DI CP23 F2 Ocrcombined Withcitations Updated.Pdf

Home , Charles Goodell, Edwin Reinecke, Harrison Thyng, John Grenier, Joseph Tydings, Pete Stark

Inouye, Daniel K. “Questionnaire.” 1970, pp. 1–4.

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 5 - 12:30 p.m. S-120, The Capitol

AGENDA

ALLOCATION OF MONIES RAISED

NUMBER OF TRIPS FOR EACH INCUMBENT SPECIAL MEETING DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

2/6/69 S-208, Capitol 10:00 A.M. Senator Inouye, Chmn. AGENDA

1. Selection of Senators to fill vacancy on the Committee

2. House-Senate Democratic Fund Raising Dinner

A. Determination of Date - April 21, May 12, 1969

B. Division of Proceeds

3. Financial Report

4. Appointment and employment of staff members

5. Other Business DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE MEETING

2/6/69 S-208 COMMITTEE ATTENDING:

Senator Anderson - Yes

Senator Harris - Yes

Senator McIntyre - Try

Senator Mondale - Try

Senator Sparkman - Try MINUTES OF THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Thursday, February 20, 1969, S-207, The Capitol 12:30 p.m.

Members present:

Senator Inouye Senator Nelson Senator Eagleton Senator Harris Senator Hollings Senator McIntyre Senator Burdick Senator Harry Byrd Senator Kennedy Senator Pastore Senator Proxmire Senator Symington Senator Yarborough Senator Young

Eiler Ravnholt Nordy Hoffmann Stan Kimmitt Berl Bernhard Barbara Towles

Senator Inouye opened the meeting expressing his appreciation to the Leadership for his appointment as Chairman to the Committee. He stated that he accepted the job with his eyes open, he wanted to be

Chairman, and expected to do the best job he can. He pointed out that during the last recess he spent time studying the Campaign Committee picture and that his "findings are frightening".

On the Democratic side, there are two Campaign Committees, one in the House and one in the Senate. Each operates independently and the only time there is a coordinated, integrated effort is in a fund raising venture. By contrast, the Republicans have a carefully prepared, well planned, and completely integrated Congressional Committee - 2 - with 51 full-time professional staff members employed. The sole purpose of that Committee is to achieve a Republican Congress in 1970

With 34 seats to be contested in 1970, it is interesting to note that

25 seats are Democratic and 9 Republican. Further, if only 7 seats are lost to the Republicans, the Democrats lose the Senate and Committee

Chairmen revert to "ranking minority members of each Committee". In view of this, he suggested that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee be expanded in purpose beyond merely that of fund raising.

He indicated that programs will be recommended to Democratic incumbents by the Campaign Committee early in this session.

Senator Inouye pointed out that a dinner will be held at the Washington Hilton Hotel on May 12 at $500 per seat. The Nelson formula was agreed to by the House Committee which permits a 55$ - 45% ratio division up to $320,000 which was the amount the Senate received at a similar event last year. After that amount had been reached, the ratio would increase to 60% - 40%. The Chairman was confident that we will equal and surpass last year's income with this event.

Senator Inouye pointed out a few examples of services an active Campaign Committee can provide:

Pollsters:

It has been determined that each state averages

from $7,500 to $8,000 for a single poll during a Sena-

torial campaign under normal circumstances. He believes

that the best pollsters in America would be willing to

provide as a package deal to 25 Senators 4 polls in each

state at the same cost. - 3 -

TV and Media:

He learned that a 30 minute documentary averaged

$75,000 per production. On the other hand, if 10

Senators were to combine, that cost may be reduced to

$20,000 per film. This would achieve the same time and

a uniformly higher quality. He pointed out that similar

shots of group actions could be filmed at one time but

highlighting a different candidate in each. Further, it

would be possible to film a prestige setting for every

candidate in a minimum of time.

These and other ideas are to be developed and expanded as time goes on. In this connection, he announced that Senator Nelson had volunteered to head the Communication Media Subcommittee of the

Campaign Committee, and he would discuss his ideas later in the meeting.

Senator Inouye asked the Members present for their thoughts on two persons to be approached as Chairman of the Dinner Committee for this year. He first suggested Mrs. Mary Lasker and secondly

Mr. Edgar Kaiser.

Senator Pastore indicated his approval of Mrs. Lasker.

Senator Symington pointed out that Mrs. Lasker was one of his very close friends and he had every confidence in her ability to lend a prestigious name to this affair. He mentioned, however, that tge Administration was now business oriented and Mr. Kaiser could be a blessing to us both as a businessman and through his support of the labor unions in all of his dealings. Senator Symington pointed out that he was speaking as a former Chairman for the fund raising events of the

Campaign Committee. - 4 -

Senator Hollings pointed out that Mr. Kaiser had been Chair- man of the Johnson Slum Housing Commission.

Senator Inouye asked that members let him know of any other suggestions they might have.

Senator Nelson suggested that when other names were received, they would be considered by the Campaign Committee and the Committee would report back to the incumbents on its selection.

Senator Inouye stated that the policy of the Campaign

Committee had been equal distribution of funds to all candidates.

He proposed that the Committee be authorized to establish a basic minimum amount for each incumbent and that beyond that amount the

Committee be authorized to act in its discretion in allocating funds among Senators who may be in more trouble than others. He pointed out for example that Senator Pastore would receive a basic amount, but since it was anticipated that he would have little trouble in being reelected, he might not need additional funds to the same extent as others would.

Senator Pastore stated he fully agreed with that policy.

Senator Proxmire said that this really was not a basic depart- ure from existing procedures since this was what the Committee had done last year.

Senator Inouye stated that the Committee would advise all candidates of funds disbursed by name and amount.

Senator Yarborough stated that early disposition of funds was the most helpful thing that could happen. He pointed out that he had made 50 trips to Texas in 1963 in preparation for his 1964 campaign.

This was a significant item in his reelection. - 5 -

Senator Inouye announced that when the books were closed on the May 12 affair, funds would be immediately distributed.

Senator Yarborough reviewed the comments made by Senator

Stennis reporting of funds. It was his understanding that if he did not handle cash but that a committee acted in his behalf, it need not be reported by Senator Yarborough.

Senator Inouye stated that Berl Bernhard, a very capable lawyer, is prepared to discuss with each Senator their individual problems and clarify the rules.

Senator Yarborough stated that while he had great respect for

Mr. Bernhard and other lawyers, what he really wanted was the Ethics

Committee ruling on the matter.

Senator Pastore agreed with the concept of early disposition of funds but reporting was a dilemma. The rules say a member must report by

May 15 of each year and he may not even have announced for reelection at that time. No Senator wanted to be embarrassed but he wanted to comply with the rules. He asked if funds could be spent by a committee on behalf of a candidate which the candidate need not report?

Senator Inouye stated that the Republicans used that system and have established a drawing account for their members.

Senator Symington stated that while he had great respect for the Ethics Committee, he would be more inclined to follow legal counsel which complied with the law. If he followed the rules of law, he was certain the Ethics Committee could not fault him.

Mr. Bernhard gave a short explanation of the rules of reporting and indicated that further information would be made available later. - 6 -

Senator Burdick asked, concerning travel, when the Senate would match the House in the number of trips authorized each member to his state. He pointed out that the House had a more generous allocation and felt that the Senate should do something to match their program.

Senator Inouye mentioned that this would require legislation and would be looked into.

Senator Inouye called on Senator Nelson to discuss his ideas on the use of media. Senator Nelson gave a lengthy but full presenta- tion on his experiences in preparing a radio and television program for a campaign. He mentioned that he had 10 years experience and four

campaigns. The salient points he emphasized are as follows:

Each candidate should give serious consideration

to preparing the campaign with his own staff and under

his own supervision.

Experts are available to advise and will be brought

to the Capitol during a series of meetings with incum-

bents. He hoped to do this in the Capitol during a

regular legislative day.

He was collecting a sampling of good television

and radio spots for candidates consideration.

Many changes come about between campaigns and material must

be fresh.

He was preparing a campaign manual based on his

experience on what was done - mistakes made - costs -

lessions learned, etc. His manual would not fit every-

one but would be a good guide for any candidate.

In the field of commonality, several themes will

fit every candidate. For example: - 7 -

A spot on integrity.

A spot on independence.

A spot on friendliness.

The Senator must involve his staff and above all

himself in the preparation of his campaign films.

While a half hour program may be valuable in ■western

states, it is too expensive to use in states having numerous

outlets. He recommended a minumum of four spots of minutes

each to gain maximum effect.

A candidate must be a year in advance, -which means that

footage must be filmed this summer for the 1970 campaign.

Do not overlook radio. It is still potential member of

the media.

He pointed out that in his last campaign they took two

miles of footage to obtain 22 one minute spots.

Stay away from controversial items and prepare spots that

won’t irritate anyone. Select those issues which you know will

be prevalent in 1970. The basic question a candidate must ask

himself is, "What am I planning to project in the fall of 1970?"

It is tougher to do a one minute film that a longer one.

The candidate must assume the final responsibility for approval

of every spot.

Everything must be done in color.

Senator Pastore asked Senator Nelson for his ideas on partici- pating in debates. Senator Nelson said where possible avoid debates and in his case he agreed to one on the Friday before election. - 8 -

Senator Yarborough pointed out the tremendous effect a debate had on Senator Wayne Morse’s last campaign. He explained how Wayne Morse had been led into a situation with planted questions and a hostile audience.

The result was filmed and used just prior to the election with great effect.

Senator Yarborough, as the last order of business, recommended

that Senator Inouye consider both Mrs. Lasker and Mr. Kaiser as Co-Chair- men of the May 12 dinner.

The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 1:50 p.m. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ROOM 130 SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510

Telephone CApitol 4-3121 EXT. 2447

COMMITTEE MEETING ATTENDANCE - 2/20/69

Present Absent

Senator Inouye Senator Anderson Senator Nelson Senator Magnuson Senator Eagleton Senator Ribicoff Senator Harris Senator Spong Senator Hollings Senator Muskie Senator McIntyre Senator Mondale Senator Sparkman (No lunch)

Senator Burdick Senator Robert Byrd Senator Harry Byrd Senator Cannon Senator Dodd Senator Hart Senator Gore Senator Holland Senator Hartke (No lunch) Senator Jackson Senator Kennedy Senator McGee Senator Mansfield Senator Montoya Senator McCarthy Senator Moss Senator Pastore Senator Stennis Senator Proxmire Senator Williams Senator Symington Senator Tydings Senator Yarborough Senator Young

Eiler Ravnholt Nordy Hoffmann Stan Kimmitt Berl Bernhard Barbara Towles Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

ROOM 130 SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. D. C. 20510

Telephone CApitol 4-3121 EXT. 2447

COMMITTEE MEETING - February 20, 1969 - 12:30 P.M. - S,207 Capitol

AGENDA

Remarks by the Chairman, Inouye

Discussion by Vice Chairman, Nelson T.V. and Radio Media

Other Business Meeting with Administrative Assistants and Staff Representatives of Members of Senate Democratic Campaign Committee

•

A dinner meeting of the Administrative Assistants and other staff personnel of the members of the Senate Democratic Campaign

Committee was held at the Carroll Arms on Thursday, January 9,

1969. Frank (Nordy) Hoffmann presided over the meeting which be- gan at 7:15 P.M.

There were present:

Frank (Nordy) Hoffmann, Senate Campaign Committee Berl Bernhard, Firm of Verner, Liipfert and Bernhard Jerry Kabel, (Senator Hart) Dave Burke, (Senator Kennedy) Eiler Ravenholt, (Vice-President Humphrey) Ken Gray, (Senator Tydings) Tom van der Voort, (Senator Proxmire) Stanley Fike, (Senator Symington) Sterling Munro, (Senator Jackson) Don Nicoll, (Senator Muskie) Dick Cook, (Senator McGee) Leo Kramer, (Leo Kramer, Inc.) Jan Pettee, (Leo Kramer, Inc.)

