I only perceive this as leveling if you perceive the north slope of some mountain in the Himalayas, Mount Everest, for example, to be level. The fact is, this is not a leveling bill. The fact is, this bill, because it fails to address the independent expenditure issue, is a bill which, were this a teeter-totter, would have one side directly up in the air and the other side directly on the ground. We have to realize that under this bill one of the core elements of what I consider to be inappropriate activity in the political area, but which others would consider to be good politics, as they are supported by it, is not addressed at all. It was in March, for example, that the AFL-CIO held a rather unique convention here in Washington, where they voted, as an institution, to levy a special assessment on their membership, which assessment was meant to raise approximately $25 million of a $35 million goal dedicated to defeating Republicans. There was no other purpose. It was openly stated. They were going to spend $35 million for the purpose of defeating Republicans.
Judd Gregg: “I only perceive this as leveling if you perceive the north slope of some mountain in the Himalayas, Mount Everest, for…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill related to political expenditures.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
Meeting state and national carbon reduction goals will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.
I would suggest that on issues that involve all Americans, where pretty much everybody is affected, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax reform, that if you push forward in a partisan way, at least 50 percent, maybe a little less…
To get this done, you are going to have to have compromise--compromise on both sides of the aisle.
It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to nuclear power.