Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.12.16] Senator, BAKER. Is this, Mr. Stans, what 'Mr. Odle probably was referring to when he answered in, response to Mr. Thompson's question On page 33 of the Odle testimony With regard to Mr. Stans, was his role limited to raising money or did Mr. Stans also participate in the decisions as to how money would he allocated? Mr. ODLE. I think that Mr. Stans in the budget meetings certainly kept an eye on where the money was going, He sometimes challenged expenditures. he would say, for example, do we really need to spend this money on television advertising this week? Is this the kind of thing you are describing? Mr. STANS. That, is the kind of thing I am describing and that the way in which the budget committee operated. At some. times, a concession would be made that we would take $100,000 out of polling and put it into candidates support, for example, but I was never successful in getting any reductions in the budget despite my letter of May 10 to Mr. Mitchell, which is before us, despite all of my pleas, despite the fact that, I got quite irate at times, despite the fact that I said, I don't think we can raise that amount of money. We, were against an upward situation and the ultimate, as I said yesterday, was in excess of $50 million that was spent. Senator BAKER. Mr. Odle also testified, and according to the transcript, that "I would say that in budget, committee sessions, his agreement--meaning your agreement--"was necessary before we, could allocate a great deal Of money, say for television advertising the following week: yes, those kinds of major decisions." Is that essentially correct? Mr. STANS. That is essentially correct, and in principle, it is the basis on which we operated. Senator BAKER . What about that $350,000 that went to the White House? Did you have to approve that? Mr. STANS. Well, that came up before the budget committee, I believe, had any effective operation, and as I testified yesterday, I knew that the subject was under consideration. I learned 'shortly after that, the money had been paid to the White House; I had no objection to it; I would have approved it had I been asked about it; and the minor difference in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan as to whether I approved it in advance or later is, I think, immaterial. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, you testified, I believe, that the $350,000 for the White House was intended for, as you understand it, polling costs, polling operations, and other things. Why on earth--cash would be the most, awkward way on earth to take care of something like that. Why wouldn't a check have been sent to an account against which the White House could draw from those funds? Mr. STANS. Well, I think this is a question that might well be, worth asking of other witnesses but I do understand that the White House, and I get some of this from Mr. Haldeman's testimony and depositions that the White House wanted to do some polling on its own to check on the reports that it got from the campaign committee as to issues and findings in certain States and they wanted to do it without the knowledge of the regular polling organizations that were being used by the campaign committee. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, let me, in the interest of time, with a full understanding you are going to return and testify later on other matters more intimately related to the structure of campaign financing let me ask you a final question: In retrospect, and hindsight is always 20-20, can You see any reason why we should lot eliminate cash transactions from the political system? Mr. STANS. Well, we had that question just a minute ago. I think when you say eliminate cash transaction in just those words, you will run into a lot, of trouble because you will even eliminate petty Cash funds for paying for the, delivery of a parcel--something like that. I think also the committee ought, to inquire into the circumstances of whether or not under certain conditions of elections, for example, it is necessary for people to have cash funds to pay certain types of expenses to get people to the polls, and that, sort, of thing, But its a finance chairman in the past, never again, I would have welcomed that kind of legislation because it would have eliminated an awful lot, of the questions. Senator BAKER. It, would have made it, a lot easier for you to account for the income and outgo, wouldn't it? Mr. STANS. Not necessarily- easier but just, easier to eliminate the, suspicions that, seemed to be associated with people paying in cash even though it, is legal tender. Senator BAKER. I can't help but note, your voluntary statement that you will never be a finance chairman again, I understand you didn't want to be this time. Mr. STANS.' That, is entirely correct. Senator BAKER. And I take it nothing has happened to change your mind? [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.17.25]