[Vision2020] Sixty Years Ago Today (September 23,1952)

[Joe Campbell]

$18000 "for political expenses"!?!

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> Then-VP candidate Richard Nixon's "Checkers Speech".
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> "My Fellow Americans:
>
> I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a
> man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.
>
> The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to
> either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.
>
> I believe we’ve had enough of that in the United States, particularly with
> the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice
> Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people
> have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that
> office and who might obtain it.
>
> I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an
> honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that’s why
> I’m here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case.
>
> I am sure that you have read the charge and you’ve heard that I, Senator
> Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.
>
> Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong—I’m saying,
> incidentally, that it was wrong and not just illegal. Because it isn’t a
> question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isn’t enough. The question
> is, was it morally wrong?
>
> I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon
> for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly
> given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of
> the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made.
>
> And now to answer those questions let me say this:
>
> Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me
> for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political
> expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the
> United States.
>
> It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on “Meet the
> Press,” some of you may have seen it last Sunday—Peter Edson came up to me
> after the program and he said, “Dick, what about this fund we hear about?”
> And I said, “Well, there’s no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith,
> who was the administrator of the fund.”
>
> And I gave him his address, and I said that you will find that the purpose
> of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel
> should be charged to the Government.
>
> And third, let me point out, and I want to make this particularly clear,
> that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaign, has
> ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an
> ordinary constituent.
>
> I just don’t believe in that and I can say that never, while I have been in
> the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to
> this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency,
> or have I gone down to an agency in their behalf. And the records will show
> that, the records which are in the hands of the Administration.
>
> But then some of you will say and rightly, “Well, what did you use the fund
> for, Senator? Why did you have to have it?”
>
> Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a
> Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one
> trip a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his
> home and Washington, D.C.
>
> And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office,
> to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California is enough
> to hire thirteen people.
>
> And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the
> Senator—it’s paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his
> payroll, but all of these people and all of these allowances are for
> strictly official business. Business, for example, when a constituent writes
> in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some
> information about his GI policy. Items of that type for example.
>
> But there are other expenses which are not covered by the Government. And I
> think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions.
>
> Do you think that when I or any other Senator makes a political speech, has
> it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of
> that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other
> Senator makes a trip to his home state to make a purely political speech
> that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think
> when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television
> broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should
> be charged to the taxpayers?
>
> Well, I know what your answer is. It is the same answer that audiences give
> me whenever I discuss this particular problem. The answer is, “no.” The
> taxpayers shouldn’t be required to finance items which are not official
> business but which are primarily political business.
>
> But then the question arises, you say, “Well, how do you pay for l these and
> how can you do it legally?” And there are several ways that it can be done,
> incidentally, and that it is done legally in the United States Senate and in
> the Congress.
>
> The first way is to be a rich man. I don’t happen to be a rich man so I
> couldn’t use that one.
>
> Another way that is used is to put your wife on the payroll. Let me say,
> incidentally, my opponent, my opposite number for the Vice Presidency on the
> Democratic ticket, does have his wife on the payroll. And has had her on his
> payroll for the ten years—the past ten years.
>
> Now just let me say this. That’s his business and I’m not critical of him
> for doing that. You will have to pass judgment on that particular point. But
> I have never done that for this reason. I have found that there are so many
> deserving stenographers and secretaries in Washington that needed the work
> that I just didn’t feel it was right to put my wife on the payroll.
>
> My wife’s sitting over here. She’s a wonderful stenographer. She used to
> teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. That was
> when I met her. And I can tell you folks that she’s worked many hours at
> night and many hours on Saturdays and Sundays in my office and she’s done a
> fine job. And I’m proud to say tonight that in the six years I’ve been in
> the House and the Senate of the United States, Pat Nixon has never been on
> the Government payroll.
>
> There are other ways that these finances can be taken care of. Some who are
> lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law. But I
> haven’t been able to do that. I’m so far away from California that I’ve been
> so busy with my Senatorial work that I have not engaged in any legal
> practice.
>
> And also as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the
> relationship between an attorney and the client was 80 personal that you
> couldn’t possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased
> view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before
> the Government.
>
> And so I felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses
> of getting my message to the American people and the speeches I made, the
> speeches that I had printed, for the most part, concerned this one
> message—of exposing this Administration, the communism in it, the corruption
> in it—the only way that I could do that was to accept the aid which people
> in my home state of California who contributed to my campaign and who
> continued to make these contributions after I was elected were glad to make.
>
> And let me say I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me
> for a special favor. I’m proud of the fact that not one of them has ever
> asked me to vote on a bill other than as my own conscience would dictate.
> And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise
> have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and
> shouldn’t be charged to the taxpayers.
