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 each and every event you go to, if you are going to be safe?
Questioning the necessity of multiple interpretative rulings during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from John Johnston
The actual wording is not that the trip is not substantially recreational, but that the activities as part of the trip are not substantially recreational, which I think is a significant difference because you can have a serious trip that…
It would sure make it a lot more expensive to do things that are ordinary parts of being a Senator as far as I am concerned.
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…
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…
Other voices in this conversation
