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
“The Supreme Court’s refusal to adopt an enforceable code of ethics has contributed to a decline in public trust of this vital institution. If the Court won’t act, Congress must. The highest court in our land should be held to the highest…
At the end of the day, that has to happen. We have a system of laws, we need to enforce them.
If a member of the Senate truly believes that this war is justified and the right thing to do, put it up for a vote.
“Sergeant Ed Ramsey lived a life of public service – joining the Army to defend our nation, then going on to serve his community in his local post office for nearly three decades. During those years, his unstinting kindness made such an…





