specific legislative proposals
might accurately be so characterized. The circumstances and
subject matter of the conferences cust suggest the line to
be adhared to.
I think there are several factors which support my
conclusion that the conforences do not violate legislative
proscription against lobbying, Probably the most Important
of these i.3 the Eact that the conferences are not taking place
during a session of Congress, and as a result do not fit Litto
the sort of activities which Congress has indicated most
clearly its desire to proscribe, For this reason, it seems
to TA that the pressures to enact the President's program which
any be generated are sufficiently indirect to avoid running
afout of these provisions,
-9-
SEAL 1. FORD LIBRARY
CONCLUSION
It is my opinion that the conferences as described in
the President's press conferences are not in violation of
any existing statutes. I feel confident that these are
well removed from the Hatch Act proscriptions, even though
civil servants are employed, in view of the fact that their
relation to any "compaign" or "election" is temporally removed
by approximately a year. They would approach these proscrip-
tions only LE the participants were to address their remarks
directly to the support or defeat of Members of Congress.
The more this is done, the more the spirit of the Hatch Act
would be violated. I would not, however, be concerned LE
persons attending the conference were to be indirectly in-
fluenced by measuring the voting records of Members of
Congress against their impressions of the Administration's
program.
As I have noted, the Appropriation Act provision gives
considerable more difficulty, while 1 conclude that it does
not prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the purposes
of the conferences, I an assuming that they will be conducted
in e manner consistent with the purposes outlined by the
President in his press releases and that, therefore, they
will not be primarily simed at directly exhorting partici-
pants to influence Members of Congress with respect to
particular bills or programs. If it is felt that this is
likely to occur, 1t night be viser not to use appropriated
funds in support of the conferences, But if funds are to
be drawn from other sources. for example, from the Democratic
National Comittee then I believe it would be necessary,
although perhaps not strictly required by Law, to avoid the
use of civil servants in the seminars. I feel some impropriaty
in asking regular members of the Civil Service to participate
in programs which, by virtue of the source of their funds,
would obviously be characterized as "political,"
-10-
FORD LIBRARY
I feel sure that the proposed conferences will be
criticized on the grounds that tax money is being used for
political purposes, and a colorable argument can be made
that this is in violation of section 509 of the Appropriation
Act. How much substance there is to this criticism will da-
pend upon what is done at the conferences and the public
acceptance or rejection of these acts as "political" in a
partisen meaning. If to preclude this criticism nonappropriated
funds are used, then we are caught on the other horn of the
dilemas since, by implication, the point that these confer-
ences are "political" is conceded and the possible impro-
priery of the use of civil servants is emphasized.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
4
17
#
(omg pant
*
Vice the
*
*
=
# *
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
to Bill
January 21, 1975
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Second Floor West Wing.
The White House
Dear Phil:
Thanks very much for sending over
Bill Casselman's materials on advancemen.
A lot of questions were put to rest.
Sincerely,
Pater
Peter J. Wallison
Counsel to the
Vice President
is
*
4
Visa Printers
4
#
*
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
January 21, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
James Cannon Jun.
SUBJECT:
25th Amendment
Jack Marsh and I discussed the invitation from
Senator Bayh to comment on the 25th Amendment.
I see nothing to be gained, and two good reasons
not to do it:
1. It would tend to set a precedent against
executive privilege.
2. It would be inappropriate for you to criticize,
even by intimation, the process by which you became
Vice President.
JMC:kr
cc: Phil Buchen
Jack Marsh
Peter Wallison
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1975
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Your letter of February 7 has been noted.
I can assure you that Vice President
Rockefeller and I have the finest of
relationships, and I am sure. that all of
your fears are ill-founded.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Charles J. Wilson
Aromas,
California 95004
LIBRARY
Aromas, Calif., 95004,
7 February, 1975
The Honorable Philip Buchen,
General Counsel,
% The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Counselor:-
It is quite apprent that your position in the
White House is in jeopardy.
Vice-President Nelson A. Rockefeller who is
power mad is determined to place his own men in the
White House.
Vice-President Nelson A. Rockefeller has been
unmasked as a long time active COMMUNIST.
follow
His staff members undoubtedtly/ the same
ideological lines... Once established in the White
House you can bet your bottom dollar that you will be
on the way out of a job.
