I think it is a little hypocritical for a Member to say they could be bought for a $21 lunch, yet turn around and pick up a phone to a PAC and ask for a contribution over 200 times that amount, a $5,000 contribution. What we are talking about here is not the donuts. It is more like the hole in the donut that is the real problem, like the tail wagging the dog. We may not be able to take a sandwich from a lobbyist outside the office, but we could still--and will--ask them for a $5,000 PAC contribution or a $1,000 personal contribution to go along with it. It does not make much sense to do it that way. I should add that the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which was already passed by our committee--Senator Levin proposed that; he has been a leader in this area, also--would probably have more real impact in terms of restoring the people's trust, the perception in their own Government, by disclosing who is paying what to lobby whom on which issue. But, be that as it may, if banning lobbyists' gifts will help remove these jaundiced perceptions and help to restore this institution's integrity, then I say let us get on with it. Let us do it. I do not think we can afford not to.
John Glenn: “I think it is a little hypocritical for a Member to say they could be bought for a $21 lunch, yet turn around and pick…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the influence of PAC contributions and lobbying on government integrity.
Share
More from John Glenn
I submit we are into a different day now. The new administration has, in fact, put out an Executive order, which I am sure the distinguished Senator is aware of, cost-benefit analysis. It does not go to the smaller contracts, that is true…
only one final remark. I talked about the number of regulations that could come out this year. I am sure the Senator from Wyoming is aware it takes a year or two for regulations to come out after laws are passed. The regulations coming out…
2 days ago, the Senate accepted an amendment to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, offered by Senator Nickles and entitled the ``Economic and Employment Impact Act.'' This amendment would require the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]…
I oppose Senator Wallop's amendment for several reasons. First, current law requires the IRS to consider the impact that their interpretative rules will have on small businesses. Congress has, in the past, carefully considered and rejected…





