Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
****SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD OF RIGHTS SECTION***** [01.13.41] [shot of AUSTEN and ALEXANDER, guest commentators] LEHRER introduces guests. Asks ALEXANDER if there is an inherent evil in the use of CASH in a political campaign. ALEXANDER states that STANS stated there is a need for petty cash, and that sometimes small sums of cash are raised, like a collection at a rally, and there should be no restriction on small sums of cash. In terms of legislation, he would not favor a ban on cash, but circumscribing it with a limit of $50 to $100 or other amount set by Congress, and regulations on the use of cash within organizations. I.E., an advance man might need $200 cash, but he would want to limit it as much as possible. LEHRER states that STANS had just testified about some advantages of anonymity for a contributor, but he did not discuss why a contributor might prefer to give CASH. Asks what such advantages might be. ALEXANDER states that cash is a universal exchange, and it is not linked directly to its source, LEHRER asks AUSTERN about KALMBACH'S request of STANS for cash on authority of unnamed "high sources" in the White House. Asks if it is later determined that the $75,000 was used for illegal reasons, is STANS legally culpable, even though he did not know and KALMBACH refused to tell him the purpose of the money. AUSTEN says that in the criminal law, STANS is not responsible if he was ignorant of the purpose of the money, but adds that a number of civil suits have been lodged in the Watergate matter, including one by the Democratic Committee against CRP defendants. In this case, the issue is not intent, but negligence--Not what STANS knew, but what he should have known and failed to inquire about. The proof in a civil matter is very different, and as a civil defendant he could be liable. LEHRER asks about the AUSTEN's rating of Sen. ERVIN as a country lawyer, notwithstanding his squabble with Sen. GURNEY. AUSTEN says that he would like "to be a country lawyer like he's a country lawyer", that ERVIN obviously has a superior legal mind, and plows right ahead in questioning, which is vital with a witness like STANS, who does not answer "yes or no", but gives lenthy answers. Says that ERVIN asks his questions without getting sidetracked by the long answers of STANS. LEHRER states that VP AGNEW has caught some spillover from Watergate, as a Maryland grand jury has delivered a four-count indictment against parties involved in the Baltimore fundraising dinner mentioned by STANS. The identity of persons indicted will not be known until arrests are made, likely tomorrow. [01.19.27--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states there are two themes in the hearings, with the first being finding out who did the dirty deeds of the 1972 campaign, who is guilty and how high the guilt reaches. Theme two, getting a great deal of play today, was finding out the ins and outs of campaign financing, the morality of campaigning, in order to draft better campaign legislation, with Sen. ERVIN and Sen. BAKER forcing many witnesses to publicly search their consciences. States that this may help to shed light and attention, by example, on the role of morality in political campaigning. Says that two principles have emerged, first that loyalty, to President or Party, is not an excuse to abandon one's own judgment. second, that the conduct of people in high positions of power, should be guided by principles higher than the bare legal minimum. Signs off. [title screen--:SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"--Sponsor credits--NPACT ID--PBS Network ID] [01.21.40--TAPE OUT]