I would love to just talk about the actual numbers. So you and I do agree that the first issue should not be does it help or hurt one party; it should be what is in the best interests of our country to save our democracy from these unlimited sums of corporate and union dues money and other special interest money, the unlimited sums. But I could ask it in reverse and say how would this have hurt our party? Well, you could say well, just take the 1996 presidential election. Republicans raised in soft money $138 million. Democrats raised $124 million. Both raised a significant sum of money, which, by the way, certain people can direct just to the places they want to direct it to. So Republicans would have lost that $14 million advantage. But it is $14 million. When you are looking at numbers of $124 and $138 million, it is a small percent. By the way, right now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised more soft money in the DNC, in their congressional committee, than Republicans have.
Christopher Shays: “I would love to just talk about the actual numbers. So you and I do agree that the first issue should not be does it…”
On the recordFebruary 15, 2000
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of soft money on political parties during a debate on campaign finance reform.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
Sep 9, 2013
I believed there were weapons of mass destruction, wrong, shouldn't have done it.
Sep 9, 2013
What are we hoping to achieve in Syria, and why do we think doing what we are planning on doing will give us the results we want?
Apr 22, 2008
I would love to, if you wouldn't mind, just point out that what we have done in this legislation is that when the bill passes, it will take 2 years to be implemented so that as we vote out the legislation with whatever changes are in…
Sep 9, 2013
First, let me say if the President really believed that a military strike would have been effective, he would have done it right away.





