Christopher Shays: “I talked about the Beck decision. The gentleman I think is clear on three things, but maybe some of my other colleagues…”

“I talked about the Beck decision. The gentleman I think is clear on three things, but maybe some of my other colleagues are not. Soft money can be union dues money. We ban it, so all union dues money cannot be contributed as soft money because it is not allowed, nor can corporate money that is soft money be allowed. We do both corporate and union. The second thing we do is we call those sham issue ads campaign ads. Once it is titled a campaign ad, union money and corporate money cannot be used, because we by law now define an advertisement and forbid dues money in a campaign advertisement and corporate money in a campaign advertisement. Then which get to the third part. This is the part the gentleman is most interested in. The Beck decision was a contest by someone who was not a member of the union who said his money should not be used for political purposes. The court made a ruling in the Beck decision that if you were not a member of the union, your money could not be used. That was the decision of the court. Now, what my wife did was when she complained that her money, and my wife was a teacher and a member of the union in New Canaan, Connecticut, was going to a Democrat candidate who she opposed, she supported the Republican candidate, she said she did not want her money going, and the union said, you are a member of the union and we can spend it the way we want. She said, well, I no longer choose to be a member of the union, then.…”