>
> Let me say, incidentally, that some of you may say, “Well, that’s all right,
> Senator; that’s your explanation, but have you got any proof7″
>
> And I’d like to tell you this evening that just about an hour ago we
> received an independent audit of this entire fund. I suggested to Gov.
> Sherman Adams, who is the chief of staff of the Dwight Eisenhower campaign,
> that an independent audit and legal report be obtained. And I have that
> audit here in my hand.
>
> It’s an audit made by the Price, Waterhouse & Co. firm, and the legal
> opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, lawyers in Los Angeles, the biggest law
> firm and incidentally one of the best ones in Los Angeles.
>
> I’m proud to be able to report to you tonight that this audit and this legal
> opinion is being forwarded to General Eisenhower. And I’d like to read to
> you the opinion that was prepared by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and based on
> all the pertinent laws and statutes, together with the audit report prepared
> by the certified public accountants.
>
> “It is our conclusion that Senator Nixon did not obtain any financial gain
> from the collection and disbursement of the fund by Dana Smith; that Senator
> Nixon did not violate any Federal or state law by reason of the operation of
> the fund, and that neither the portion of the fund paid by Dana Smith
> directly to third persons nor the portion paid to Senator Nixon to reimburse
> him for designated office expenses constituted income to the Senator which
> was either reportable or taxable as income under applicable tax laws.
> (signed) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher by Alma H. Conway.”
>
> Now that, my friends, is not Nixon speaking, but that’s an independent audit
> which was requested because I want the American people to know all the facts
> and I’m not afraid of having independent people go in and check the facts,
> and that is exactly what they did.
>
> But then I realize that there are still some who may say, and rightly so,
> and let me say that I recognize that some will continue to smear regardless
> of what the truth may be, but that there has been understandably some honest
> misunderstanding on this matter, and there’s some that will say:
>
> “Well, maybe you were able, Senator, to fake this thing. How can we believe
> what you say? After all, is there a possibility that maybe you got some sums
> in cash? Is there a possibility that you may have feathered your own nest?”
> And so now what I am going to do-and incidentally this is unprecedented in
> the history of American politics-I am going at this time to give this
> television and radio audience a complete financial history; everything I’ve
> earned; everything I’ve spent; everything I owe. And I want you to know the
> facts. I’ll have to start early.
>
> I was born in 1913. Our family was one of modest circumstances and most of
> my early life was spent in a store out in East Whittier. It was a grocery
> store — one of those family enterprises. he only reason we were able to make
> it go was because my mother and dad had five boys and we all worked in the
> store.
>
> I worked my way through college and to a great extent through law school.
> And then, in 1940, probably the best thing that ever happened to me
> happened, I married Pat—who is sitting over here. We had a rather difficult
> time after we were married, like so many of the young couples who may be
> listening to us. I practiced law; she continued to teach school. Then in
> 1942 I went into the service.
>
> Let me say that my service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went
> to the South Pacific. I guess I’m entitled to a couple of battle stars. I
> got a couple of letters of commendation but I was just there when the bombs
> were falling and then I returned. I returned to the United States and in
> 1946 I ran for the Congress.
>
> When we came out of the war, Pat and I—Pat during the war ad worked as a
> stenographer and in a bank and as an economist for Government agency—and
> when we came out the total of our saving from both my law practice, her
> teaching and all the time that I as in the war—the total for that entire
> period was just a little less than $10,000. Every cent of that,
> incidentally, was in Government bonds.
>
> Well, that’s where we start when I go into politics. Now what I’ve I earned
> since I went into politics? Well, here it is—I jotted it down, let me read
> the notes. First of all I’ve had my salary as a Congressman and as a
> Senator. Second, I have received a total in this past six years of $1600
> from estates which were in my law firm the time that I severed my connection
> with it.
>
> And, incidentally, as I said before, I have not engaged in any legal
> practice and have not accepted any fees from business that came to the firm
> after I went into politics. I have made an average of approximately $1500 a
> year from nonpolitical speaking engagements and lectures. And then,
> fortunately, we’ve inherited a little money. Pat sold her interest in her
> father’s estate for $3,000 and I inherited $l500 from my grandfather.
>
> We live rather modestly. For four years we lived in an apartment in Park
> Fairfax, in Alexandria, Va. The rent was $80 a month. And we saved for the
> time that we could buy a house.
>
> Now, that was what we took in. What did we do with this money? What do we
> have today to show for it? This will surprise you, Because it is so little,
> I suppose, as standards generally go, of people in public life. First of
> all, we’ve got a house in Washington which cost $41,000 and on which we owe
> $20,000. We have a house in Whittier, California, which cost $13,000 and on
> which we owe $3000. * My folks are living there at the present time.