Nordy Hoffmann explained that the purpose of the meeting was to ask the AA's what assistance they or their senators needed

from the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. He stated that the

Committee would have a bank of all the materials that were used in

the 1968 election by the senators, both winners and losers. Nordy

stated that as a result of an inquiry made, he had already received replies from most of the senators and most had agreed to give the material to him. Those that had not already turned over - 2 - their material would do so shortly. Nordy reported that Paul

O’Dwyer, William G. Clark, William I. Robinson, Milton Weilenmann and Miss Katherine Peden had sent their material to him. He stated that an evaluation would be made of all the material turned in and the AA’s would have access to it. It was Nordy's feeling that in this way the AA’s would have some indication of the people who ran the campaigns for their senators, and be able to judge who was bad, good or indifferent.

Nordy Hoffmann stated that the firm of Leo Kramer, Inc., had done work for the Campaign Committee last year, and had prepared the speech cards for the Senators. However, it was agreed that the activity in the 1968 election was started too late and the speech cards were not available until September. The hope was expressed that the fact books and speech cards would be available to the AA’s by May of 1970.

It was stated by some that the speech cards did not work out in the 1968 election because they should have followed the

Fact Book. It was agreed that for the future that would be cor- rected. - 3 -

It was reported that the House Democratic Study Group had been very helpful. The Study Group has a good group of people who

are not only contributing, but also have research material which

can be very helpful to all. In turn, the Campaign Committee had

furnished and would continue to furnish whatever information would

be useful to the Study Group.

It was reported the House Campaign Committee will have the

legislative file on those Congressmen (for instance, Goodell) who

ran for the Senate and will be running for the Senate and will

give that file to the Senate Campaign Committee. It is a very

accurate file on the Republican members of the House so that if

they should run for the Senate the material will be available.

It was announced that the House and Senate Campaign Com-

mittee Fund Raising dinner will be held April 21, 1969.

Stanley Fike asked if it were possible for the AA's to see

the McGovern film. Nordy stated that films used during the cam-

paign would be available as part of the materials that would be

gotten to him as previously mentioned. He stated that all films that

were used in campaigns will be viewed and evaluated as to whether

they are good or bad. It was felt there may be certain sections

of the films that will be useful whether the entire or overall

film is good or bad. It was agreed that cost factors would be 4 available so that everyone would know what was done and be able to see who was able to do what. It was suggested that an evening meeting would be a better time in which to view the films.

Don Nicoll suggested that the Humphrey half-hour question

and answer films would be good to view. He also suggested that

the Humphrey-Muskie Conversation films were excellent and had

gotten good responses.

It was suggested that perhaps a half-hour film could be

Worked out as follows, thereby cutting down costs: Fifteen minutes

of the individual Senator who is a candidate, then a common 15

minute film which could be used by everyone so that the main cost would be the 15 minute individual film and then sharing the costs

of the other 15 minutes. In addition, the History of the Demo-

cratic Party was suggested for the 15 minute common film.

A discussion was held on the possibility of the Campaign

Committee hiring a professional crew to come in and make the film.

Nordy Hoffmann said there was no money available now for such an

effort, but some money would be available at a later date. It was

suggested that Nordy contact Charles Guggenheim to discuss with

him what is wanted in a film and get his reaction as to cost and

ideas on how best to do it. - 5 -

The question arose as to whether it would be feasible to use stills for the Washington area pictures. Tom van der Voort stated that they had hired a photographer to cover Senator

Proxmire for an entire day, and that they had gotten some excellent pictures. It was stated that it was possible to hire a free-lance photographer for approximately $100 a day plus expenses .

Hoffmann said that another big problem for the Campaign

Committee was the lack of colored slides of all the senators.

He stated that it was very difficult to get the senators to make these colored slides available to the Committee and he would ap- preciate it if the AA's could make sure that these are available to him.

Nordy then asked the group what ideas there were from a research point of view that would be helpful to the senators. Ken

Gray stated that as far as he was concerned that they did not use the research material, since the senators have this kind of material available in their own offices when they write their speeches.

He stated further that every state and every senator's need is different, and it is therefore difficult to have one set of speech cards that will suit everyone who is running.

Don Nicoll pointed out that some statistics are very useful, such as the impact of different Federal aid programs, and - 6 - the impact of economic conditions during the Kennedy and Johnson years compared to the Eisenhower years. It was stated that the

National Democratic Committee and the Campaign Committee should

now start researching and refining those statistics, and have the

material available this year and early next year.

It was pointed out that it would be very worthwhile for

the AA's to sit down now and determine what kind of research ma-

terial they need. The question was asked whether money is saved

by working together on such material, and the answer was that you

save in terms of time spent in writing. The real question appears

to be one of making sure that the statistics are timely.

Another question discussed was the evaluation of statistics,

since some are useless. It was felt that there may be a way of

using facts on farm income, a particular kind of farmer, and What

has happened to the small farm communities. Therefore, it was

agreed that a clearinghouse of materials was needed in order to

determine what is valuable.

It was pointed out that the Senate Campaign Committee has

never performed the role of presenting an ideological position.

The hatchet job on the Nixon Administration will probably be per-

formed by the Democratic National Committee. However, it was felt

that no one would know what role the National Committee will play - 7 - until after next week.

Dave Burke stated that there must be a way to keep track of the way in which Republicans are conducting themselves — specifically with reference to how the steady progress of legislation has been stopped or hindered by them, (a watch-dog system) .

A discussion on this matter ensued. It was thought that perhaps the press secretaries or legislative assistants who attend the committee hearings could report back to a central place on the events that occur in Committee hearings. That way, if something is observed they could have someone call right away before they forget it. This could be called a Collection of Revealing Anec- dotes. It was felt that it might be well to work out something with the House Democratic Study Group to do the same kind of thing for their people and pass it on to the Senate.

Ken Gray stated that it would be very useful to have a professional come in and speak to the AA's on the direct mail techniques — to teach them the real mechanics of how to get the best results from mailings, how to get lists, how to keep them up, et cetera. It was suggested that this be done on an individual basis with each senator since his needs would be different. It was also suggested that it would be extremely helpful to get the cost factors for getting the mail to the right people. In addi- - 8 - tion, the basic mechanics of running the machines would be helpful.

It was pointed out that the House had used professional people in terms of lay-outs, quality of material, et cetera. It was suggested that a group session with someone from the House who has used the system and found it successful would be helpful.

It was felt that the Kramer staff could furnish an idea of what the alternatives would be on the use of computers, mailing systems, and comparative costs.

Nordy Hoffmann asked for an estimate of the amount of paper the senators will need this year so that they can begin getting a bank of paper available. He cautioned about mailing lists, since they must be checked to avoid embarrassing mistakes such as sending letters for contributions to well-known Republicans, et cetera.

It was agreed that there should be a meeting between the Senate

Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee staffs in order to find the best ways of utilizing the services of both

Committees.

Funds were discussed and Hoffmann gave a breakdown of the amount of money distributed to the senators and the breakdown of the way in which it was given to them. - 9 -

It was decided that it was very important that an inter- pretation of the Senate Ethics Committee Resolution be obtained.

It was also decided that expert help was needed for the individual campaigns on financial management techniques. It was further decided to arrange for a luncheon of the Senators so that they might discuss this matter fully.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.

Minutes taken by Jan Pettee

1/21/69 72 DAYS UNTIL "D" DATE

February 28, 1969

The following were suggestions which were proposed at a meeting and luncheon of Neale Roach, Ken Harding, Ted Henshaw and Nordy Hoffmann on February 27, 1969-

1. Seating at dinner — four (4) tables seating twelve (12) rather than head tables. (Centered).

Have Chariman of Standing Committees seated around the room on the terraced area's.

2. What about personal invitations to President Johnson and Vice President Humphrey? Call should go from Chairman Inouye.

3. Half hour speaking -- half hour for entertainment.

(a) Senator Inouye would speak for both Committees and introduce Congressman Kirwan. Who else should speak?

(b) Entertainment — "The Brothers and Sisters". Total entertainment would cost (including band) $6,000 and would be part of the 8 or 9% total cost of the dinner.

The entertainment would be booked through the Jack Morton Productions.

4. The telephone canvass from the Hotel Mayflower will begin on April 7th. (Boiler-rooms operation). We are supplying people to make calls.

5. We need to have a color photo of the Senator so it can be blown up to 5 ft. x 8½ ft. for the Ballroom.

These will be the pictures — Senator Inouye, Congressman Kirwan, Senator Mansfield and House Speaker John McCormack. Do we want other pictures?

6. What about table decorations? Should we arrange to have a favor? ( Ash Tray in 1967? Nothing in 1968? )?

7. Could it be arranged to give each lady a "Lei" from Hawaii or would the cost be too great? - 2 -

Continued -

8. It was suggested that the Chairman might want to consider appointing four (4) prominent businessmen as Regional Co-Chairman to spur ticket sales. DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DINNER COMMITTEE MAYFLOWER HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 • Telephone ( 202 ) 737-8 1 2 1

FEBRUARY 19, 1969

(FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE)

SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE OF HAWAII AND REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL J. KIRWAN OF OHIO, RESPECTIVE CHAIRMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES, TODAY ANNOUNCED PLANS FOR THE ANNUAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DINNER.

THIS YEAR'S EVENT WILL HONOR SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER AND JOHN W. McCORMACK, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THE CHAIRMEN OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS.

THE DINNER WILL BE HELD IN THE WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL, MONDAY, MAY 12, 1969, AND EARLY RESPONSE INDICATES THIS WILL BE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL EVENT OF ITS KIND EVER HELD IN WASHINGTON. FUNDS RAISED WILL BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES.

SENATOR INOUYE AND CONGRESSMAN KIRWAN ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT HEADQUARTERS FOR THE DINNER COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN OPENED AT SUITE 281, MAYFLOWER HOTEL, UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF NEALE ROACH WHO HAS BEEN SELECTED AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE PROPOSED OPERATING EXPENSES 2/1/69 to 4/30/69

Cash on Hand 1/30/69 $30,363.78

Staff Salaries: (Annually)

Executive Director ($27,098.00) $6,675.51 Administrative Secretary ($8,756.00) 2,189.01 Receptionist ($5,080.80) 1,270.20 Photo Lab Technician ($5,770.94) 1,442.73 Part-time Assistant ($1,200.00) 300.00 Total Salaries (2/1/69 to 4/30/69) $11,976.42

Office Supplies 500.00 Photo Supplies 700.00 Telephone 150.00 Luncheon Meetings 650.00 Committee Travel 600.00 Estimated total 2,600.00

$11,976.42 2,600.00 $14,576.42

Note: $25,424.490 Outstanding Bill - Leo Kramer COMMITTEE STAFF

Executive Director

Frank (Nordy) Hoffmann. Executive Director of Committee October 15, 1967 to present. Formerly Political Action Director of the United Steelworkers of America. With the Steelworkers for 27 years. Graduate of Notre Dame, LLD.

