Christopher Shays: “I have a personal example to respond to your question. The point that I first want to make is, paycheck protection, I…”

“I have a personal example to respond to your question. The point that I first want to make is, paycheck protection, I voted for it. But paycheck protection would allow a union member to use his union dues in campaigns when the 1947 law makes it illegal. I am hard pressed to understand why my side of the aisle, that professes not to want to see union dues money in campaigns, why they would want to allow union dues money to be used if a union member says fine, because it is not necessary. A union member can contribute to a PAC. Why would they want to overturn the 1947 law that makes it illegal? They should want to enforce it by banning the sham-issue ads, out goes the corporate and union dues money, and enforcing the 1947 law that says the corporate money goes out. What I am talking about is a very interesting issue, the Beck case. I can give you a real live example. Someone in my family, a schoolteacher, supported the Republican candidate. Before the Republican candidate could even be interviewed by the labor unions, her teachers' union, the CEA, the Connecticut Education Association, they had already endorsed the Democrat candidate. My wife was a Republican and supported the Republican. She was outraged that they did not, "outraged" is a strong word, she was unhappy.”