Is it your position that out of the 117,000 employees at the Department of Justice the only lawyer available to head this investigation was a major Obama donor?

But tampering with our First Amendment rights is a dangerous business, and that is what this legislation before us aims to do.

If the IRS targeting scandal has taught us anything, it should be that giving Federal bureaucrats control over the political activity of American citizens is a recipe for disaster.

The targets are anyone who criticizes Democrats.

History tells us otherwise. The sad fact is this kind of Government-led intimidation is part of a much broader effort that has been underway within the Obama administration for years.

I think that really reveals the issue here, that the votes of Members of Congress are public because we are supposed to be public servants.

the last people we want deciding, you know, who needs to speak more or who needs to speak less in a campaign is the Government itself.

I opposed that legislation, along with most of my Republican colleagues, because we feared it would make our system worse, not better.

Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in Congress at a given time is not a reasonable exercise.

If we really want disclosure, we should be advancing proposals that will redirect resources to the candidates and the parties.

We should not be trying to think of ways to keep people from participating in the political process. We should be encouraging more of it.