Richard M. Nixon: CheckersMy Fellow Americans, I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity has been questioned. Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe weve had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it. I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And thats why I am here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case. Im sure that you have read the charge, and youve heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters. Now, was that wrong? And let me say that it was wrong. I am saying it, incidentally, that it was wrong, just not illegal, because it isnt a question of whether it was legal or illegal, that isnt enough. The question is, was it morally wrong? I say that it was morally wrong - if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given, and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made. And now to answer those questions let me say this: not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to me for my personal use. Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States. It was not a secret fund. As a matter of fact, when I was on Meet the Press- some of you may have seen it last Sunday - Peter Edson came up to me after the program, and he said, Dick, what about is fund we hear about? And I said, Well, there is no secret about it. Go out and see Dana Smith who was the administrator of the fund. And I gave him Edson his Smiths address. And I said you will find that the purpose of the fund simply was to defray political expenses that I did not feel should be charged to the Government. And third, let me point out - and I want to make this particularly clear - that no contributor to this fund, no contributor to any of my campaigns, has ever received any consideration that he would not have received as an ordinary constituent. I just dont believe in that, and I can say that never, while I have been in the Senate of the United States, as far as the people that contributed to this fund are concerned, have I made a telephone call for them to an agency, or have I gone down to an agency on their behalf. And the records will show that, the records which are in the hands of the administration. Well, then, some of you will say, and rightly, Well, what did you use the fund for, Senator? Why did you have to have it? Let me tell you in just a word how a Senate office operates. First of all, a Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip, that is, for himself, and his family between his home and Washington, D.C. And then he gets an allowance to handle the people that work in his office to handle his mail. And the allowance for my State of California, is enough to hire 13 people. And let me say, incidentally, that that allowance is not paid to the Senator. It is paid directly to the individuals that the Senator puts on his pay roll. But all of these people and all of these allowances are for strictly official business; business, for example, when a constituent writes in and wants you to go down to the Veterans Administration and get some information about his GI policy - items of that type, for example. But there are other expenses that are not covered by the Government. And I think I can best discuss those expenses by asking you some questions. Do you think that when I or any other senator makes a political speech, has it printed, should charge the printing of that speech and the mailing of that speech to the taxpayers? Do you think, for example, when I or any other Senator makes a trip to his home State to make a purely political speech that the cost of that trip should be charged to the taxpayers? Do you think when a Senator makes political broadcasts or political television broadcasts, radio or television, that the expense of those broadcasts should be charged to the taxpayers? Well I know what your answer is. Its the same answer that audiences give me whenever I discuss this particular problem: The answer is no. The taxpayers shouldnt be required to finance items which are not official business but which are primarily political business. Well, then the question arises, you say, Well, how do you pay for these and h