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, officer or employee, that effectively prevents a Member from recommending, that is, participating, in a charity to the extent that you would ask someone to give? For example, Senator Pryor's event, which is the David Pryor Invitational, whatever you call it--I have been there--he would not be able, under the Senator's amendment, to recommend to a lobbyist to give to that, would he?
John Johnston: “Would the Senator not agree with me that when on page 36 it defines ``gift'' as including a charitable contribution made…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a proposed amendment on charitable contributions during Senate debate.
Share
More from John Johnston
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.
The Senator just mentioned our bill allows for unlimited and undisclosed meals, et cetera, and listed four things dealing with meals, tickets and gifts.
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…
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?