>
> I have just $4,000 in life insurance, plus my G.I. policy which I’ve never
> been able to convert and which will run out in two years. I have no
> insurance whatever on Pat. I have no life insurance on our our youngsters,
> Patricia and Julie. I own a 1950 Oldsmobile car. We have our furniture. We
> have no stocks and bonds of any type. We have no interest of any kind,
> direct or indirect, in any business.
>
> Now, that’s what we have. What do we owe? Well, in addition to the mortgage,
> the $20,000 mortgage on the house in Washington, the $10,000 one on the
> house in Whittier, I owe $4,500 to the Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C. with
> interest 4 1/2 per cent.
>
> I owe $3,500 to my parents and the interest on that loan which I pay
> regularly, because it’s the part of the savings they made through the years
> they were working so hard, I pay regularly 4 per cent interest. And then I
> have a $500 loan which I have on my life insurance.
>
> Well, that’s about it. That’s what we have and that’s what we owe. It isn’t
> very much but Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we’ve got
> is honestly ours. I should say this—that Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But
> she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat. And I always tell her
> that she’d look good in anything.
>
> Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this
> audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have
> JavaScript enabled in your browser.
>
> One other thing I probably should tell you because if we don’t they’ll
> probably be saying this about me too, we did get something-a gift-after the
> election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that
> our two youngsters would like to have a dog. And, believe it or not, the day
> before we left on this campaign trip we got a message from Union Station in
> Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know
> what it was.
>
> It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that he’d sent all the way
> from Texas. Black and white spotted. And our little girl-Tricia, the 6-year
> old-named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog
> and I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say
> about it, we’re gonna keep it.
>
> It isn’t easy to come before a nation-wide audience and air your life as
> I’ve done. But I want to say some things before I conclude that I think most
> of you will agree on. Mr. Mitchell, the chairman of the Democratic National
> Committee, made the statement that if a man couldn’t afford to be in the
> United States Senate he shouldn’t run for the Senate.
>
> And I just want to make my position clear. I don’t agree with Mr. Mitchell
> when he says that only a rich man should serve his Government in the United
> States Senate or in the Congress. I don’t believe that represents the
> thinking of the Democratic Party, and I know that it doesn’t represent the
> thinking of the Republican Party.
>
> I believe that it’s fine that a man like Governor Stevenson who inherited a
> fortune from his father can run for President. But I also feel that it’s
> essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can also run
> for President. Because, you know, remember Abraham Lincoln, you remember
> what he said: “God must have loved the common people—he made so many of
> them.”
>
> And now I’m going to suggest some courses of conduct. First of all, you have
> read in the papers about other funds now. Mr. Stevenson, apparently, had a
> couple. One of them in which a group of business people paid and helped to
> supplement the salaries of state employees. Here is where the money went
> directly into their pockets.
>
> And I think that what Mr. Stevenson should do is come before the American
> people as I have, give the names of the people that have contributed to that
> fund; give the names of the people who put this money into their pockets at
> the same time that they were receiving money from their state government,
> and see what favors, if any, they ave out for that.
>
> I don’t condemn Mr. Stevenson for what he did. But until the facts are in
> there is a doubt that will be raised.
>
> And as far as Mr. Sparkman is concerned, I would suggest the same thing.
> He’s had his wife on the payroll. I don’t condemn him for that. But I think
> that he should come before the American people and indicate what outside
> sources of income he has had.
>
> I would suggest that under the circumstances both Mr. parkman and Mr.
> Stevenson should come before the American people as I have and make a
> complete financial statement as to their financial history. And if they
> don’t, it will be an admission that they have something to hide. And I think
> that you will agree with me.
>
> Because, folks, remember, a man that’s to be President of the United States,
> a man that’s to be Vice President of the United States must have the
> confidence of all the people. And that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing, and
> that’s why I suggest that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Sparkman since they are
> under attack should do what I am doing.
>
> Now, let me say this: I know that this is not the last of the smears. In
> spite of my explanation tonight other smears will be made; others have been
> made in the past. And the purpose of the mears, I know, is this—to silence
> me, to make me let up.
>
> Well, they just don’t know who they’re dealing with. I’m going l tell you
> this: I remember in the dark days of the Hiss case some of the same
> columnists, some of the same radio commentators who are attacking me now and
> misrepresenting my position were violently opposing me at the time I was
> after Alger Hiss.
>
> But I continued the fight because I knew I was right. And I an say to this
> great television and radio audience that I have no pologies to the American
> people for my part in putting Alger Hiss vhere he is today.
>
> And as far as this is concerned, I intend to continue the fight.
