76-09-B5
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Contents
IBM[edit]
Transcript[edit]Out of all the trauma of the last few years came legislation nationally and statewide to eliminate conflicts of interest. The new -- and sometimes ridiculous -- election laws are examples of government by hysteria. There was the offer of I. T. T. to guaranty a sizeable portion of the sum offered by merchants, hotels and restaurants to lure the Republican National Convention to San Diego in 1972. Never mind that cities customarily do this in the competition to host the national political conventions. Never mind that the Republican National Committee turned down the offer by I. T. T. and then took the convention to Miami. I.T.T. was involved in legal difficulties with the Justice Department and the odor of chicanery was in the air. Now we have the new laws and assurances against conflict of interest, but is anything really different? William Safire has written a column proving it isn't. He points out that never in our history has one corporation so completely dominated the top levels of an administration. And, he isn't talking about I.T.T. or 1972. Our new Secretary of State has been a director of I.B.M. and a member of the Executive Committee. The Secretary of Defense has also served as director and chairman of the audit committee. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) has been a director of I.B.M. and adviser to management on executive compensation. The new Attorney General and the top adviser to the President both come from a law firm that represents I.B.M. in Atlanta. The Under-Secretary of State is a partner in the firm that represents I.B.M. in the far west. The President's science and technology adviser is a Vice President and Chief of Technology for I.B.M. Two of the President's original choices for other cabinet positions were an I.B.M. Director and a former Vice President. Now Mr. Safire does not hint at collusion, or suggest that any of the individuals he has mentioned are in any way questionable as to character. But one can't help but be aware of a greater tolerance in this instance than was afforded in some earlier incidents. You see, for a year-and-a-half, the United States government and I.B.M. have been engaged in the most extensive anti-trust case in our history. The government won't be finished presenting its case until the end of next summer and then I.B.M. will begin presenting it's hundreds of witnesses. The new Attorney General will have to remove himself from the biggest case in the Justice Department. But, as Mr. Safire points out, the Justice Department lawyers can not forget why. It's like inadvertently seeing an opponent's hand in a card game. No matter how honest you are, you can't force your mind to forget the cards you saw. Will I.B.M. competitors, trying to do business with government, be able to believe there is no prejudice when they run into this I.B.M. alumni group? Again, Mr. Safire does not suggest conspiracy but he does suggest no one thought to look at the way the puzzle, when put together, would spell out the potential for conflict. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit]
|