Administrative Secretary

Barbara Towles. Secretary to the Director from December 1, 1967 to present. Legislative Secretary for the United Steelworkers of America since 1953, Graduate of Duquesne University, B.S.

Receptionist

Kathleen Kimmitt. High school graduate. First job.

Photo Lab Technician

Vincent Puccio,

Part-time Assistant

Michael Ferris. Political Science senior at Catholic University. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE JOB DESCRIPTION

Barbara D. Towles, Administrative Secretary

The position encompasses many responsible duties. The primary function,

being Personal Secretary to the Executive Director. Working procedures entail

dictation and transcription; handling inquiries independently; composing correspondence; scheduling appointments, meetings and trips; and acting as liaison between the Executive Director and personal contacts. I direct the day-to-day

operations of the office; do the purchasing of office equipment and supplies;

administering work and supervising the office staff; operate the office machinery

such as Dura Machine (Ro-bo type), Adding Machine, Apeco Copy Machine and the

Gestetner Mimeograph.

In addition, I am the bookkeeper for the Committee and the Paymaster

for the staff. As bookkeeper, a complete set of records is maintained consisting

of assets, contribtuions, and expenditures. Financial Reports are filed with the

Clerk of the House quarterly. As paymaster, payroll checks are issued semi-monthly,

payroll records are maintained, taxes withheld and tax deposits submitted to the

Federal and State Government. Bank deposits and monthly Bank Reconsiliations are made by me. I am directly responsible for the accuracy and maintenance of all

financial records. In this task I am guided by Boyarsky and Wasser, C.P.A. and

have a quarterly book audit. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

Kathleen A. Kimmitt, Receptionist

This office receives many visitors, some seeking information, some employment and others, contact 'with the Senators. It is the duty of the Receptionist to graciously receive all callers, direct them to other offices and/or steer them in the right channels for interviews. Another duty is to maintain the "Guest Register."

All telephone calls are received and transmitted by the Receptionist.

An average of at least sixty calls come into this office on a normal day. In managing the telephone, a telephone file listing of frequesnt contacts must be maintained and kept up to date.

In addition, the Receptionist acts as a Firl-Friday to the Admin- istrative Secretary. Assistance is given on all office work that is not confidential. Typing, filing, compiling general reports, machine copying, etc. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE JOB DESCRIPTION

Vincent J. Puccio, Laboratory Technician

Under the direction of Frank and Al Muto, Photographers for the

Senate, Puccio develops and processes plus prints negatives. He maintains files on all Senators and maintains billing dates on all Senators. He has been a laboratory technician in the Photo Lab since October, 1962. DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE JOB DESCRIPTION

Michael Ferris, Clerical Assistant (Part-time)

The duties of the Clerical Assistant are varied. They concern everyday

office duties, assisting in any capacity of office work that needs to be taken

care of. His duties include handling mail requests, filing, general errands,

and typing of various office data and reports. His job mostly entails research work on the incumbent Senators both Republican and Democratic. Newspapers, magazines and other periodicals are clipped for pertinent information on the

incumbents and maintained in jackets for general information purposes. An up

to date compilation and analysis of the Republican Senators’ voting records

are kept. This means stenciling and mimeographing the data after it has been

compiled GUGGENHEIM PRODUCTIONS, INC. 815 17TH STREET. N.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20008 202 REPUBLIC 7 1600

offices February 12, 1969 WASHINGTON. D.C. ST. LOUIS

Dear Mr. Hoffmann:

We appreciated a great deal your visit yesterday. It was encouraging to learn that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is taking the leader ship in the study of broadcasting and media and its relation to campaign planning.

Pursuant to your request we are forwarding to you under separate cover a sample reel of television and radio spots and half-hour campaign films-.

The half-hour films were produced for George McGovern (South Dakota - General, 1968), Jack Gilligan (Ohio - Primary, 1968), Robert Kennedy (New York - General, 1964), Milton Shapp (Pennsylvania - Primary, 1966), Pat Brown (California - General, 1966), and Sid McMath (Arkansas - Primary, 1962).

Spots include the campaigns of Robert Kennedy (Presidential Primaries, 1968), Jack Gilligan (Ohio - Primary and General, 1968), Abraham Ribicoff (Connec- ticut-General, 1968), John Brademas (Indiana - General, 1968), Milton Shapp (Pennsylvania - Primary, 1966), and James Symington (Missouri - General, 1968).

The cost of our half-hour produced since 1966 have ranged from $73,000 to $125, 000. Television and radio spot packages have cost from $15, 000 to $100,000.

The large spread in cost is explained by the fact that spots come in a number of sizes, quantities, and forms. There are five minute, sixty second, thirty second, twenty second, and ten second television spots. There are five minute, thirty second, and one minute radio spots. Some spots are in color, some in black-and-white; some can be shot in one day, some must be shot over a period of time. Some stations won’t place five minute spots. Some campaigns and campaigners do not adapt well to less expensive production techniques.

FEB 13 -2-

Usually the more money you spend on production the better chance you have of influencing, but this is not always true. Each campaign, each candidate must be analyzed separately and his television production budget placed into a realistic and meaningful relationship with other campaign expenditures.

it is our experience that candidates too often do not face up to the job of properly allocating their campaign funds until they have committed themselves to a number of traditional and outdated procedures. When campaign budgets are worked into their proper relationship with reality, most candidates find they have enough resources to do a first rate job on radio and television.

The consequences of not coming to terms with television these days is severe. The thing that saves many candidates from defeat is the fact that the opposition is as inept in using broadcast techniques as he is. .... Rapidly this is changing. No longer can we plan on an opponent who is * oblivious to the new politics. Face reality or risk defeat. That is the way.it is.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Charles Guggenheim

Mr. Frank N. Hoffmann Dem. Sen. Campaign Committee 130 Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D. C. 20510 To: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Average budget for each incumbent candidate for a color and sound 30 minute documentary, plus ten television spots.

SCRIPT: Research, writing, consultations expenses. $ 3,000.00 FIELD PRODUCTION: Camera and sound crew, transportation, meals and lodging 3,500.00 D.C. PRODUCTION COSTS: Camera and sound crew 2,500.00 RAW STOCK: Film and audio tape 1,000.00 EDITING: Sound effects and music Interlock screenings Consultations Negative conforming and leaders 3,000.00

LAB CHARGES: Processing ECO Work Print Edge Numbering Optical Effects Answer Print 3,000.00 SOUND: Magnetic transfers Recording music and sound effects Music Rights Mix Narration recording 1,500.00 Narrator 400.00 ARTWORK: Superimpositions Titles Still Photographs 16mm Copying 1,200.00 Total: $ 19,100.00

An answer print of the documentary and of the television spots is included. The release print requirements are widely variable for each state and must be ordered separately. The answer print is guaranteed to be of broadcast quality. OPINION RESEARCH OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC OPINION AND BUSINESS SURVEYS

CORPORATE OFFICES — 1232 BELMONT AVENUE-LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA - 434-5715

HOME OFFICE— 800 SANTIAGO AVENUE-LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA - GENEVA 8-5930

PALM SPRINGS 714-325-5960

February 13, 1969

Mr. Frank N. Hoffmann Executive Director Dem. Sen. Campaign Committee 130 Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Nordy:

Shortly after our brief conversation in the Senate dining room last Thursday, Don Muchmore and I mot with Bill Welch and discussed essentially the same problems which you and I talked about on Wednesday.

As a result of both conversations, it is our understanding that serious thought is being given to the advantages and disadvan- tages of consolidating certain [’unctions and activities of the Senate and Congressional campaign committees and the Demo- cratic National Committee.

Specifically, it appears that there may be several good reasons for the three committees to jointly support and benefit from a single research operation. Such a broad based operation could effectively take advantage of modern computer technology and undertake a comprehensive research program that could include such things as a national voter simulation model.

At the very least, considerable economy could result from a nationally coordinated approach to the public opinion research which will undoubtedly be undertaken by the various elements of the Democratic Party in the next two years.

Inasmuch as Bill Welch, yourself and others are already working together in this regard, and each of you has independently asked us to submit our ideas and suggestions, it would seem that a single correspondence addressed to the attention of all interested parties would be time saving and appropriate.

FEB 17 1989

PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS • MARKETING RESEARCH • GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH • STATISTICAL STUDIES Mr. Frank N. Hoffmann -2- February 13, 1969

Unless you instruct us otherwise, we will proceed to gather together the necessary expertise and address ourselves to the problems which you and the others outlined in our conversations last week. Then, as soon as possible, we will send along our thoughts for your consideration.

It was a pleasure talking with you Wednesday, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Sincerely,

DONALD McGREW Executive Vice President DLMcG:jd THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

MEMO Feb. 18, 1969

TO: Nordy Hoffmann FROM: Joe O'Neill SUBJ: Broadcast services

Following up our phone conversation, I would like to get some idea of what broadcast services are needed by Democratic Senators over and above the Senate Recording studio and our beeper service.

Please understand that, at the Moment, I am only gathering information. No policy decisions have been made, that I know of, and no budget has been set. Knowing the needs will at least give us a bassis for discussion.

FEB 20 1969

2600 VIRGINIA AVENUE N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 202/333-8750 RESUME

of JAMES J. DUNN

1968 Media Director, John J. Gilligan for U.S. Senate campaign, Ohio.

1968 National Radio News Director for Senator Robert Kennedy, presidential primaries, in all states entered.

1966 - 1968 Administrative Assistant and Radio-TV Coordinator for California Assembly Speaker, Jesse M. Unruh.

1964 - 1966 Radio-TV News Director, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, California

1964 Radio-TV News Director, Pierre Salinger for U.S. Senate campaign, California.

1963 - 1964 Public Information and Emergency Broadcast System Officer, State of California.

1962 Radio-TV Press Secretary, office of Governor Michael V. Di Salle, Ohio.

1952 - 1958 Advertising Agency, Los Angeles, California. Media director, account executive, copywriter and announcer.

1946 - 1952 Radio-TV Stations: Ohio, Oklahoma, Illinois and California. News director, announcer, copywriter, TV director-producer.

REFERENCES:

Pierre Salinger - Press Secretary to President John F. Kennedy

Frank Mankievri.cz - Press Secretary to Senator Robert F. Kennedy Dick Drayne - Press Secretary to Senator Edward M. Kennedy Governor Edmund G. Brown, California Jesse M. Unruh - Assembly Speaker, California

Governor Michael V. Di Salle, Ohio

Jack Gilligan - Ohio Senatorial Candidate PROPOSAL FOR "BEEPER” SYSTEM

The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee will supply Senate offices with a professional service for distributing beepers (news reports or actualities) to radio and television stations for use in newscasts.

The service will be confined to those Senators up for re-election in 1970.

The actualities will consist of 30 to 45 second statements and/or excerpts from committee hearings and speeches, A short introductory statement or lead will be supplied by & professional radio-TV newsman and fed by telephone to stations as a complete news report. Stations then have the option of using the report in its entirety or only the portion containing the Senator’s voice.

TV stations will be supplied with stock. film end slides for use as visual material.

This will be a one - man service with the following responsibilities:

1. Work with the various Senate offices to compile a list of stations desiring reception of beepers. 2. Supervise installation of equipment within the Senate offices - and/or district offices, and train office personnel in procedures for feeding reports. 3. Maintain contact with the various offices to be of assistance concerning timing and content of beepers. 4. Record all statements, write and announce lead, edit if necessary, and submit to the office concerned a complete report for approval and feed to stations.