>
> Why do I feel so deeply? Why do I feel that in spite of the mears, the
> misunderstandings, the necessity for a man to come up here and bare his soul
> as I have? Why is it necessary for me to continue this fight?
>
> And I want to tell you why. Because, you see, I love my country. And I think
> my country is in danger. And I think that the only man that can save America
> at this time is the man that’s runing for President on my ticket — Dwight
> Eisenhower.
>
> You say, “Why do I think it’s in danger?” and I say look at the record.
> Seven years of the Truman-Acheson Administration and that’s happened? Six
> hundred million people lost to the Communists, and a war in Korea in which
> we have lost 117,000 American casualties.
>
> And I say to all of you that a policy that results in a loss of six hundred
> million people to the Communists and a war which costs us 117,000 American
> casualties isn’t good enough for America.
>
> And I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which
> caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of
> the State Department just as fast as we can get ‘em out of there.
>
> And let me say that I know Mr. Stevenson won’t do that. Because he defends
> the Truman policy and I know that Dwight Eisenhower will do that, and that
> he will give America the leadership that it needs.
>
> Take the problem of corruption. You’ve read about the mess in Washington.
> Mr. Stevenson can’t clean it up because he was picked by the man, Truman,
> under whose Administration the mess was made. You wouldn’t trust a man who
> made the mess to clean it up— that’s Truman. And by the same token you can’t
> trust the man who was picked by the man that made the mess to clean it
> up—and that’s Stevenson.
>
> And so I say, Eisenhower, who owes nothing to Truman, nothing to the big
> city bosses, he is the man that can clean up the mess in Washington.
>
> Take Communism. I say that as far as that subject is concerned, the danger
> is great to America. In the Hiss case they got the secrets which enabled
> them to break the American secret State Department code. They got secrets in
> the atomic bomb case which enabled them to get the secret of the atomic
> bomb, five years before they would have gotten it by their own devices.
>
> And I say that any man who called the Alger Hiss case a “red herring” isn’t
> fit to be President of the United States. I say that a man who like Mr.
> Stevenson has pooh-poohed and ridiculed the Communist threat in the United
> States—he said that they are phantoms among ourselves; he’s accused us that
> have attempted to expose the Communists of looking for Communists in the
> Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife—I say that a man who says that isn’t
> qualified to be President of the United States.
>
> And I say that the only man who can lead us in this fight to rid the
> Government of both those who are Communists and those who have corrupted
> this Government is Eisenhower, because Eisenhower, you can be sure,
> recognizes the problem and he knows how to deal with it.
>
> Now let me say that, finally, this evening I want to read to you just
> briefly excerpts from a letter which I received, a letter which, after all
> this is over, no one can take away from us. It reads as follows:
>
> Dear Senator Nixon:
>
> Since I’m only 19 years of age I can’t vote in this Presidential election
> but believe me if I could you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my
> vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He’s a corpsman on the
> front lines and we have a two-month-old son he’s never seen. And I feel
> confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the
> White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved
> ones now in Korea.
>
> I only pray to God that you won’t be too late. Enclosed is a small check to
> help you in your campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can afford at
> present. But let me know what else I can do.
>
> Folks, it’s a check for $10, and it’s one that I will never cash.
>
> And just let me say this. We hear a lot about prosperity these days but I
> say, why can’t we have prosperity built on peace rather than prosperity
> built on war? Why can’t we have prosperity and an honest government in
> Washington, D.C., at the same time. Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is
> the man that can lead this crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.
>
> And, now, finally, I know that you wonder whether or not I am going to stay
> on the Republican ticket or resign.
>
> Let me say this: I don’t believe that I ought to quit because I’m not a
> quitter. And, incidentally, Pat’s not a quitter. After all, her name was
> Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick’s Day, and you know the Irish
> never quit.
>
> But the decision, my friends, is not mine. I would do nothing that would
> harm the possibilities of Dwight Eisenhower to become President of the
> United States. And for that reason I am submitting to the Republican
> National Committee tonight through this television broadcast the decision
> which it is theirs to make.
>
> Let them decide whether my position on the ticket will help or hurt. And I
> am going to ask you to help them decide. Wire and write the Republican
> National Committee whether you think I should stay on or whether I should
> get off. And whatever their decision is, I will abide by it.
>
> But just let me say this last word. Regardless of what happens I’m going to
> continue this fight. I’m going to campaign up and down America until we
> drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of
> Washington. And remember, folks, Eisenhower is a great man. Believe me. He’s
> a great man. And a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what’s good for
> America."
>
> ----------------
>
> Videos of the Speech
>
> Part 1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXnwW-rGWsU
>
> Part 2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe5vnpUR4J4
>
> Part 3
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X6sibf5New
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college
> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>
> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================