Common Practices

The Democrats' delight at Nixon's discomfiture was prompt and predictable. Rhode Island's Senator Theodore Francis Green called on Nixon to name his contributors and tell how the money was spent. When Nixon did so, Vice-Presidential Nominee John Sparkman hinted darkly that Nixon's situation called for a congressional investigation. Candidate Adlai Stevenson said: "Condemnation without all the evidence, a practice all too familiar to us, would be wrong."

The reaction of Nixon's fellow Republicans in Congress threw some light on the Nixon fund. Congressman Oakley Hunter of California volunteered the information that his friends have set up an expense fund for him, and he has drawn $4,000 since 1951. Ohio's Bob Taft told a reporter that there was "no reason why a Senator or Congressman should not accept gifts from constituents to help pay even personal expenses in Washington--and certainly those political and travel expenses which are not paid by the Government.

"The only possible criticism would arise," said Taft, "if these donors asked for or received legislative or other favors. I know that no such motives inspired the expense payments in the case of Dick Nixon. Those who contributed to the fund probably agreed 100% with his legislative position anyway."

Fees & Bonds. Vermont's respected George D. Aiken came closest to the basic fact of congressional, finance when he observed that "many" Republicans and Democrats fall back on outside financial support of one kind or another to cover their expenses.

Some Congressmen draw fees from insurance agencies or law partnerships. Some, like New York's Herbert Lehman, California's Bill Knowland and Pennsylvania's Jim Duff, are independently wealthy and spend a great deal of their own money on political activity. A most lucrative and common practice is the delivery of speeches for fees. The Democrats' Estes Kefauver, Paul Douglas and Hubert Humphrey are all regulars on the speech circuit. The star of the circuit is Vice President Alben Barkley, who has for years drawn fees up to $1,000 for each appearance. Barkley is a paid platform favorite for Israel bond-selling drives. Many Arabs think (mistakenly) that this fact has had an influence on U.S. policy in the Middle East. But not many Arabs vote in U.S. elections.

How It Started. The most obvious--and perhaps the most, important--difference between Nixon's fund and other Congressmen's sources of outside income is that Nixon raised money by an unconventional method, whereas the outside incomes of other congressmen, though not necessarily more proper, have the sanction of time. A few decades ago, the Nixon fund would have been unlikely, because there would have been no reason for it. Before the decline of state political machines, expenses such as Nixon's (for speeches, mailing propaganda, etc.) were met out of party organization funds. But today in many states party organization does not work that way.

In California, Governor Earl Warren controls the Republican organization--and Warren is not much of a party organization man. He is reluctant to endorse or help other state candidates (and never did support Nixon in the 1950 senatorial campaign). Such polite anarchy creates an every-man-for-himself situation.

What Dana Smith says he did would not be open to the question of propriety if Dana Smith were a Republican Party treasurer, mailing out the statements of and arranging speeches for all the party's spokesmen in his state. Smith, however, performed that function not for the whole party but for the Nixon faction. One reason for secrecy was that Nixon's people wanted to avoid a factional clash with the Warrenites, who work the same ground for campaign contributions. (Some, but not all, of Nixon's contributors also contribute to Warren's campaigns.)

In ethics or in plain propriety, Nixon's fund invites the same kind of scrutiny that should be turned on any public man who gets outside personal or political income. In such cases, the question: "Did this money influence him?" is always valid. But the validity of the question is one thing. The automatic assumption that a man is tainted because he uses political contributions to cover his political expenses is something else again.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.