COST:

Depending an the number of stations to be fed, each Senate office will purchase one or two recorders - approximately $175.00 each.

Senate offices have allowances for long distance telephone calls consequently there will be no cost for calls to stations unless the allowance is exceeded. Some Senate offices have WATS lines that provide unlimited calls at a flat monthly rate.

Telephone Co. charges for equipment hookup will be approximately $10 to $15 per month per office.

The only cost to the Committee will be the salary of the man involved, $17,500 per year. THE COMMUNICATIONS COMPACT 1707 L STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 (202 ) 293-4850

February 6, 1969

Memorandum

TO: Bill Welch FROM: Robert D. Squier RE: TELEVISION PRESS KITS

In response to our meeting and subsequent conversation I have put together a budget for supplying the DNC with a television press kit service for between 125 and 225 incumbent congressmen..

SERVICE

Each recipient of the service would be supplied with a kit which would include three (3) 16mm color silent film clips of original material shot specifically to the members needs. In addition the kit would include six (6) 35mm color transparancies of himself in various situations and locations.

All of this material would be shot and duplicated to conform to existing standards of excellence for broadcast over color television facilities.

In addition to the above finished material, for duplication and distribution to home constituency television stations the member would have on file the out-takes (1,000 feet of 16 mm original silent color and roughly 50 color slides) for either immediate or long range secondary usage. This material could be individually released to stations for specific exclusive use or saved for use in spots or documentaries during the campaign. The color stills could also be used for print material (newspapers, fliers, specific requests, campaign publicity). Bill Welch Page Two February 6, 1969

To make the service economical it will be necessary to set aside a day of the members time (could be divided in half days and traded among members by schedule) for campaign photography. The members staff would set aside a day for this purpose and then working with us could Schedule the day in such a way as to make available a variety of locations, events and backgrounds. Some examples follow:

1. Member with family (if appropriate). 2. At work on committee assignment (can be staged easily with chairman etc. 3. On the go around Washington. Special agencies of interest back home, personalities etc. Inspection of housing, etc. 4. With political star. (Humphrey, Muskie, Kennedy etc.) 5. Making a speech. 6. In conversation with special group (blacks, young people, women, etc.) 7. At airport (to simulate return to home district).

BUDGET

I have developed two figures for these kits based on the low (125) and high (225) quantity estimates. Obviously, any number in between would come at a rate on a sliding scale between these two figures.

To arrive at a cost we have calculated the following steps and services.

A. Silent film crew (2 man) for one day per member. B. Silent motion picture (16mm) camera and lighting equipment for one day. C. 1,000 feet of color raw stock plus processing, edgenumbering and work printing. D. Editor, editing room and editing equipment for one day. (This to include conforming) E. Answer print from final cut and conformed negative. F. Still cameraman for one day. G. 35mm color still film stock (72 exposures). H. Still film processing and selection. I. Project supervision by kit producer. (on location and at editing room) Bill Welch Page Three February 6, 1969

Using the above system on the schedule outlined these kits could be finished and brought to completion (answer print and duplicate slides) at the following rates:

A. 125 kits for 125 members ...... $950.00 per kit B. 225 kits for 225 members ,...... $860.00 "

This would bring each member up to the level of a model kit including reels and container. For duplicate kits (so that all stations in area of interest can be serviced simultaneously we estimate a cost of $30.00 per duplicate kit per member). The number needed by each member would vary with the size of the television markets within his district or state.

TOTAL COST

Projecting the figures under the above budget outline we are talking about a project at the following dollar levels:

1. Distribution "A" (125 members) $118,750.00 2. Distribution "B" (225 members) $193,500.00

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH TV PRESS KIT

We developed the television press kit idea for The Vice President in the Pre-convention period. After the kits had been out in the field for over six weeks we then surveyed these same stations by postcard for their response to the kit idea and their usage of the material therein.

1. 94.6% of the stations rated the kits favorably and were using them regularly. The remaining stations were not using the kits because of faulty advice on equal time problems. These stations were sent a statement by our legal counsel putting forth our argument for their authority to use the material on news programs.

2. We also asked the stations to rank the Bill Welch Page Four February 6, 1969

usefulness of individual items within the kit. From these figures I think you will see why we have proposed a cut- down version of the kit for this project. Our new version of the TV Press Kit is proposed solely on cost effectiveness grounds. We listed all elements of the kit and asked stations to assign priorities to each on the basis of usefulness

1. Color slides 77.3% 2. Color Film Clips 51.3 3. Color still photograph 26.6 4. Color rear screen slides 14.7 5. Written material (Bio, 8.0 Campaign staff identifica- tion sheet, etc.)

3. Of those stations receiving the kit (we upped our coverage to 100% after the survey) 97% requested additional material.

4. They were also given a choice of what additional material they would like to have if a second version of the service were distributed and the breakouts of that part of the survey were as follows:

1. 72% wanted more slides 2. 52 " " film clips 3. 26.6 " " Stills 4. 13.3 " " Rear projection slides 5. 6.6 " " Written material

5. In addition we asked them if they would run short featurettes on the issues if put together in an attractive package in 1 to 2 minute versions. Of the group 64% were interested in this service. (This might be an area for further exploration) Bill Welch Page Five February 6, 1969

SUMMARY

When you consider the fact that this whole project can be done at a cost about equal to two (2) network television spots during the campaign I believe it to be a very effective method for getting these members started on effective use of media in their home districts at a very low cost. I have no idea what those newsletters they all pump out cost but a per member cost of $96O-$86O for a service that will potentially place their image in the most favorable light on every television outlet in their area is very attractive.

” I believe these figures speak for themselves. We hit upon a valuable campaign service that found its way directly onto news and public affairs programs on the local station level. We had control of the material and the stations ran it at no cost. In effect we were able to change dramatically the visual image of the candidate as he appeared on local television news programs. When the stations had wire copy to read about the candidate they pulled visual backup materials from our press kits to augment their story. UNOFFICIAL United States Senate OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Prepared under the direction of Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate, by Thomas N. Gay, Printing Clerk

SENA TORS IN THE NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS

1971 1973 1975

CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS S

DEMOCRATS (25): DEMOCRATS (14): DEMOCRATS (18): Burdick, Quentin N_____Fargo, N. Dak. , Clinton P_Albuquerque, N. Mex. Allen, James B . Gadsden, Ala. Byrd, Harry F., Jr______Winchester, Va. Eastland, James O__ __ Doddsville, Miss. Bayh, Birch______Terre Haute, Ind. Byrd, Robert C______Sophia, W. Va. Ellender, Allen J____ _ Houma, La. Bible, Alan ------Reno. Nev. Cannon, Howard W______Las Vegas, Nev. Harris, Fred R______Lawton, Okla. Church, Frank______Boise, Idaho Dodd, Thomas J____West Hartford, Conn. Jordan, B. Everett ___Saxapahaw, N.C. Cranston, Alan__ __ Los Angeles, Calif. Gore, Albert______Carthage, Tenn. McClellan, John L__ _ Little Rock, Ark. Eagleton, Thomas F______St. Louis, Mo. Hart, Philip A____Mackinac Island, Mich. McIntyre, Thomas J __ Laconia, N.H. Ervin, Sam J., Jr______Morganton, N.C. Hartke, Vance------Evansville, Ind. Metcalf, Lee______-Helena, Mont. Fulbright, J. W------Fayetteville, Ark. Holland, Spessard L------— Bartow, Fla. Mondale, Walter F----- Minneapolis, Minn. Gravel, Mike______Anchorage, Alaska Jackson, Henry M______Everett, Wash. Pell, Claiborne —------Newport, R.I. Hollings, Ernest F______Charleston, S.C. Kennedy, Edward M—------Boston, Mass. Randolph, Jennings __ __ Elkins, W. Va. Hughes, Harold E______Ida Grove, Iowa Mansfield, Mike______Missoula, Mont. Russell, Richard B _ __ _ Winder, Ga. Inouye, Daniel K______Honolulu, Hawaii McCarthy, Eugene J______St. Paul, Minn. Sparkman, John _ _ _ Huntsville, Ala. Long, Russell B______Baton Rouge, La. McGee, Gale W------Laramie, Wyo. Spong, William B., Jr___ Portsmouth, Va. Magnuson, Warren G------Seattle, Wash. Montoya, Joseph M------Santa Fe, N. Mex. McGovern, George— —Mitchell, S. Dak. Moss, Frank E______Salt Lake City, Utah Nelson, Gaylord. .... Madison, Wis. REPUBLICANS (19): Muskie, Edmund S______Waterville, Maine Ribicoff, Abraham______Hartford, Conn. Allott, Gordon...... Lamar, Colo. Pastore, John O------Providence, R.I. Talmadge, Herman E______Lovejoy, Ga. Baker, Howard H., Jr___ Knoxville, Tenn. Proxmire, William Madison, Wis. Boggs, J. Caleb------Wilmington, Del. REPUBLICANS (16): Stennis, John C, De Kalb, Miss. Brooke, Edward W_ Newton Center, Mass. Aiken George D .... Putney Vt. Symington, Stuart------St. Louis, Mo. Case, Clifford P_ _ ..__ Rahway, N.J. Bellmon, Henry------Red Rock, Okla. Tydings, Joseph D____Havre de Grace, Md. Cooper, John Sherman___ Somerset, Ky. Bennett, Wallace F—Salt Lake City, Utah Williams, Harrison A., Jr—Westfield, N.J. Curtis, Carl T_____ —Minden, Nebr. Cook. Marlow W Louisville, Ky. Yarborough, Ralph__ Austin, Tex. Griffin, Robert P— _ Traverse City, Mich. Cotton, Norris— _ ____Lebanon, N.H. Young, Stephen M__ Shaker Heights, Ohio Hansen, Clifford P------Jackson, Wyo. Dirksen, Everett McKinley------Pekin, Ill. Hatfield, Mark O______Salem, Oreg. Dole, Robert Russell, Kans.

REPUBLICANS (8): Jordan, Len B. ______Boise, Idaho Dominick, Peter H .... Englewood, Colo. Fannin, Paul J______Phoenix, Ariz. Miller, Jack______Sioux City, Iowa Goldwater. Barry Phoenix, Ariz. Fong, Hiram L ______Honolulu, Hawaii Mundt. Karl E ...... Madison, S. Dak, Goodell, Charles E.1_____Jamestown, N.Y. Pearson, James B Prairie Village, Kans. Javits, Jacob K New York, N.Y-

Hruska, Roman L______Omaha, Nebr. Percy, Charles H . Kenilworth, Ill.

Murphy, George— —Beverly Hills, Calif. Smith, Margaret Chase_Skowhegan, Maine Robert W. Packwood______Portland, Oreg. Prouty, Winston L______Newport, Vt. Ted Stevens 1 ___ Anchorage, Alaska Scott, Hugh______Philadelphia, Pa. Thurmond, Strom______Aiken, S.C. Williams, John J------Millsboro, Del. Tower, John G------Wichita Falls, Tex. Young, Milton R------La Moure, N. Dak.

