Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.22.40] Senator GURNEY. When was that, discussion had with him about how to treat it? Mr. STANS. Well I would have to assume that it occurred early in April of last year. Senator GURNEY. I am curious. Why would you confer with him about it instead of the general counsel for the finance committee? Mr. STANS. Oh, I did confer with him, too. I also conferred at an earlier time with the counsel for the Republican National Finance Committee. What we are involved with here is the question of the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act definition of a contribution. Very simply, and I will paraphrase it without having the language right in front of me--the Corrupt Practices Act says that a contribution includes the receipt of money or anything of value, and includes a promise, agreement, or contract to make a contribution, whether or not it is legally enforceable. And it was on that language that I concluded that the contributions received from several people whom we have discussed here were contributions by law before April 7. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Dean ever tell you at any time that he was conducting an investigation for the President into the Watergate affair? Mr. STANS. No, I do not recall that Mr. Dean ever told me that he was conducting an investigation. I think I heard first about that from the public statements of the President or others in the White House. Senator GURNEY. Yesterday, you mentioned in your testimony that you heard that Liddy was receiving money, but you did not identify from whom you had heard it. Do you recall? Mr. STANS. I really can-Dot recall, because it was in the early days of my service to the committee. It could have come from Mr. Kalmbach, it could have come from Mr. Sloan. I doubt that there was anyone else who could have told it to me, My vague recollection is that, I was told that Liddy was getting small amounts of money from time to time in cash and that it was being used in the primaries. I do not have any other recollection of that and I had no idea that the amounts were as large as they apparently were. [00.25.41] Senator GURNEY. Did you ever know about the $250,000 budget before the Watergate break-in? Mr. STANS. No, sir, I was not, told by anyone about a $250,000 budget for Mr. Liddy. Senator GURNEY. Back to these, Kalmbach moneys again. In your initial discussion with Mr. Kalmbach about this money, did he say he was getting it, to spend himself on a, project for the White House, raising it to pass it on to somebody else to spend? Mr. STANS. He did not say. Senator GURNEY. Did you get any impression from your conversation whether He meant, the one or the, other? Mr. STANS. I had no such impression either way. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned, of course a later conversation, I think you said about, 6 weeks ago, perhaps, with Mr. Kalmbach's attorney- Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator GURNEY [continuing]. In which he told you that it, was Mr., Dean who had requested Kalmbach to raise the money. What about in this discussion? Did his attorney tell you whether Mr. Kalmbach raised the money to spend himself or whether he was raising it to Pass on to someone else? Mr. STANS. In that conversation -Mr. Kalmbach's attorney told me that Mr. Kalmbach had raised the money for the purpose of giving it to a man named Tony. he did not give me his last name or any other details, but he said it was for the purpose of paying legal fees for or the lawyers representing the defendants in the Watergate case. Senator GURNEY. He did not identify Tony beyond that? Mr. STANS. No, he, did not. Senator GURNEY. And you do not- know who he was-? Mr. STANS. I do not know who Tony was. Senator GURNEY. The $350,000 for the White House and the reimbursement of $22,000 requested by Dean-I am curious about that. Why should Mr. Dean be so uptight about, restoring $22,000 to this $350,000 fund if $22,000 was used legally, as I thought it was from the testimony? Can you shed any further light on, that? Mr. STANS. Well, I can only shed this light, that in several discussions with Mr. Dean, the desirability of having the $350,000 intact seemed important to him. Senator GURNEY. Well, why did it? Mr. STANS. For example, in -November- Senator GURNEY. -November? Mr. STANS. [continuing]. Of last year. He handed me some bills for polling by a polling organization, I believe it was Opinion Research Corp.--and said that originally it had been the intention to pay those bills out of the $350,000 fund, but that they wanted to keep the fund intact and the bills did relate to the campaign, so it was Perfectly Proper for them to be paid as expenses of the campaign and he asked that, they be so paid. And on that authority, the bills were paid to the Polling organization. Now that I understood to be for the purpose of keeping the $350,000 intact. [00.29.13]