I would point out that in conversation with Trevor Potter, he pointed out that he totally disagrees with what was said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the reference to his Website was, in fact, not even his Website. And that this $40 million fund that is being described, Democrats have $3.2 million in their building fund and Republicans have $1.8 million in their building fund. So if the Democrats have $40 million, they would have to raise from this point on the difference, basically $36.8 million, and then not spend it against candidates who are running for office. Again, I just repeat, if the Democrats want to raise $36.8 million and spend it on a building fund instead of campaigns, I think Republicans should probably encourage them to do that. I would like to also point out that our bill is, in fact, a compromise. It is a compromise.
Christopher Shays: “I would point out that in conversation with Trevor Potter, he pointed out that he totally disagrees with what was said…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing campaign finance and party funding during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
Rather than focusing on destroying elements of the Syrian government forces and choosing sides in a truly brutal civil war, our focus should be on how do we get these chemical weapons out of Syria.
It's kind of a mouthful to hear this is a bipartisan bill when 42 amendments go to Democrats and 14 go to Republicans. That's one Republican amendment for every three Democratic amendments. But it's a bipartisan bill? It's kind of amazing…
Right. Because what we do is we cap the payroll at $120,000. And so it ends up being $12,000 an employer would pay. But when I was speaking of someone with 500 employees, they would pay $21,000 salary, they pay 5.25, 5¼ percent of payroll…