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS TOTALS

1971______25 1971______8 Democrats.. ______57

1973______14 1973. . . ------19 Republicans-- ______48 1975______18 1975------16 ____ Total______57 Total ______43 Total______100 ... 1 Appointed by Governor to serve until successor is elected by law. 98-112-h CPO COPE Research Department * Incumbent February, 1969 Winner Underlined

1968 Senate

Alabama Hawaii

(Lister Hill D*) Daniel Inouye D* 187,964 83.4% James Allen D 638,774 70.0% Wayne Thiessen R 33,751 Perry O. Hooper R 201,227 Oliver Lee P&F 3,6 06

Alaska Idaho

(Ernest Gruening D*) Frank Church D* 173,482 60.3% Mike Gravel D 36,527 4 5.1% George V. Hansen r 114,394 Elmer Rasmuson R 30,286 Gruening (write-in) 14,118 Illinois

Arizona William Clark D 2 ,073,242 Everett Dirksen R* 21,358,947 53.0% (Carl HaydenD*) Louis Fisher SocLab 11,56 8 Roy Elson D 205,338 Barry Goldwater R 274,607 57.2% Indiana

Arkansas Birch Bavh D* 1 ,06 0,456 51.7% William Ruckelshaus R 988,571 J.W. Fulbright D* 349,965 59.1% 2 Independents 4,091 Charles T. Bernard R 241,731 Iowa California (Bourke Hickenlooper R*) (Thomas Kuchel R*) Harold Hughes D 56 8,33 9 50.4% Alan Cranston D 3 ,513,634 52.0% David Stanley R 558,336 Max Rafferty R 3 ,150,665 Paul Jacobs P&F 89,200 Kansas

Colorado (Frank Carlson R*) William Robinson D 315,911 Steve McNichols D 324,413 Robert Dole R 490,911 6 0.1% Peter H. Dominick R*454,046 58.3% Joseph Hyskell Proh. 10,262

Connecticut Kentucky

Abraham Ribicoff D* 625,867 53.9% (Thruston Morton R*) Edwin May R 535,875 Katherine Peden D 448,960 Marlow W. Cook R 484,260 51.9% Florida Louisiana (George Smathers D* ) LeRoy Collins D 892,637 Russell Long D* Edward Gurney R 1 ,131,499 55.9% Unopposed

Georgia Maryland

Herman E. Talmadge D*6 75,4 93 75.5% Daniel B. Brewster D* E. Earl Patton R 443,667 219,335 Charles McC. Mathias R 541,893 47.8% George Mahoney Ind 148,467 2

Missouri South Carolina

(Edward V. Long D* ) Ernest F. Hollings D* 385,446 62. Thomas Eagleton D 880,113 51.0% Marshall Parker R 236,482 Thomas Curtis R 845,144 South Dakota Nevada George McGovern D* 158,961 56 . Alan Bible D* 83,622 54.8% Archie Gubbrud R 120,951 Edward Fike R 69,06 8 Utah New Hampshire Milton Weilenmann D 192,168 John W. King D 116,816 Wallace Bennett R* 225,075 53. Norris Cotton R* 170,163 59.3% Vermont New York George Aiken R* Paul O’Dwyer D 2,150,695 Unopposed Jacob Javits RL* 3,269,772 49.7% James Buckley Con 1,139,402 Washington

North Carolina Warren Magnuson D* 644,339 64. Jack Metcalf R 348,160 Sam J. Ervin D* 870,406 6 0.6% Robert V. Somers R 566,934 Wisconsin

North Dakota Gaylord Nelson D* 1,020,931 61 Jerris Leonard R 633,910 Hershel Lashkowitz D 80,815 Milton R. Young R* 154,16 8 64.8% Duane Mutch Ind. 3,393

Ohio

(Frank J. Lausche D*) John Gilligan D 1,814,152 William Saxbe R 1,928,964 51.5%

Oklahoma

A.S. Mike Monroney D* 419,658 Henry Bellmon R 470,120 51.7% George Washington .Amlnd 19,341

Oregon

Wayne Morse D* 391,106 Robert Packwood R 393,261 50.1%

Pennsylvania

Joseph Clark D* 1,992,868 Richard Schweiker R 2,244,424 53.0% COPE Research Department *Incumbent February, 1969 Winner Underlined

1966 Senate

Alabama Louisiana

John Sparkman D* 482,138 60 .1% Allen J. Ellender D* John Grenier R 313,018 Unopposed

Alaska Maine

E.L. Bartlett D* 49,289 75 .5% Elmer H. Violette D 131,136 Lee L. McKinley R 15,961 Margaret Chase Smith R*188,291 58.9%

Arkansas Massachusetts

John L. McClellan D* (Leverett Saltonstall R*) Unopposed Endicott Peabody D 774,761 Edward W. Brooke R 1, 213,473 60.7% Colorado Michigan Roy Romer D 266,259 Gordon Allott R* 368,307 58 .0% G. Mennen Williams D 1,06 9,484 Robert Griff in R* 1,363,530 55.9% Delaware Minnesota James M. Tunnell, Jr. D 67,281 J. Caleb Boggs R* 97,268 59 .1% Walter F. Mondale D* 685,840 53.9% Robert A. Forsythe R 574,868 Georgia Mississippi Richard B. Russell D* Unopposed James 0. Eastland D* 258,248 65.6% Prentiss Walker R 105,150 Idaho Clifton Whitley Ind 30,502

Ralph Harding D 112,637 Montana Len B. Jordan R* 139,819 55.4% Lee Metcalf D* 138,166 53.2% Illinois Tim Babcock R 121,697

Paul H. Douglas D* 1,678,147 Nebraska Charles H. Percy R 2,100,449 54.9% Frank Morrison D 187,950 Iowa Carl T. Curtis R* 296,116 61.0%

E.B. Smith D 324,114 New Hampshire Jack Miller R* 522,339 6 0.9% Thomas J. McIntyre D* 123,888 54.0% Kansas Harrison Thyng R 105,241

J. Floyd Breeding D 303,323 New Jersey James B. Pearson R* 350,177 52.1% Warren W. Wilentz D 788,021 Kentucky Clifford P. Case R* 1,279,343 60.0% 4 Independents 63,824 John Young Brown D 266.079 John Sherman Cooper R* 483.805 64.5 • New Mexico' Texas

Clinton P. Anderson D* 137,205 53.1% Waggoner Carr D 643,855 Anderson Carter R 120,988 John Tower R* 842,501 .56.4%

North Carolina Virginia

B. Everett Jordan D* 501,440 55.6% (Six-year term) John S. Shallcross R 400,502 (A. Willis Robertson D*) William B. Spong D 429,855 58.6% Oklahoma James P. Ould, Jr. R 245,861 F. Lee Hawthorne Con 58,343 Fred R. Harris D* 343,157 53.7% Pat J. Patterson R 295,585 (Four-year term) Harry F. Byrd, Jr. D* 389,028 53.3 Oregon Lawrence M. Traylor R 272,804 John W. Carter Con 68,007 (Maurine B. Neuberger D*) Robert B. Puncan D 330,374 West Virginia Mark Hatfield R 354,391 51.7% Jennings Randolph D* 292,325 59.5 Rhode Island Francis J. Love R 198,891

Claiborne Pell D* 219,331 6 7.7% Wyoming Ruth Briggs R 104,838 (Milward L. Simpson R*) South Carolina Teno Roncalio D 59,141 Clifford P. Hansen R 63,548 51.8 (Six-year term) P. Bradley Morrah, Jr. D 164,955 Strom Thurmond R* 271,297 62.2%

(Two-year term) (Donald S. Russell D*) Ernest F. Pollings D 223,790 51.3% Marshall Parker R 212,032

South Dakota

Donn Wright D 76,56 3 Karl Mundt R* 150,517 66.3%

Tennessee

(Ross Bass D*) Frank G. Clement D 383,843 Howard Baker R 483,063 55 .7% COPE Research Department February, 196 9 * Incumbent

Winner Underlined

1964 SENATORIAL GE NERAL ELECTION

ARIZONA MICHIGAN (Barry Goldwater D*) Philip A. Hart D* 1,996,912 64.4% Roy L. Elson D 227,712 Elly M. Peterson R 1,096,272 Paul J. Fannin R 241,089 51.4% Others 8,477

CALIFORNIA MINNESOTA Pierre Salinger D* 3,411,912 Eugene J. McCarthy D* 931,353 60.3% George Murphy R 3,628,555 51.5% Wheelock Whitney R 605,933 Others 6,304 CONNECTICUT Thomas J. Dodd D* 781,008 64.6% MISSISSIPPI ■ John Lodge R 426,93 9 John C. Stennis D* Unopposed DELAWARE Elbert N. Carvel D 96,850 MISSOURI John J. Williams R* 103,782 51.7% Stuart Symington D* 1,186,666 66.7% Other 71 Jean Paul Bradshaw R 596,377

FLORIDA. MONTANA Spessard L. Holland D* 997,585 63.9% Mike Mansfield D* 180,643 64.5% Claude R. Kirk, Jr,. R 562,212 Alex Blewett R 99,367 - HAWAII NEBRASKA Thomas P. Gill D 96,7 8 9 Raymond W. Arndt D 217,605 Hiram Fong R* 110,747 53.0% Roman L. Hruska R* 345,772 61.4% Other 1,278 NEVADA INDIANA Howard W. Cannon D* 67,336 50.0% Vance Hartke D* 1,128,505 54.3% Paul Laxalt R 67,288 D. Russell Bontrager R 941,519 Others 6,939 NEW JERSEY Harrison Williams D* 1,677,515 61.9% MAINE Bernard Shanley R 1,011,280 Edmund S. Muskie D* 253,511 66.6% Others 20,780 Clifford G. McIntire R 127,040 NEW MEXICO MARYLAND Joseph M. Montoya D 178,209 54.7% Joseph D. Tydings D 678,649 62.8% Edwin L. Mechem R* 147,562 J. Glenn Beall R* 402,393 NEW YORK MASSACHUSETTS Robert F. Kennedy D 3,823,749 53.5% Edward M. Kennedy D* 1,716,907 74.3% Kenneth Keating R* 3,104,056 Howard Whitmore R 587,663 Henry Paolucci, Con. 212,216 Others 7,445 Others 11,560 New Mexico Texas

Clinton P. Anderson D* 137,205 53.1% Waggoner Carr D 643,855 Anderson Carter R 120,988 John Tower R* 842,501 56.4%

North Carolina Virginia

B. Everett Jordan D* 501,440 55 .6% (Six-year term) John S. Shall cross R 400,502 (A. Willis Robertson D*) William B. Spong D 429,855 58.6% Oklahoma James P. Child, Jr. R 24 5,861 F. Lee Hawthorne Con 58,343 Fred R. Harris D* 343,157 53.7% Pat J. Patterson R 295,585 (Four-year term) Harry F. Byrd, Jr. D* 389,028 53.3 Oregon Lawrence M. Traylor R 272,804 John W. Carter Con 68,007 (Maurine B. Neuberger D*) Robert B. Puncan D 330,374 West Virginia Mark Hatfield R 354,391 51.7% Jennings Randolph D* 292,325 59.5 Rhode Island Francis J. Love R 198,891

Claiborne Pell D* 219,331 67.7% Wyoming Ruth Briggs R 104,838 (Milward L. Simpson R*) South Carolina Teno Roncalio D 59,141 Clifford P. Hansen R 63,548 51.8 (Six-year term) P. Bradley Morrah, Jr. D 164,955 Strom Thurmond R* 271,297 62.2%

(Two-year term) (Donald S. Russell D*) Ernest F. Ho Hings D 223,790 51.3% Marshall Parker R 212,032

