Mike Levin: “this proposal has nothing to do with campaign reform. What it would do would be to turn back a law that we passed a few…”

“this proposal has nothing to do with campaign reform. What it would do would be to turn back a law that we passed a few years ago. Why is it being done? It was said in a different time that money is the mother's milk of politics, but, unfortunately, increasingly there has been a poisoning of politics by money. Now, in order to thwart the effort to take the endless flow of money out of politics, to have responsibility and accountability, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is essentially presenting a poison pill, a poison pill to bring down Shays-Meehan. He knows very well, as should anybody who votes for it, that Shays-Meehan cannot become law with this provision in it. The President has made clear his position about the motor-voter bill. It is very clear on this side of the aisle where we stand, and I am hopeful that those on the majority side who really want Shays-Meehan will say this: Look, we will argue motor-voter, but some other day. The bill before us relates to the flow of money into politics. There are endless electoral provisions, endless, that could be brought up at this point that are not essentially related to money. So what does this bill do? It essentially requires Social Security numbers on voter registration applications. Though there is question whether that is even constitutional, I think it is bad policy. You talk about intrusion by the Federal Government, and you want that requirement? You do not want to leave it to the States?…”