Conversation 015-100

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Yes, Mr. President.

How's the battle going?

Well, we were defeated on the Cooper-Baker proposal, which was a proposal to incorporate the campaign reform bill S-382 that had been passed by the Senate three years ago with a deduction provision to encourage political contributions, but knocking out the Chekhov idea.

We were defeated on the straight party-line vote, except we lost case.

We gained Irvin...

and McClellan and Harry Bird.

So we're coming down to the wire in a vote about 5-15.

Unfortunately, we were unable to dissuade Mac Mathias from offering an amendment which would

alter the Pastore-Chekhov idea to provide that the taxpayer could designate the party to which his dollar would go.

It still would be a taken out of the general revenue fund, and on principle it's just as bad.

Is that going to be the vote then?

No, the vote will still be on final passage.

Of course, it depends somewhat on whether Pastore will say he'll accept the Mathias Amendment.

We don't know.

He's playing his cards close to the vest.

If he does, then that would give Mathias heat and sweatshirt.

Unfortunately, we're afraid we'd lose Mathias in case, and possibly two more.

We don't know for sure on the final passage vote.

However, we think that the people who are susceptible to George Wallace pressures will not like the Mathias Amendment.

George Wallace wouldn't fare as well, we don't think, under that proposal as he would under the... How do you have a vote on that?

I beg your pardon, sir?

When do you get the vote on Mathias?

It'll come up in about 15 or 20 minutes.

Well, I swear to God, why does he do that?

He was all bound and determined to offer it Friday.

I called him off Friday, and he left the chamber and hid, and he also hid on Saturday, but he said he was obligated to offer it before the debate closed.

So we were unsuccessful.

Do you think there's really any chance to defeat it?

We don't know.

I don't know.

It's hard to get a call on this one, and we've spread the word that we are opposed to it, and it's known that I tried personally to...

It isn't going to make any difference as far as veto is concerned, I can assure you.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Mr. President.

Well, it's just as bad.

Sure it is.

What the hell's the difference?

It hasn't changed the principle one iota.

I mean, so they designate their party, or what is the difference there?

I can't see that at all.

No.

But it's the principle, your point is based upon principle, and it makes no change in the principle of the issue.

And so far as votes are concerned, if you had it straight up and down, you still think you could pick up, if you got all the Republicans, you'd have only 44.

We think we have 44 Republicans plus five Democrats.

That'd be 49.

We think we're beating 50 to 49, but we can't be sure.

Spong is keeping his own counsel, won't talk to anybody, won't tell anybody how he's going to vote.

So we have a chance, Mr. President.

Spong.

Bill Spong.

I mean, he's really, oh, he'll vote, I'm afraid, with the Democrats.

I'm afraid he will, too.

But Harry Bird's presence puts pressure on him.

And, of course, maximum pressure is being exerted on him by automobile dealers and others who say that if this carries, he'll jeopardize the whole tax bill.

And Spong voted against it in 67.

Jim Eastland has put pressure on Spong saying that he thinks it'll be a possibility.

We've tried Gambrell and Allen and the others, but they say that they're getting Wallace pressures in there.

Also, Mr. President, the Democrats are putting absolutely maximum pressure on.

Larry O'Brien has got a national committee, even a state chairman throughout the country, just putting unbelievable pressure on, saying if you ever believed you were a Democrat, you've got to stick with us now.

Mm-hmm.

And they're all there, too, huh?

99.

Everybody with Carl Mundt, Mr. President.

I'll be damned.

50 to 49.

Well, you've had a good fight anyway.

You kind of...

You still have a hope on Spong?

We have a hope on Spong.

So it could go 50-49 our way.

Let me ask you this.

Yes, sir.

What's the situation as to after it goes, then does it go immediately to conference?

Yes, it's anticipated, Mr. President, that the Senate...

The last amendment?

Well, there are a couple more, and the Senate may or may not vote final passage of the tax bill tonight.

If not, they'll vote it first thing tomorrow morning and then move on to defense appropriations.

In any event, we should be in conference tomorrow.

I have to take that back.

The House is not in session, so they can't appoint conferees.

There can't be any conference on the tax bill until Monday because the House is not in session.

I see.

Then they'll go to conference and Mills will accept the damn thing, of course.

I'm fearful that that's exactly right.

