Jamie Raskin

But last week, on February 28th, The New York Times reported that President Trump ordered John Kelly to grant Jared Kushner a security clearance.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the…

Our colleagues are not upset because you lied to Congress for the President; they're upset because you stopped lying to Congress for the President.

I think all we are doing is improving its operation and giving it the opportunity to actually work.

It is a naked violation of the First Amendment.

I would urge a 'no' vote on this. As we know, voter ID laws have deprived many voters of their right to vote.

I think that, yeah, I would like to be able to help our friend from Illinois in backing one of his amendments, but I am afraid that this one moves us backwards instead of moving us forward to a functional and improved FEC.

That is a naked violation of the First Amendment.

I would almost like to argue that we universalize this for all legislation that goes through Congress.

The purpose of punishment is rehabilitation.

Shouldn't we leave that to the people of California and North Carolina and Florida to decide, because all of them have their own prohibitions against voter fraud, which is a completely recognizable species of misconduct.

This guy is not in trouble because he delivered somebody's ballot successfully to the Board of Elections. He is in trouble because he committed voter fraud.

Voting twice is illegal. It is illegal now; it will be illegal after hopefully this bill becomes law.

It is really up to the person to decide.

I think this question was settled in the 1960s and 1970s in a series of cases called the college student voting rights decisions.

On June 20th, the President putatively ended his scandalous and dangerous family separation policy, but family separations are still happening at the border under a shadowy set of rules that apparently do not offer sufficient…

But your group is interested in free speech, right? I am not asking you an unfair question here.

I understand that Citizens United has created some very difficult, seemingly intractable problems in the electoral process.

I am impressed by the provisions in H.R. 1 that deal with voter registration modernization, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and so on.

I was quite amazed that when we first took this up in the Judiciary Committee there were people defending gerrymandering...

I think the Supreme Court has foreclosed it both as to contributions and expenditures.

Do you favor disclosure to the shareholders of all political contributions by the CEOs of the company?

Well, whose free speech rights do you think are at stake when Exxon Mobil spends money? Is it the CEO or is it the shareholders whose free speech interests count?

When the Supreme Court in 2010 opened the floodgates on corporate treasury money going into politics, it created a problem of a completely different dimension and scale.

I mean, I think that is the heart of the problem that Mr. Earle has identified.