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.
John Johnston: “So in effect, any involvement with charities by Senators, whether it is sponsoring a charity, whether it is being the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of Senators' involvement with charities during a debate.
Share
More from 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 is unlimited, except yours is close personal friend. All I am saying is that the Senator from Minnesota, in quavering…
Under the Senator's amendment, would he not agree with me that rather than to have three interpretative rulings on--I forget what it was the Senator said; three rulings for events? Would you really have to have an interpretative ruling on…
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…
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…