Good luck!
QJ. Respectfully, Wilson
Charles J. Wilson,
a Patriotic American.
SEAL 1. FORD CIBRARY
C.J. WILSON,
We hold these Truths.
FRANCIS
Aromas, Ca. 95004
FOSTAL SERVICE 7 PM FEB OF CA 030
PARKMAN
AIR MAIL
U.S.POSTAGE
UNITED SIXLES
1075
The Honorable philip Buchen, General Counsel,
% The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington,
PERSONAL
PLEASE
D.C. 20500
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1975
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Your letter of February 7 has been noted.
I can assure you that Vice President
Rockefeller and I have the finest of
relationships, and I am sure. that all of
your fears are ill-founded.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Charles J. Wilson
Aromas,
California 95004
I FORD LIBRARY
PHOTO COPY
FROM
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Aromas, Calif., 95004,
7 February, 1975
The Honorable Philip Buchen,
General Counsel,
% The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Counselor:-
It is quite apprent that your position in the
White House is in jeopardy.
vice-President Nelson A. Rockefeller who is
power mad is determined to place his own men in the
White House.
vice-President Nelson A. Rockefeller has been
unmasked as a long time active COMMUNIST.
His staff members undoubtedtly/ follow the same
ideological lines Once established in the White
House you can bet your bottom dollar that you will be
on the way out of a job.
Good luck:
ed. Respectfully, Wilso
Charles J. Wilson,
a Patriotic American.
( HE
PHOTO COPY
FROM
GERALD R FORD LIRRARY
12:40 p.m.
Friday, March 21
Listed below are the names and titles of the people
Captain Howe (VP staff) promised you.
Murphy Commission, working on:
Dr. Francis Wilcox
Executive Director;
Commission on Organization of the Government
for the Conduct of Foreign Policy
254-9850
Fisher Howe
Deputy Executive Director
254-9850
FORD LIBRARY
V.P.
CC PHIL BUCHEN
ADMINISTRATIVELY
17
COMFIDENTIAL
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
April 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Peter J. Wallison
SUBJECT:
The Capitol Hill Club
As far as I have been able to determine at the present
time, this is the situation:
1. Travelers Insurance Company, the holder of the
only existing mortgage on the premises occupied by the
Republican National Committee and the Capitol Hill Club
is about to foreclose its mortgage.
2. Foreclosure is imminent because the Club has
not been meeting its rental payments to Capitol Hill
Associates, the owner of the property, and Capitol Hill
Associates ("Associates") in turn has not been able to
make timely mortgage payments.
3. The Club needs approximately $700,000 to clear
up its debts (mostly to the Marriott Corporation) and to
pay its rent through 1976; Associates needs approximately
$400,000 to clear up its own outstanding obligations.
4. Advances to Associates could be secured by a
second mortgage (after Travelers) on the premises
occupied by both the Club and RNC, but advances to the
Club would be unsecured, and there can be no assurance that
it would ever be recovered unless the Club became a going
concern. The following questions arise at this point:
(a) Is your interest here in preserving the
Club or just the Republican National Committee
lease?
FORD 1
-2-
Because the leases of both the Club and the
Committee have been assigned to Travelers as
security for the mortgage, if Travelers forecloses
it would be in a position to evict the Republican
National Committee as well as the Club. Thus, it
could be argued that the only way to protect the
tenure of the RNC is to finance the operation of
the Club.
This argument, however, does not work.
Travelers would not want to evict the RNC, because
the zoning for the property permits occupancy only
by the Republican National Committee, and Travelers
would have great difficulty getting a variance.
Instead, Travelers will probably sell the property
to Congress, which has a right of first refusal on
both properties and wants to use at least the Club
building for office space. John Rhodes has said that
if the property is sold to Congress, he can arrange
to have the RNC property leased back to RNC again.
In this transaction, the Club would fold and the
losers would be Marriott Corporation ($270,000) and
certain other creditors of the Club. Associates
would come out with a profit of approximately $300,000,
since the pre-agreed price for the property to Congress
exceeds by that amount the total principal sum of
the mortgage and other obligations of Associates.
