I would also say that when we put the word ``reasonable'' in the law itself, we really create a barrier to groups who do not want to throw their money away; to groups who clearly cannot spend all their time in court, and who see ``reasonable'' in the law, do not know what that means, decide they really cannot in all likelihood get their message across, so they just believe that their first amendment rights are gone, whether they are truly gone or not. Who knows what ``reasonable'' means? How is that defined in the law? Are we going to leave that up to the FEC to decide how that is defined in the law?
Roy Blunt: “I would also say that when we put the word ``reasonable'' in the law itself, we really create a barrier to groups who do…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the term 'reasonable' in campaign finance law.
Share
More from Roy Blunt
...Indian Tribes are political, sovereign entities to which the Federal Government owes a trust responsibility.
I think that many of the things that this Committee has done, that you and Senator Klobuchar have done personally, and that Congress has done for the United States Capitol Police has sent a pretty strong message that people do care about…
This is a unique Committee, and the opportunity to be so involved all the time...
I just was able to watch the administration climb the inflation rate cliff, and I want to talk more about this problem of what happens when the administration ignores the warning signs that are going to produce the kind of results that…