South Dakota

Donn Wright D 76,563 Karl Mundt R* 150,517 66.3%

Tennessee

(Ross Bass D*) Frank G. Clement D 383,843 Howard Baker R 483,063 55.7% 1964 Senatorial Elections continued

NORTH DAKOTA VERMONT Quentin N. Burdick D* 149,264 57.6% Frederick Fayette D 76,457 Tom Kleppe R 109,681 Winston L. Prouty R* 87,879 53.5%

OHIO VIRGINIA Stephen M. Young D* 1,923,608 50.2% Harry F. Byrd, Sr. D* 592,260 63.8% Robert A. Taft R 1,906,781 Richard A. May R 176,624 Others 159,428 PENNSYLVANIA Genevieve Blatt D 2,359,223 WASHINGTON Hugh Scott R* 2,429,858 Henry M. Jackson D* 875,950 72.2% Others 14,198 Lloyd J. Andrews R 337,138

RHODE ISLAND WEST VIRGINIA John O. Pastore D* 319,607 82.7% Robert C. Byrd D* 515,015 67.7% Ronald R. Lagueux 66,715 Cooper P. Benedict R 246,072

TENNESSEE WISCONSIN Albert Gore D* 570,542 53.6% William W. Proxmire D* 892,013 53.3% Dan H. Kuykendall R 493,475 Wilbur N. Renk R 780,116 Others 1,541 TEXAS Ralph Yarborough D* 1,463,958 WYOMING George Bush R 1,134,337 Gale W. McGee D* 76,485 Others 5,542 John S. Wold R 65,185 " .7 UTAH Frank E. Moss B* 227,822 57.3% Ernest Wilkinson R 169,562

1966 Senatorial Election

ALASKA * E. L. Bartlett D* 49,289 76.7% Lee L. McKinley R 15,961

VIRGINIA Harry F. Byrd, Jr. D* 389,028 53.3% Lawrence M. Traylor R 272,804 Others 68,007 1969 ELECTIONS

Some mayoralty elections in 1969 may test the strength of Northern city machines, the direction of Southern votes, the depth of Negro militancy and the extent of white backlash.

In Chicago, a special election will be held on March 11 to fill two aldermanic posts. A coalition of liberals is challenging Mayor Richard Daley's Democratic organization candidates. If they win, Daley will still have firm control of the city council (45 out of 50), but anti-Daley Democrats will be encouraged.

Mayor Jerome Cavanagh D of Detroit is in serious trouble. Negro leaders who supported him in the past resent his "tough" police stand, and may field a candidate of their own. There may also be a white supremancy candidate. The primary is September 9 and the municipal election November 4.

In Atlanta, incumbent Mayor Ivan Allen, a moderate Democrat, is not seeking a third term. Moderate whites want Negroes to back a white liberal, but militant Negroes are pressing for a black candidate. This could split the moderate black-white coalition and elect a conservative. The primary is November 11, and municipal election, December 3.

Two years ago Democrat Carl Stokes was narrowly elected mayor of Cleveland. Stokes won with only 50.5 percent of the vote, receiving 95 percent of the Negro vote. Stokes' re-election may depend upon greater support among the whites. He was critized for pulling the police out of a Negro riot area last summer. Primary is May 6 and municipal election November 4.

Mayors will also be elected in Los Angeles, Hartford, Minneapolis, Jersey City, Buffalo, Dayton, Pittsburgh and Seattle, among the 850 cities with populations of 15,000 or more holding municipal elections in 1969.

Following are more detailed discusssions of state elections, special elections and municipal elections in California, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. 1969 Elections - 2

California

27th Congressional District - A special election will be held to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Edwin Reinecke R, the newly appointed lieutenant governor. The 27th District in Los Angeles and Kern Counties has a bare plurality of registered Democrats (49%D, 46%R and Ind.) — but normally votes Republican. Reinecke won in November, 1968 with 72 percent of the vote. There are now four, strong, possible Republican candidates, but Governor Reagan is expected to try to get agreement on a single Republican contender. The Republicans now being mentioned are Los Angeles City Councilman James Potter and three Assemblymen, Newton Russell, Pat McGee and Paul Priolo.

Reverand John Simmons D, a liberal, is a possible Democratic candidate.

No date has been set for the election, but it is expected to be some- time in April.

State Senate. Primary February 29, special election March 29.

The death of State Senator George Miller, Jr. D left the Republicans with a 20-19 edge in the Senate. California law calls for listing all candidates on one ballot in the primary. Any candidate receiving a majority is declared elected, and no special election is held.

Running to fill Miller's seat are 19 candidates, making it virtually impossible for any one candidate to receive a simple majority in the primary. The district, in California's Contra Costa County, is considered a swing district.

Eleven Democrats have filed as well as one Peace and Freedom Party member, an American Independent Party member and two Republicans. The leading Republican candidate is District Attorney John Nejedly. Leading Democratic candidates are George Miller 3rd, a 23-year old University of California law student who has been endorsed by COPE, Supervisor Thomas Cole, who has an anti-labor record but has been endorsed by Representative Waldie D, and Pete Stark, a local banker.

The importance of this election extends beyond the immediate prospect of consolidating Republican control of the state Senate. This term will not expire until 1972, and the Senator elected this spring will be sitting when California is redistricted, following the 1970 census. (California is now expected to gain five or six seats.)

State Assembly - The appointment of Assemblyman John Veneman R as Under Secretary of HEW left the Republicans in control, 40-39 but deprived them of the 41st vote required to pass most bills in the California Assembly.

About 60% of the voters in this district are registered Democrats. In 1962, Veneman became the first Republican elected in 20 years in this district.

No date has been set for this election. 1969 Elections - 3

New Jersey

Governor, Assembly - Primary June 3; General Election November 4

Governor Richard Hughes D is constitutionally prevented from seeking a third term. Hughes was elected in 1961 with 50.4% of the total vote and re-elected in 1965 with 57.4% of the vote.

Former Governor Robert Meyner D is expected to announce and is now regarded as the leading Democratic candidate. The newly-formed Democratic Coalition has split, with some former Kennedy-backers supporting former Senator Ned Parsekian D and others seeking "a more liberal" primary opponent for Meyner. Representatives James Howard D and Henry Helstoski D have also been mentioned as possible candidates.

Announced Republican candidates are: conservative Congressman Charles W. Sandman, Jr., William E. Ozzard, a member of the State Board of Public Utility Commissioners, and State Senate President Frank McDermott. Other Republicans mentioned as possible contenders are Representative William T. Cahill and State Senate Majority leader Raymond H. Bateman.

New York

Mayor - New York City. Primary June 18, General Election November 4.

U. S. Representative James H. Scheuer, Bronx Reform Democrat, has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Mayor. Other Democrats who may seek the nomination are Paul Dwyer, unsuccessful 1968 Senatorial candidate; Herman Badillo, Bronx Borough President; Councilman Robert A. Low; Stephen E. Smith, brother-in-law of the late Senator Kennedy; Theodore W. Kheel, labor mediator; and U.S. Representatives William F. Ryan, John M. Murphy and Hugh L. Carey.

Incumbent Mayor John Lindsay, Republican, is expected to run again. In 1965, Lindsay, who ran on both Republican and Liberal party tickets, won the New York mayoralty election with 46 percent of the vote. His plurality of 179,389 votes was supplied by the Liberal party which gave him 281,796 votes. There is a strong possibilty that Lindsay will not receive Liberal party support this year.

Registration in New York City is heavily Democratic.

Tennessee

8th Congressional District - Special election March 25

This seat became vacant with the death of Representative Robert A. Everett D. Both major party candidates were nominated by convention: Ed Jones D, a dairy farmer and former state Commissioner of Agriculture now employed by the Illinois Central Railroad, and State Representative Leonard Dunavant R. Jones defeated the liberal-backed candidate in the convention, but he may get liberal-labor backing. 1969 Elections - 4

Tennessee - continued

Eight candidates have filed to run as Independents; 1 Republican; 1 AIP (Wallace) and 6 Democrats. They are: Jim Boyd R, a Republican candidate against Everett in 1963; William J. Davis AIP, a professional veteran and Wallace organizer for Tipton County in 1968; James O. Lanier D, Edwin Pigue D, Wayne DeWees D, R. A. Farrell D, a Teamster bussiness agent, Charles Gordon Vick D and Claude Cockrell D. DeWees; Farrell and Cockrell have all run before without success.

Feburary 13 is the last day for filing or withdrawing from this race. Depending on the number and identity of candidates on the ballot, it may be possible for any one of five candidates to win this race - Jones D, Dunavant R, Pigue D (running as an Independent), Lanier D (running as an Independent), and Davis AIP. This district went heavily for Wallace in 1968. About 1/3 of the vote is cast in suburban Shelby County, and there are between 15,000 and 20,000 union members in the district.

After the 1970 census, this district will probably be combined with the 7th district, and the winner of this race is expected to oppose Representative Ray Blanton D in 1972.

Virginia

Governor. Primary July 15; run-off primary (if held) August 19; General Election November 4.

Incumbent Governor Mills Godwin D cannot succeed himself.

Contenders for the Democratic nomination are liberal Henry E. Howell, Norfolk State Senator; moderate William C. Battle, Charlottesville attorney and former ambassador to Australia; and conservative Lt. Governor Fred G. Pollard. Howell received the Virginia AFL-CIO endorsement last June. Battle has the backing of U.S. Senator William Spong D.

Leading contender for the Republican nomination is A. Linwood Holton, Roanoke attorney. Holton was also his party's standard bearer in 1965 when he lost the governor's race to Godwin. Results in that race were:

Godwin (D) 269,526 (47.9%) Holton (R) 212,207 (37.7%) William J. Story (Cons.) 75,307 (13.4%) George Lincoln Rockwell (Am. Nazi) 5,730 ( 1.0%)

Wisconsin

7th Congressional District. Primary March 1, General Election April 1.

This seat became vacant when Melvin Laird R resigned to become Secretary of Defense. Contenders for the Republican nomination are Hyde Murray, staff member of the House Agriculture Committee and son of former U.S. Representative Reed Murray; Chester Chilsen, State Senator; and Carl Dretzke, businessman. Chilsen, who owns newspapers and radio stations, is expected to win the primary election.

Leading Democratic contender is David Obey, Assistant Minority Leader in the State Assembly. Obey has primary opposition from two minor candidates. 1969 Elections - 5

Wisconsin- continued

Although Laird has won with consistently heavy margins in this district, other Republicans have not done as well. In 1960, Republican presidential and gubernatorial candidates Nixon and Kuehn won the district with 57.4 and 53.6 percent of the vote while Laird received 67.1 percent. In 1968, Nixon received a bare majority of 50.1 percent, far below Laird's 64.1 percent. At the same time Democratic senatorial and gubernatorial candidates Nelson and LaFollette won the district with 58.6 and 50.4 percent respectively.