(b) If your purpose, on the other hand, is to
save the Club as well as the RNC, things are a good
deal more complicated.
As noted above, any advance to the Club would be
unsecured, and might be lost entirely if it does not
become a viable organization. * This risk could be
reduced by inducing the RNC to pick up a larger portion
of the rent paid by the two entities to Associates,
releasing a larger proportion of the Club's income
for repayment of the loan made by the group you would
assemble. Naturally, however, this is no guarantee
that your investors would get their money back in two
years, or ever.
*
It should be noted that the officers of Associates who
I have spoken to seem to believe that the Club would be
viable under new management and that a report on the
Club by Restaurant Associates of New York demonstrates
this.
TOND
LISEASE
-3-
The reasons for your entering this transaction anyway
are unclear to me. Apparently, there is a feeling that it
would be a great political issue for the Democrats if a
Republican organization went into bankruptcy. However, it
would also be a nice issue, and would cause you personally
many difficulties, when it became known that you had assisted
the RNC and the Capitol Hill Club by advancing a substantial
amount of money with no real hope of return.
However, I have tentatively set up a meeting for
Wednesday afternoon with the officers and attorneys for
Associates, and I will, of course, go forward with this
transaction unless you indicate otherwise.
FORD
4
*
VP
#
*
17
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
Peter J. Wallison Pites
I attach a copy of a memorandum from the
Vice President to the President which describes
in some detail the cordial meeting which took
place yesterday with Senators Tower and Church.
The Vice President took this memo with him
when he saw the President today, but I don't know
whether he delivered it.
Attachment
FORM
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
The Vice President
SUBJECT:
Conference with Senators Church and Tower
I met on Wednesday, May 7, 1975, with Senators Church
and Tower, and key members of their Senate Select Committee
staff.
Senator Church stated that his Committee wanted to
cooperate with the Commission, and had helped get some
information out of the Senate Rules Committee which the
Commission needed for its inquiry. (This was material on
Watergate, and took approximately five weeks for us to
secure. )
He noted that his Committee had a much broader mandate
than the Commission, including all the intelligence agencies
and surveillance by other Federal agencies such as IRS, and
hoped to get their work done by the end of the year without
an extension of time and added expense.
Senator Church then said he needed help from the
Commission, including the furnishing of all the Commission's
"documents" and "transcripts", SO that his Committee would
not have to duplicate the efforts of the Commission.
I responded that both the Commission and the Senate
Select Committee have "the same interests but different
responsibilities. = I noted that the Commission was a
creature of the President and that I had supposed that all
its materials would go to the President at the end of its
study. However, I said I would take up the Senator's
request with the Commission.
of
1040
GREAT
-2-
Senator Tower asked whether the ultimate decision
would rest with the President, and I confirmed that in my
view the Commission had been created by the President and
was reporting to him.
I noted also that there has been an adverse effect on
morale of CIA employees because of all the charges and in-
vestigations, and that this has adversely affected the
intelligence capabilities of the country.
Both Senators responded that this was why the Senate
Committee wanted to get its investigation over with as
quickly as possible.
Senator Church commented that responses to the Committee
from the CIA were routed through the White House, but that
thus far the Committee has received almost everything it has
requested. However, the responses have not been quite as
fast as he had hoped.
I asked whether there would be any impropriety in the
Commission's commenting upon the relationship between the
CIA and Congress, and both Senators said that they had no
objection at all to recommendations along these lines.
i
FORD
STATES
EYES ONLY
Rockefeller
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DON RUMSFELD
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
HOLDING DUAL POSITIONS
No provisions appear in the Constitution or the Federal
Statutes which prevent a person from holding more than
one office in the Federal Government except when he is
a member of either the Senate or House of Representatives.
There are statutory limitations on receiving dual pay for
holding more than one position (U.S.C.A. Title 5, Sec.
5533) which makes it evident that a person in the Execu-
tive Branch may hold two positions at the same time even
though he cannot double up on his pay.
The Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 6, C1.2) provides that:
"
no person holding any office under the
United States shall be a member of either
House during his continuance in office."
