as I listen to this debate and as I have listened to it over the years, we have been here before on this, I am reminded of the legendary creature, the hydra. The hydra, if one of its heads was cut off, it would grow two more. That is the way the arguments against Shays-Meehan seem to be. How many arguments do we have to hear? How many times do we have to endure this? Today we hear that the bill that would not be supported 3 months ago is now the bill that should be embraced today. And then after arguing that, they suggest that the people on this side of the aisle are not operating from principle. Well, what is the principle that is driving the argument against reform? It seems to be the desire to protect the status quo at any cost by any argument no matter how specious. Mr. Chairman, we have a shameful voter-participation record in this country. We have a political system that is not trusted by the people it governs. Enough is enough. It is time to end the cynical games, both political and parliamentary, that perpetuate this system. It is time to defeat the substitute, pass Shays-Meehan and finally, finally, pass campaign finance reform.
Lynn N. Rivers: “as I listen to this debate and as I have listened to it over the years, we have been here before on this, I am reminded…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the need for campaign finance reform during a debate on the Shays-Meehan bill.
Share
More from Lynn N. Rivers
But under this particular doctrine, does the individual have a right to find out what evidence is being used against him?
I rise to tell the story of two journeys that end right at the Capitol of the United States. They are similar in some respects, but tragically different in others. As a young mother, I was diagnosed with manic depressive disease, a serious…
Shays-Meehan does not prohibit speech of any type. It seeks to stop the use of soft money to pay for campaign ads. This is a long-standing authority that Congress has been able to exercise, starting with prohibitions on corporation monies…
there is a very interesting debate going on here, because the arguments are being put forward as if there is currently a provision within the system that allows for an offset of one individual, if a wealthy individual runs against them…