The 7th Congressional District has approximately 20,000 AFL-CIO members. COPE Research Department January, 1969

SENATE ELECTIONS 1970

Total - 34 Democrats - 25 Republicans - 9

State Incumbent Winning % 1964

Alaska Theodore F. Stevens D - 76.7 (Bartlett-1966) Arizona Paul J. Fannin R - 51.4 California —— George Murphy R - 51.5 Connecticut Thomas J. Dodd D - 64.6 Delaware - John J. Williams R - 51.7 Florida Spessard L. Holland D - 63.9

Hawaii - Hiram L. Fong R - 53.0 Indiana Vance Hartke D - 54.3 Maine Edmund S. Muskie — D - 66.6 Maryland Joseph D. Tydings ------D - 62.8 Massachusetts Edward M. Kennedy D - 74.3

Michigan Philip A. Hart ------D - 64.4 Minnesota Eugene J. McCarthy D - 60.3 Mississippi John Stennis D - unopposed Missouri Stuart Symington D - 66.7 Montana Mike Mansfield D - 64.5

Nebraska Roman L. Hruska R - 61.4 Nevada Howard W. Cannon - D - 50.0 New Jersey Harrison A. Williams, Jr. D - 61.9 New Mexico Joseph M. Montoya D - 54.7 New York - Charles Goodell D - 53.5 (Kennedy)

North Dakota Quentin N. Burdick D - 57.6 Ohio Stephen M. Young - D - 50.2 Pennsylvania - Hugh Scott R - 50.9 Rhode Island John O. Pastore D - 82.7 Tennessee Albert Gore — D - 53.6

Texas Ralph W. Yarborough D - 56.2 Utah Frank E. Moss D - 57.3 Vermont - “Winston L. Prouty R - 53.5 Virginia Harry F. Byrd D - 53.3 (1966)

Washington Henry M. Jackson D - 72.2 West Virginia Robert C. Byrd D - 67.7 Wisconsin William Proxmire D - 53.3 Wyoming Gale W. McGee D - 54.0 COPE Research Department November, 1968

GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS 1970

Total - 35 Democrats - 10 11 Republicans - 25 24

Winning % Length State Incumbent Last Election of Term

Alabama Albert P. Brewer D 4 Alaska Walter J. Hickel R 50.0 (1966) 4 Arizona John R. Williams R 63.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Arkansas Winthrop Rockefeller R 51.0 (1968) unoff. 2 California Ronald Reagan R 57.6 (1966) 4

Colorado John A. Love R 54.0 (1966) 4 Connecticut John N. Dempsey D 55.7 (1966) 4 Florida +Claude R. Kirk, Jr. R 55.1 (1966) 4 Georgia +Lester Maddox D 47.8 (1966)(R) 4 Hawaii John A. Burns D 51.1 (1966) 4

Idaho Don Samuelson R R 41.1 (1966) 4 Iowa Robert Ray R 54.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Kansas Robert Docking D 60.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Maine Kenneth M. Curtis D 53.1 (1966) 4 Maryland (Spiro T. Agnew) Mondel R D 49.5 (1966) 4

Massachusetts John A. Volpe R 62.6 (1966) 4 Michigan George Romney R 60.5 (1966) 4 Minnesota Harold LeVander R 52.6 (1966) 4 Nebraska Norbert T. Tiemann R 61.6 (1966) 4 Nevada Paul Laxalt R 52.2 (1966) 4

New Hampshire Walter Peterson R 52.0 (1968) unoff. 2 New Mexico +David F. Cargo R 51.0 (1968) unoff. 2 New York Nelson Rockefeller R 43.7 (1966) 4 Ohio +James A. Rhodes R 62.2 (1966) 4 Oklahoma Dewey Bartlett R 55.7 (1966) 4

Oregon Tom McCall R 55.3 (1966) 4 Pennsylvania +Raymond P. Shafer R 52.1 (1966) 4 Rhode Island Frank Licht D 52.0 (1968) unoff. 2 South Carolina +Robert E. McNair D 58.2 (1966) 4 South Dakota Frank Farrar R 58.0 (1968) unoff. 2

Tennessee +Buford Ellington D 81.2 (1966) 4 Texas Preston Smith D 57.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Vermont Deane Davis R 55.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Wisconsin Warren Knowles R 53.0 (1968) unoff. 2 Wyoming Stanley Hathaway R 54.3 (1966) 4

+ cannot succeed himself - 2 -

GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS 1969

Winning % Length State Incumbent Last Election of Term

New Jersey +Richard J. Hughes D 57.4 (1965) 4

Virginia +Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D 48.0 (1965) 4

+ cannot succeed himself SENATORS RUNNING IN 1970 SOURCE: CONGRESSIONAL PICTORIAL DIRECTORY

STATE INCUMBENT NO. OF DIST. INVOLVED

Alabama Sparkman (D) 8

Alaska Stevens (R) 1

Arizona Fannin (R) 3

California Murphy (R) 44

Connecticut Dodd (D) 6

Delaware Williams (R) 1

Florida Holland (D) 12

Hawaii Fond (R) 2

Indiana Hartke (D) 11

Maine Muskie (D) 2

Maryland Tydings (D) 8

Massachusetts Kennedy (D) 12

Michigan Hart (D) 19

Minnesota McCarthy (D) 8

Mississippi Stennis (D) 5

Missouri Symington (D) 10

Montana Mansfield (D) 2

Nevada Cannon (D) 1

New Jersey Williams (D) 15

New Mexico Montoya (D) 2 -2-

STATE INCUMBENT NO. OF DIST. INVOLVED

New York Goodell (R) 41

North Carolina Jordon (D) 11

North Dakota Burdick (D) 2

Ohio Young (D) 24

Oklahoma Harris (D) 6

Pennsylvania Scott (R) 27

Tennessee Gore (D) 9

Utah Moss (D) 2

Vermont Aiken (R) 1

Washington Jackson (D) 7

West Virginia Randolph (D) 5

Wyoming McGee (D) 1

TOTAL STATES TOTAL SENATORS TOTAL SEATS

32 24 D 8 R 318 1966 UNCONTESTED SEATS (HOUSE) SOURCE: L.R.S

STATE DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

Alabama 3 Andrews D

Arkansas 1 Alexander D

2 Mills D

Florida 1 Sikes D

3 Bennet D

4 Chappell D

5 Frey R

9 Rogers D

11 Pepper D

Georgia 2 O'Neal D

9 Landrum D

Louisiana 1 Hebert D

4 Waggonner D

5 Passman D

7 Edwards D

8 Long D

Maryland 3 Garmatz D

Massachusetts 1 Conte R

2 Bolard D

4 Donahue D -2-

STATE DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

Massachusetts 8 O'Neil D

9 McCormack D

Minnesota 8 Blatnik D

North Carolina 3 Henderson D

7 Lennon D

Ohio 7 Brown R

South Carolina 1 Rivers D

4 Mann D

5 Gettys D

Texas 1 Patman D

2 Dowdy D

4 Roberts D

6 Teague D

9 Brooks D

12 Wright D

14 Young D

15 de la Garza D

16 White D

17 Burleson D

19 Mahon D

21 Fisher D

22 Cosey D -3-

STATE DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

Virginia 1 Downing D

2 Whitehurst R

3 Satterfield D

TOTAL STATES TOTAL SEATS PARTY: R D

14 45 4 41 HOUSE: '68 UNCONTESTED SEATS SOURCE: CQ, October 25, 1968

STATE DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

Alabama 3 Andrews D

8 Jones D

Arkansas 2 Mills D

4 Pryor D

Florida 2 Fuqua D

8 Cramer

Georgia 2 O'Neal D

3 Brenkley D

6 Flynt D

7 Davis D

8 Stuckey D

9 Landrum D

10 Stephens D

Kentucky 1 Stubblefield D

Louisiana 1 Hebert D

3 Caffrey D

4 Waggonner D

5 Passman D

8 Long D -2-

STATE DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

California 12 Talcott R

Massachusetts 11 Burke D

12 Keith R

Michigan 1 Conyers D

Mississippi 1 Abernathy D

2 Whitten D

3 Griffin D

5 Colmer D

North Carolina 2 Fountain D

7 Lennon D

9 Jonas R

Ohio 4 McCulloch R

South Carolina 1 Rivers D

Tennessee 8 Everett D

Texas 1 Patman D ) 2 Dowdy D

4 Roberts D

6 Teague D

7 Bush R

11 Poage D

12 Wright D

14 Young D

15 de la Garga D -3-

State DISTRICT INCUMBENT PARTY

Texas 17 Burleson D

19 Mahon D

23 Kazen D

Vermont 1 Stafford D

Virginia 1 Downing D

4 Abbitt D

6 Poff R

TOTAL STATES TOTAL SEATS PARTY: R D

17 49 7 42 Improving COPE Support for Federal Candidates

The National AFL-CIO and its national affiliates have not been giving enough assistance to the state bodies of the AFL-CIO. State organizations have the sole responsibility to promote legislation of benefit to workers in their state and to assist candidates for legislative office and for statewide state offices. In many cases, they are forced to produce research, draft legislation at the state capitol, testify before committees, and keep members and the general public informed of legislative development. This is a burden which absorbs much of their time and energy.

The AFL-CIO and its national unions rely on the state bodies to conduct registration campaigns, keep informed on federal legislation, find and promote candidates for federal office, and finance these campaigns, assisted by the National AFL-CIO

COPE and the national unions.

The AFL-CIO and the International Unions should embark on a concerted drive to increase affiliations and strengthen the state AFL-CIO bodies. The registration program developed by COPE utilizing the data processing method requires the coopera- tion and the confidence of the national unions and the state bodies and it should be their joint responsibility. The assignment by President Meany of members of the

Executive Council to buttress strategic state campaigns in 1968 was a long step forward and produced results.

1970 Senate Battle

Thirty-four Senate races will be contested in 1970 with 25 Democratic incumbents and 9 Republican. Twenty-one of the 25 Democrats are liberals and one of the Republicans is a moderate. The apparent stalemate in the 91st Congress, which lessens the liklihood of anti-labor legislation before 1971, will be broken if even -2-

a few of these liberals are defeated.

In at least three Senate races, Republicans with bad records will be challenged in New York, California, and Alaska, with very close races indicated.

The 1970 Senate battle will require special efforts in 25 states.

Further Executive Council Aid

The Executive Council of the AFL-CIO should designate a member of the Council or General Board to help mobilize our AFL-CIO forces in every state where strategic races occur. The Council or General Board member should convene in 1969, a meeting of the designees of each International President having members in the state to review the campaign plans for 1970 and, in full consultation with the AFL-CIO state body officers develop the registration drive, the campaign for the candidate, and the get-out-the-vote effort. COPE Area Directors should be assigned to assist the Council or General Board member.

A report on these state meetings should be made to President Meany and the

Council should determine, during 1969, any further steps needed.