For this purpose I do not believe that the Vice President
is a Member of the Senate even though he is the presiding
Officer of the Senate. Otherwise, he could hold no other
Executive Branch position, and there is much precedent
for his holding such positions as member of various
Executive Branch boards, commissions, and councils.
Although the Vice President is included in the definition
of "Member of Congress" under one statute (U.S.C.A.,
Title 5, Sec 2106), that is solely for particular admini-
strative purposes related to his functioning as President
of the Senate. It has no bearing on the meaning of the
Constitutional provisions as to who is a "member of either
House.'
I have also examined the provisions concerning appointments
of heads of the respective Executive departments and none
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
of these provisions provide that the head of a Cabinet
department cannot hold another position in the Executive
Branch.
If the question you raised is to be pursued further, I
would like to approach on a confidential basis a
Constitutional scholar who could provide us with infor-
mation about possible commentaries or public debate on
the legality and merits of appointing the Vice President
to head an Executive department or, what is more likely,
of naming one person to head two or more Executive
departments.
is
tead
LIBRAC
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
DON RUMSFELD
Thanks for your memo of July 24.
Go no further.
Thank you.
Vice Cresident
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK MARSH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
Peter Wallison of the Vice President's office advised
me that the Vice President has been approached by the
Senate Government Operations Committee to testify
about his views on Congressional oversight of CIA,
particularly in reference to the Rockefeller Commission
recommendation that there be a Joint Special Congressional
Committee for this purpose. Peter Wallison has initiated
discussions with the staff to see what alternatives to a
formal appearance by the Vice President would be feasible,
such as an informal meeting by him with members of the
Committee.
I told Peter that I was worried about having the Vice President
become even informally involved on this subject with the
Government Operations Committee when the Senate Select
Committee presumably will claim jurisdiction over the matter.
You may want to raise this point at an early meeting of the
intelligence group in the White House.
cc: Mike Duval
TOTAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PETER WALLISON
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
In response to your inquiry, I see no
problem in considering the negatives of
the official photographs taken by the
staff photographer of the Vice President
as part of his official papers. Of
course, until the Congress has considered
the recommendations from the National
Study Commission on the Records and Docu-
ments of Public Officials, it is not
possible to advise on how such materials
are to be treated once the Vice President
leaves office.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if
you have additional questions in this
regard.
FORD LIBRARY
City ony.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
January 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO: Philip W. Buchen
FROM
:
Peter J. Wallison
Peter
In our telephone conversation this
morning I mentioned to you that the Vice
President has raised a question as to whether
the negatives of official photographs taken
in his office are part of his official or
personal papers, or are the property of the
White House.
As I indicated, the Vice President's
official photographer is a member of the Vice
President's staff, paid out of appropriated
funds authorized for the Vice President's
office, but he uses film and reproduction
facilities furnished by the White House photo-
graphers.
It is my understanding that in the
past the negatives of photographs taken in the
Vice President's office have remained in the
possession of the White House photographers.
But in that case, of course, the photos were
not taken by a member of the Vice President's
staff.
Please let me have your views on
this matter.
FORD CERTIFY
Vice President
Rockyaller
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 6, 1976
Dear Phelson:
Bunny and are flowing
with joy and gratitude over
your part in making possible
our participation in the glorious
events of July 4, 1976. Without
the flights that whicked us
your thoughtful help inproviding
from Washington to the deck e
could of the not Borrestal have managed and back, the try.
Jos that bindness and for
many, many other reasons, thanks to Q am
full of heartfelt
and all your delightful family
you admiration for you and Hengy
and fed degs and enduring
Sincerely yours, Phil
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ViceBreasidented
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: Tuesday, October 5, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Jack Marsh
Jim Lynn
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: Wednesday, October 6, 1976 Time: Noon
'SUBJECT:
The Vice President: Presidential Initiative in the Arts
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
No objection but believe statement is not an appropriate
place for quotation from John (T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 7, 1976
MEMO FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG
SUBJECT:
The Vice President:
Presidential Initiative
in the Arts
Suggested response:
No objection. Suggest poem be removed from
"A Statement of Policy on Vocations and The
Arts".
Dayse after remarks:
"No objection but believe
stotements not on
quototion from John Adoms."
approgimate place for
LEVERIT BERALD F Tono