Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.08.03] Senator ERVIN. And you didn't 'take into consideration how much was needed? Mr. STANS. There is no such definition as how much is needed except the subjective definition of the people who want to spend the money. Senator ERVIN. I don't know whether I understand your testimony or not. Are you tolling me in effect that Mr. John Mitchell was running the show and you had very little voice in it except to raise the money that he wanted to spend?' Mr. STANS. NO, I am not quite telling you that. I am telling you that in the budget committee meetings, I was not very successful in holding down the level of spending. Senator ERVIN. Did they ever discuss the question in any budgetary meeting about using any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any discussions of that type. Senator ERVIN. Did you ever vote to authorize the use of any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. No. If you mean by that the kind of intelligence that we are talking about in connection with the Watergate and so on, no. Senator ERVIN. Now, you say the President called you in August? Mr. STANS. The President called me in August and'! have checked my record, and I believe the meeting I had with him was in September, early September. Senator ERVIN. I will digress for a, minute to say that you are familiar with the power structure, the power as was in the White House, are you not? Mr. STANS. I believe I am. Senator ERVIN. And the man next to the President is Mr. Haldeman? Mr. STANS. One of the men next to the President is Mr. Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Ehrlichman -was the other? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. And John W. Dean was a man who was subordinate to both of them, wasn't he? Mr. STANS, I don't know. I know he was counsel. I don't know where he stood in the organizational structure of the White House. Senator ERVIN. You didn't, put him ahead of 'Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman, either one of them, in authority, did you? Mr. STANS. No; but for all I know, he may have been on a par with them. I just don't know. Senator BAKER, Mr. Chairman we have a vote in progress now and I know we are going to have to leave. But you have raised some interesting questions and I would like the, chairman's attention just for or a moment. I have not been a protector and I have not been a defender of any witness, nor have I been a prosecutor, I believe, and I don't propose, to start that now. But it seems to me that the inquiry into two areas on campaign financing deserves further inquiry. The chairman's question of this -witness as to whether there was a higher duty than that required by the law under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 is very interesting, particularly with reference to the method and manner of accounting for cash contributions and cash disbursements and the requirements of the law or the custom and usage by political parties in disbursing cash. The second quest on the chairman raised about whether or not the multiple dividing up of cash contributions into smaller sums for deposit is an attempt to defeat the gift tax as distinguished from avoiding the gift tax. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in absolute fairness, if we, going to inquire into something higher than the language of the law or into Custom and practice, of politics in this respect, it is incumbent upon this committee, and I so suggest, that, the committee subpena all of the records of the Democratic National Committee and all of those candidates for nomination of either of the two major political parties for a reasonable time preceding April 7, 1972, and subsequently, to shed light on exactly what the custom and usage in politics was. I hope we will have witnesses here to discuss the manner of handling cash and the manner Of handling deposits in order to avoid gift tax consequences before these hearings conclude. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my position, too, with the vice chairman's I think we should look into those things. I would like to say some other things, too. The American public, don't think, understands how these hearings are conducted and I don't want them to get the Impression that the questioning of any Senator here is found favorable by other Senators. I for one have not appreciated the harassment of this witness by the chairman in the questioning that has Just finished. I think this Senate committee ought to act, in fairness. [00.12.53]