Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, and we may agree with that decision or disagree with that decision. But the fact of the matter is that's the law of the land. This amendment does not try to overturn that decision. This amendment is perfectly consistent with that decision. It simply says that when you are spending the money, expending the money, you have to disclose to voters that you're trying to influence their vote. It's the right to know. Now because we are dealing with an appropriations bill, a government spending bill, we can't address all of the entities out there in the country that may be trying to spend money to influence elections.
Chris Van Hollen: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot about the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, and we may agree with that…”
Editor's note · Context
Van Hollen discusses the implications of the Citizens United decision and the need for transparency in campaign spending.
Share
More from Chris Van Hollen
Last night’s ruling from a federal judge made plain: the Administration’s efforts are in clear violation of Congressional intent.
While today’s hearing did not proceed, the Trump Administration continues to desperately try and ship Kilmar Ábrego Garcia to a faraway country and deny him of his constitutional due process rights.
This should chill every American to the bone. When the rights of one are threatened, the rights of all are at risk.
Baltimore has a long history of welcoming refugees and immigrants, and we know they make our communities stronger. That’s why we fought to secure this federal investment in Global Refuge’s efforts to help refugees build the skills to…





