All I am saying, I think that is entirely correct, and ours allows that. The difference is ours is limited to $75, yours is unlimited, except yours is close personal friend. All I am saying is that the Senator from Minnesota, in quavering voice and stentorian tones, says this will allow this. Well, so does the pending amendment. So does your amendment.
John Johnston: “All I am saying, I think that is entirely correct, and ours allows that. The difference is ours is limited to $75, yours…”
Editor's note · Context
Debating the differences between campaign finance amendments.
Share
More from John Johnston
So in effect, any involvement with charities by Senators, whether it is sponsoring a charity, whether it is being the honoree of the charity, whether it is using your name on the stationery, or being on a sponsoring committee, All of that…
The Senator just mentioned our bill allows for unlimited and undisclosed meals, et cetera, and listed four things dealing with meals, tickets and gifts.
Is it not a fact that the Levin-Wellstone amendment allows the same thing, only while ours would be limited to $75, yours is unlimited, provided it is motivated by personal friendship, to be decided by the Member?
Under section a(1), it provides that no Member or spouse may knowingly accept a gift provided directly or indirectly by lobbyists. And it goes on to say in subsection (c), that the following items are subject to the restrictions as…





