This is a bill that enforces the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money, the 1947 law banning union dues money, and enforces the 1974 reform laws. Now, one of the allegations is that because we cannot use soft money, we cannot use that corporate treasury money and the union dues money, that somehow veterans do not have a voice. That is an absurdity. They have a voice as individuals, and they have a voice to pool their resources and to advertise. They just cannot do it with corporate treasury money and union dues money. Most veterans think that makes sense, because they do not have a lot of corporate treasury money and a lot of union dues money. They do not get it. They do not have a lot of wealthy people allowing them to advertise. What they have is a lot of numbers of small contributions, of hard money, that enables them to have quite a voice. I would just make the point to my colleagues that this amendment is dearly a threat to our legislation because it suggests something that is not true.
Christopher Shays: “This is a bill that enforces the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money, the 1947 law banning union dues money, and…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of campaign finance legislation on veterans' voices.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
Sadly, I believe these strikes will have no serious military consequences on Assad because he can win this war without using chemical weapons.
What should be our primary concern, that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian Army, or that Syria has chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of radical elements sympathetic to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?
This industry may be highly regulated by State, Federal and international governments, but because all are involved, no one takes ownership. I had an experience with a constituent, George Smith, who was lost at sea on his honeymoon on…
I think we do ourselves well to wash our mouth with soap about our credibility.





