On the recordJune 24, 2010
Of course I disagree with the gentlelady from California. We need to allow these contributions to go into the campaign accounts rather than be laundered through a whole series of entities that are set up to diffuse and confuse the actual source of the voice. And the distortion that comes with this--it may be that this has been law for 41 years. But Citizens United, the ink is barely dry, and the Democrats are here on the floor seeking to gain a legislative advantage when the Supreme Court has said, Give the people an opportunity to have their voice heard in the elections. Even so far as in the underlying bill, this bill requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads and state their name and organization two different times. CEOs. The President of the United States himself said: I don't want to talk to the CEOs; they'll just tell me what they want me to hear. So now we are legislating, telling the CEOs what they have to say twice in an ad. I don't know how we can afford to buy commercials and ads to run in a political campaign if our CEOs have to spend all of their time in them. And especially when the President says he doesn't want to listen to the CEOs. I think it is an ironic situation that we have. I want to eliminate the limits. That is what my amendment does.
