On the recordJuly 30, 1998
I think my colleague makes a very valid point. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Clearly, a member of the Armed Forces or the Armed Forces Reserves should have the right to contribute to a Federal election. Yet I would remind the gentleman that all legal permanent residents have the right to contribute in Federal campaigns, according to the United States Supreme Court. With this amendment, it seems to me the gentleman is making a value judgment that legal permanent residents who served in the Armed Forces are worthy of first amendment protection because they laid down their lives for this country. But how about those legal permanent residents who are doctors? They save American lives every day. Or how about the legal permanent residents who are the parents of those young men and women who have lost their lives fighting for our country? Should they not also be given the full protection of the first amendment? I do not object to the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to point out the arbitrary nature of this particular exclusion. This amendment is only necessary because the gentleman, rightly, perceives the inequities of a flat-out ban. The problem is, I could think of many worthy exemptions and exceptions. There are so many ways that legal permanent residents prove their allegiance to this government and to the United States. Serving in the Armed Forces is only one example.
Source
govinfo.gov