1970 Strategic House Races

There will be approximately 100 House seats in which the election will be close in 1970. National COPE should agree on the strategic races in which they will be directly interested and in which they will urge special effort from the

International Unions. In each strategic Congressional District, an International

Union should be assigned the responsibility of supplementing the state and local councils and mobilizing other international staff members. The staff of that union should make a complete survey of the district and through their own International

President report to President Meany and to COPE during 1969. -3-

Planning for 1970

Immediately after January 1, 1970, the Council or General Board members, the staff members, the COPE Operating Committee, and the COPE Area Directors should meet to develop the federal campaign for the rest of the year. STATE INCUMBENT AFL-CIO LIAISON

Alaska Theodore Stephens (R)

California George Murphy (R) Paul Hall

Connecticut Thomas Dodd (D) Bill Pollock

Delaware John J. Williams (R)

Florida Spessard Holland (D) Joe Curran

Hawaii Hiram Fong (R) Paul Hall

Indiana Vance Hartke (D) Joe Keenan, M. Hutcheson

Maryland Joseph Tydings (D) Joe Bierne

Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D) Dave Sullivan

Michigan Philip Hart (D) John Lyons

Minnesota Eugene McCarthy (D) Herman Kenin

Missouri Stuart Symington (D) Joe Bierne, Floyd Smith

Nevada Howard Cannon (D) Dick Walsh

New Jersey Harrison Williams (D) Hunter Wharton Paul Jennings

New Mexico Joseph Montoya (D) Walter Burke

New York Charles Goodell (R) Louis Stulberg Matthew Guinan

Ohio Stephen Young (D) Lee Minton, C.L. Dennis

Pennsylvania Hugh Scott (R) I.W. Able, Jake Potofsky

Tennessee Albert Gore (D) A. J. DeAndrade

Texas Ralph Yarborough (D) Charles Luna, Joe Keenan

Utah Frank Moss (D) Dick Walsh

Virginia Harry Byrd (D) James Suffridge

Washington Henry Jackson (D) Roy Siemiller

West Virginia Robert Byrd (D) Karl Feller

Wisconsin William Proxmire (D) Pete Schoemann

Wyoming Gale McGee (D) Al Grospiron COPE Research Department November, 1968 * Incumbent in 90th Congress

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1970

Total - 81 Democrats - 51 Republicans - 30

This list includes districts won by 55% of the total vote or less and/or changing party in 1968. It is based on unofficial returns.

Districts which changed party in 1968, are underscored. Endorsements refer to 1968 elections.

Winning Winning State Democrats % 1968 Republicans % 1968

Alabama 2. Dickinson R* ACA 54.7

Alaska AL Pollock R* ACA 54.1

California 15. McFall D* COPE 53.8 17. Anderson D COPE 50.4 29. Brown D* COPE 52.3 34. Hanna D* COPE 50.9

Colorado 1. Rogers D* COPE 45.7 3. Evans D* COPE 52.2 4. Aspinall D* COPE 54.9

Connecticut 2. St. Onge D* COPE 54.8 4. Weicker R 52.1 3. Giaimo D* 53.9 .

Florida 4. Chappell D 52.6 10. Burke R* ACA 54.6

Illinois 3. Murphy D* COPE 53.5 21. Gray D* COPE 53.9 23. Shipley D* COPE 53.7

Indiana* 3. Brademas D* COPE 52.2 4. Adair R* ACA 51.4 9. Hamilton D* COPE 54.2 8. Zion R* ACA 54.6 11. Jacobs D* COPE 52.9 10. Dennis R ACA 53.9

Iowa 2. Culver D* COPE 55.0 1. Schwengel R* 53.1 4. Kyl R* 53.9

Kansas 1. Sebelius R COPE 51.0

Louisiana 2. Boggs D* COPE 51.2

Maryland 5. Hogan R 52.9 6. Beall R 52.7

Massachusetts 3. Philbin D* COPE 47.3 2 House of Representatives 1970 - continued

Winning Winning State Democrats % 1968 Republicans % 1968

Michigan 2. Esch R* 54.3

Minnesota 7. Langen R* 50.8

Missouri 2. Symington D COPE 53.3 6. Hull, Jr. D* 53.9 9. Hungate D* COPE 52.3 10. Burlison D COPE 54.7

Montana 1. Olsen D* COPE 53.4

Nebraska 1. Denney R* 54.5 2. Cunningham R* ACA 54.6

New Jersey 4. Thompson D* COPE 53.4 2. Sandman R* 53.7 9. Helstoski D* COPE 50.9 15. Patten D* COPE 54.8

New Mexico 1. Lujan R 53.5 2. Foreman R ACA 51.0

New York 1. Pike D* COPE 54.0 27. McKneally R 45.7 3. Wolff D* COPE 52.0 28. Fish R 46.6 5. Lowenstein D 51.1 9. Delaney D* COPE 49.4 15. Carey D* COPE 49.1 16. Murphy D* COPE 48.7 17. Koch D 51.9 19. Farbstein D* COPE 38.9 24. Biaggi D COPE 64.4 34. Hanley D* COPE 51.2 39. McCarthy D* COPE 55.0

North Carolina* 3. Henderson D* 53.5 5. Mizell R 52.8 4. Galifianakis D* COPE 51.4 8. Ruth R ACA 50.7 6. Preyer D COPE 53.3 10. Broyhill R* 51.8 11. Taylor D* 51.7

North Dakota 2. Kleppe R* 49.6

Ohio 22. Vanik D* COPE 55.2 14. Ayres R* 54.7 23. Minshall R* 50.6

Oklahoma 2. Edmundson D* COPE 54.9 4. Steed D* COPE 52.2

Pennsylvania 6. Yatron D COPE 52.2 8. Biester R* 54.8

Tennessee 5. Fulton D* COPE 48.5 3

House of Representatives 1970 - continued

Winning Winning State Democrats % 1968 Republicans % 1968

Texas 13. Purcell D* 54.9

Virginia 5. Daniel D ACA 54.5 2. Whitehurst R 53.6 7. Marsh D* ACA 54.5

West Virginia 1. Mollohan D COPE 53.5

Wisconsin 1. Schadeberg R* ACA 52.3

+ Redistricting threw 2 incumbents into a combined district and created a new district without incumbents in both Indiana and North Carolina. This resulted in a net loss of one Democratic seat in each state. COPE Research Department February, 1969

PROBABLE REAPPORTIONMENT BASED UPON PROJECTED 1970 CENSUS

STATE LEGISLATURES SEATS UP IN U.S. REPRESENTATIVES UPPER LOWER 1970 ELECTIONS

NOW 1972 CHANGE DEM. REP. DEM. REP. UPPER LOWER -

Alabama 8 8 34 1 106 0 35 106

Alaska 1 1 11 22 18 10 40

Arizona 3 4 + 1 13 17 26 34 30 60

Arkansas 4 4 34 1 95 5 18 100

California 38 44 +6 20 20 39 41 20 80

Colorado 4 5 +1 11 24 27 38 17 65

Connecticut 6 7 +1 24 12 110 67 36 177

Delaware 1 1 6 13 13 26 10 39

Florida 12 14 +2 32 16 77 42 48 119

Georgia 10 10 50 6 179 26 56 205

Hawaii 2 2 16 9 39 12 12 51

Idaho 2 2 13 22 28 42 35 70

Illinois 24 23 -1 20 38 82 95 58 177

Indiana 11 11 14 36 27 73 25 100

Iowa 7 6 -1 16 45 38 86 30 124 ' 2

STATE LEGISLATURES SEATS UP IN U.S. REPRESENTATIVES UPPER LOWER 1970 ELECTIONS

NOW 1972 CHANGE DEM • REP. DEM. REP. UPPER LOWER

Kansas 5 5 8 32 39 86 - 125

Kentucky 7 7 24 14 57 43 *19 100*

Louisiana 8 8 39 0 105 0 - -

Maine 2 2 14 18 67 84 32 151

Maryland 8 8 35 8 117 25 43 142

Massachusetts 12 12 28 12 173 67 40 240

Michigan 19 18 - 18 20 57 43 38 100

Minnesota 8 8 671 1351 67 135

Mississippi 5 5 51 1 122 0 52 122

Missouri 10 10 23 11 109 54 17 163

Montana 2 2 30 25 45 59 27 104

Nebraska 3 3 492 24**

Nevada 1 11 9 18 22 10 40

New Hampshire 2 2 9 15 145 255 24 400

New Jersey 15 16 + 1 9 31 22 58 *_ 80*

New Mexico 2 2 25 17 44 26 21 70

New York 41 40 -1 34 23 72 78 57 150 STATE LEGISLATURES SEATS UP IN U.S. REPRESENTATIVES UPPER LOWER 1970 ELECTIONS

NOW 1972 CHANGE DEM. REP. DEM. REP. UPPER LOWER

North Carolina 11 11 38 12 91 29 50 120

North Dakota 2 1 -1 6 43 21 77 26 98

Ohio 24 23 -1 12 21 35 64 16 99

Oklahoma 6 5 -1 38 10 76 23 24 99

Oregon 4 4 17 13 22 38 16 60

Pennsylvania 27 25 -2 23 27 108 95 25 203

Rhode Island 2 2 37 13 77 23 50 100

South Carolina 6 6 46 4 120 4 25 124

South Dakota 2 1 -1 9 26 16 59 35 75

Tennessee 9 9 20 13 49 49 33 99

Texas 23 24 + 1 29 2 142 8 16 150

Utah 2 2 8 20 21 48 14 69

Vermont 1 1 8 22 49 101 30 150

Virginia 10 10 6 86 14 - 100

Washington 7 7 27 22 43 56 24 99

West Virginia 5 4 -1 22 12 63 37 17 100 4

STATE LEGISLATURES SEATS UP IN U.S. REPRESENTATIVES UPPER LOWER 1970 ELECTIONS

NOW 1972 CHANGE DEM. REP. DEM. REP. UPPER LOWER

Wisconsin 10 9 -1 10 23 48 52 17 100

Wyoming 1 1 11 19 18 43 15 61

435 436

1Technically non-partisan - actually: Senate 45 Conservative, 22 Liberals — House 85 Conservative, 50 Liberals

2 Technically non-partisan unicameral legislature

*1969

**Unicameral • George E. Diethelm 0 Wall w York , New York 10005 ar Mr. Diethelm : waited until the Inaugural activities were over purposely, Diethelm , before writing to you because I know you were an act: pporter of President Nixon during the campaign and would probably s swearing-in ceremony in Washington. had hoped to be there also—as a newly elected U. S. Senator from ate of Washington--but ary campaign was unsuccessful and the Democ rren Magnuson, was returned to office. gnuson has been an influential liberal Democrat in Washington, D.C. r 32 years. He had tremendous nationwide financial support from dicals and extremist groups during the campaign because of his wo crease America's trade with the Communists.

ring the campaign I found his financial support from these groups possible to overcome, but when the polls showed me only a few rcentage points behind just prior to election day, we mounted an e st minute effort to close the gap.

t the large effort we made in the closing days was not enough and re left with a deficit. Because you've given so generously to the mpaign I hesitate to ask you to do more, but we desperately need ntributions of $1,000, $500, or $100.

both know that the Democrats, radicals and other extremists are be spending large amounts of money and manpower to keep Democrats agress now that we've put Dick Nixon in the White House.

it we must do now is unite behind, and support financially, good ublican candidates everywhere—whether they live in Mukilteo, ay letown, or in New fork . The Democrats and radicals have done this it's one reason they've controlled Congress for most of the last 3 rs. It's time the Republicans supported their own people wherever .

need to start working immediately to defeat incumbent Democrats i o and 1972 elections. But good candidates will hesitate to run an e the necessary sacrifices if they see that the Republicans will port their candidates financially.

sending a contribution to help pay off our 1968 campaign debt, yo ping to build a strong Republican party to combat th? Democrats i 0 and 1972. With warmest regards.

rt P.S. I have just a little time left to pay off this debt. Dear Senator Metcalf: □ Yes, I agree Republicans must support financially Republican candidates in the same way the radicals back the Democrat candidates. Here is my contribution to help you with your campaign debt so that we can continue to build the Republican party.

____ $1,000 ____ $750 ____ $500

____ $250 ...... $100 ...... Other

(Please make checks payable to Metcalf for Senate Committee)

□No, I'd like to help you pay off your campaign debt, but I just can't contribute at this time.

Mr. Name: Mrs. ______.______Miss Street______.______

C i t y______State ______Z i p______

(Return to State Senator Jack Metcalf, Box 356-A, Seattle Hts., Wash. 98063)