To my colleague from Rhode Island, I ask this: How is it possible for 5 members of the Supreme Court to look at this issue of unlimited, secret spending and knowing that can be used to intimidate and corrupt the electoral process and corrupt the debate by the threat of future activities, future secret activities, secret negative, lying activity, and not see the corruptive or corrosive effect on the American democracy?
Share & report
More from Jeff Merkley
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1207 and ask that it be reported by number. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MERKLEY] proposes an…
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 49, nays…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chance Mitchell, a law clerk on the Budget Committee minority staff, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection…
I look forward to cooperating on many topics, but this is perhaps the most important one at the moment. A second amendment that I have creates some of the flexibility that exists in current law that doesn't exist under this bill. It…
Other voices in this conversation
