Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.13.30] [***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION CONCERNING COMMENTARY FOOTAGE***] Senator GURNEY. Whenever they have gotten in touch with you, You have tried to cooperate fully? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, or my attorney, by transference of their requests by virtue of attorney or some other way yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. We certainly appreciate your cooperation. Senator ERVIN. If there is no objection from anybody on the committee the committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning. Mr. Sloan, you will be back in the morning? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.13.58--members stand to leave] [00.14.07--Robert MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that SLOAN will continue to testify about CRP financial practices, cash payments during the campaign, and his misgivings about the handling of the Watergate affair. States that SLOAN fits the pattern of allowing subordinates in the campaign machine to testify first to set the stage for their former superiors, and notes that this days hearing was the first testimony about Campaign finance practices rather than the activities which those finances supported. [LEHRER] LEHRER states that the testimony reveals the problems inherent in recording and controlling the vast amounts of money spent in a major campaign. Calls on Director of Office of Elections for the General Accounting Office, Phillip HUGHES Asks if there are loopholes even in the new law HUGHES says the law has room for improvement, as well as GAO's administration, but a great step above the former law The use of cash beyond small expenses of approx. $100 should be minimized, reporting should be simplified as much as possible, individual contributions should be limited, and improvements could be made in the details vis a vis reporting and which committees should be required to report. However, the best improvement in coming elections should be the fact that the law will have been in effect for the entire campaign period, rather than having a transition period that lends to abuses. LEHRER states that the GAO was the first agency of the government to address campaign corruption, even before Watergate. Asks HUGHES if he feels the agency has the tools to enforce the new law. HUGHES states GAO is seeking new tools, both for administration and enforcement, i.e. subpena power, to get records and compel witnesses for audits, civil litigative power to take action without using the Justice Department. MacNEILL states that SLOAN had referred repeatedly to judgement calls about when money had been committed to the campaign versus the actual date of receipt [SLOAN shown testifying], Asks about the GAO's ruling. HUGHES states that GAO disagrees, and that they consider an expenditure as giving money in exchange for a service rendered, with "committment" being an inadequate legal position. MacNEILL asks if there have been legal rulings to uphold GAO's position. HUGHES cites the pending Justice Dep't investigation of the Vesco matter, charging CRP with violating the act on the contribution side, but there are no court decisions as yet to apply to the law. MacNEILL asks then if the legality is not yet established. HUGHES confirms that it is not yet established to his satisfaction. [00.19.02]