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 would indirectly be a sponsorship or a recommendation, and if lobbyists were invited, you could be hauled up before the Ethics Committee, I would think, on the basis of that; do you not agree? My first reaction is that, as a practical matter, any effort to help those less fortunate would be problematic and could well be ruled impermissible.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of Senators' involvement with charities during a debate.
Share
More from John Johnston
with respect to the statement that the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, was described as making to the effect that if they do not sell to us at the price we want, then we will let them remain in inholding forever, the context of the…
would the Senator not agree with me that when on page 36 it defines ``gift'' as including a charitable contribution made on the basis of a designation, recommendation, or other specification made to a lobbyist or foreign agent by a Member…
Yes. When you go to, say, the Opera Ball, I do not know what one of these dinners down here will cost. You go down at the hotel. I do not feel like I am really being entertained. I feel like I am doing when I go to those things at the…
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?





