I would just call upon you and those similarly situated in your position to base those kinds of beliefs on empirical data and there is no empirical data to support the conclusions which you offered to the House in your remarks. That is the fundamental reason why we oppose this legislation. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has talked about campaign contributions. That is an unfortunate topic to get into I think from his standpoint. We could talk about campaign contributions from the cigarette industry which is located in your district, I know. In fact, I think it is the capital of it. But let me say this. I think the gentleman will be for this legislation even if he did not live within a thousand miles of a cigarette factory. I think he believes in it. I am not taking issue with your belief in it. But you suggested that our position is based upon the fact that the trial lawyers make contributions. I think I am typical in saying that many of the Members who have taken a strong position like mine have received as much as $10,000 in campaign contributions in each cycle, every two years, from the trial lawyers political action committee, out of probably $900,000 or so that gets spent.
John Hope Bryant: “I would just call upon you and those similarly situated in your position to base those kinds of beliefs on empirical…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing campaign contributions and empirical data in opposition to proposed legislation.
Share
More from John Hope Bryant
I once again take issue with this characterization of the bill. This is not the bill that the House voted on; it is not the bill the Senate voted on. It is a bill that the Republicans spent 4 months behind closed doors cooking up so it…
let me respond briefly that the Constitution itself talks about impeachment as well as election. The two processes are compatible, according to our forefathers, since they completely understood that you had first to be elected in order to…
While I fully support all the provisions in this legislation, I want to speak for just a moment on the section which would prevent the State of Kentucky from unfairly taxing the workers who live in Tennessee but who work on the Kentucky…
if they are coming to get a job and they have kids, the kids are coming. Do we want, as a matter of national policy, to have these kids wandering the streets? We might hear it said in a moment, well, the new version of this does not…