We have reason to believe that this was all carefully planned with Mills and the Speaker and Hale Boggs in on the planning from the beginning.

Yeah.

Hell, they just see that $9 million deficit, don't they?

That's what they're looking at.

Exactly.

They get their deficit paid, and they get $11 million running start on the 72 election.

Which they need.

Uh-huh.

And they can all go wild in their primaries, primary spending, Jackson and McGovern and Muskie and Humphrey and the whole business, because they won't have to save any money.

You've got no choice but to veto the damn thing.

You're right, sir.

Is that your view?

Yes, sir, and I think it can be done in a fashion, as I indicated this morning, that can redound to your benefit.

Yeah.

And what, pardon the French, what the hell, it's a matter of principle, Mr. President, and this is a bad provision.

It would be bad law.

It would produce down the line a bastardization of our process, which is responsible to the people.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, what it is, you know, it's in a very different sense.

When you have anything like this, it's sort of a check-off or whatever it is.

It's like the union dues.

It's like the holding on income tax and the rest.

Once you have it, they don't think anything about it.

So people, it would simply mean that the money goes and then

It'll greatly strengthen party bosses, which is bad, too.

You bet it is.

Don't you agree?

And it removes that public pressure from the performance, on the performance of elected officials looking to re-election, which is so darn important in our system.

Even though, of course, your critics on the other side, well, it removes only the pressure of people that give money.

That's their argument, isn't it?

Yes, but we can produce figures.

Barry Goldwater, in the debate last week, Mr. President, talked about the hundreds of thousands of small contributions which he received and that if you don't want to discourage those people from participating in the process, which this would do.

They wouldn't give a nickel.

We can put together, Mr. President, some facts and figures that would, I think, go a long way to dispel the idea that it's only the fat cats who contribute to presidential races.

That's right.

Well, you're fighting a good fight.

We're doing everything we can.

Yeah, but the Spong one is a curious one.

He ought to stick with Byrd on this.

I suppose, though, Clark, he's afraid that he wouldn't get the nomination.

Isn't that it?

Throw him out?

I suspect, Mr. President, although we have no intelligence that tells us what Larry O'Brien's line is, I'm sure that would be a part of it.

I don't know that Harry is working on him, but Jim Eastland is.

Jim Eastland has told me of two conversations he's had with Spong in which he said flatly, in my opinion, Bill, you'll be defeated if you vote for this.

Well, by God, we're going to go out after him, that's for sure.

You bet.

And a few others.

Isn't that something out of that whole lineup of Southern Democrats?

Well, I guess it's an achievement to even get four, isn't it?

Well, I think it is, Mr. President.

On a party matter.

I'd say McClellan, of course, he's a sound guy.

Eastland's a sound man.

Sam Irvin.

Sam Irvin's a constitutionalist.

That's why he's doing it.

Right.

Harry Byrd, Jr. Harry Byrd is a constitutionalist.

And John Stennis also is a respecter of the Constitution.

Yeah.

The political process.

Goddammit, if you had... You can't trot Munt down.

There's no way.

We've gone through that time and again.

There is no way.

He just couldn't get in there and say yes.

He's not in condition to do so at all, is he?

No, sir.

I haven't seen him, of course, for a long time.

What a tragedy.

Yeah, he's such a good man.

Yeah.

Such a good man, and it's a good vote.

Then you'd have it 50-50.

We'd have it 50-50.

And they'd lose.

That's right.

I don't know.

One of the breaks of the game.

We will still keep working.

Yeah.

Well, what the hell, of course.

I put in a call to Bill Spong directly, Mr. President.

He hasn't returned the call.

What would you tell him?

I would just argue the principle.

I might indicate to him, Mr. President, if I might make another effort right now.

We have time before this vote comes.

I might indicate to him without in any way involving you or mentioning you.

I know that we can play tough on our side, too, in terms of really getting behind a Republican candidate, and there are some Republican candidates we wouldn't be so enthusiastic about.

I haven't tried that.

I don't know how good I am at that, but I'll sure give it a try if you think it would be a good idea.

Yeah, the point is that the enthusiasm we have is certainly going to be...

It would be affected.

He'll squeal, I suppose, but I don't know.

It's just Clark McGregor doing it.

Yeah.

I'm off on a frolic of my own.

All right.

Well, good luck.

Thank you, sir.

You're doing great.

Thank you.

Bye.