I have a copy of a letter which he signed along with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and a number of other Members saying, ``Let's close the gift loophole for foundations, LSOs and caucuses.'' This was October of 1993. One of the justifications for this request was to require all Member-affiliated foundations to disclose contributors. Public disclosure of contributions will ensure the integrity of Member-affiliated foundations and silence any criticism that special interest contributions are being made to influence Members of Congress. I wonder if the gentleman can tell me what difference there is between this worthy instinct that caused him to sign this letter and the situation that applies with GOPAC.
Victor Fazio: “I have a copy of a letter which he signed along with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and a number of other Members…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for transparency in contributions to Member-affiliated foundations.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
I yield to no Member of this institution in my love for infrastructure. I think we all appreciate the fact that this bill gives us a great opportunity to take something home to the people who send us here. But my problem with it is that it…
I think it makes a bad proposal less bad, but I understand that the gentleman has the votes on his side, so I certainly will not oppose it. In fact, I encourage him to offer it. But I do think that when we begin to think about those things…
when I came to Congress 20 years ago I had hundreds of sugar beet growers in the Sacramento Valley. Today we have far fewer. Acreage is down. We have lost a number of refineries. They are closing because there is not enough product grown…
does this make them permanent in their status if they served and then leave the service, or do they lose their right to vote after they have left military service?





