[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15173-H15174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 GOPAC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss with my 
colleagues and those who are paying attention the recent allegations 
against GOPAC. Indeed, we have read a great deal about them. Much of 
the information that has been put forward has been put forward on the 
premise that it is fact.
  Well, it is not fact. What is going on is a lawsuit, a partisan 
political lawsuit brought to stop a political movement, a movement 
which captured the hearts and minds of the American people over the 
last few years.

                              {time}  1900

  We ought to get some facts on the table. What are the facts? Is it 
true that GOPAC broke the law, the Federal Election Commission 
regulations which say that it cannot involve itself in Federal 
campaigns without first registering as a Federal PAC? That is the 
essence of the allegation.
  Let us begin with one fact. When was the lawsuit brought? It was 
brought by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on the eve 
of Speaker Gingrich's 1990 reelection campaign. Indeed, within 30 days 
of when he stood for reelection, a tough reelection campaign. You might 
ask yourself if the timing of that was at all political. I suggest it 
was.
  That is almost 5 years ago that they brought those allegations 
against the Speaker and against GOPAC. The essence of the allegation 
was that GOPAC had crossed the line, that it had failed to register as 
a Federal election campaign committee and, therefore, had violated 
Federal law. And that was investigated by the FEC and ultimately a 
lawsuit was brought.
  Last week they brought all kinds of new information to the table. The 
shocking thing about that information is that although it was presented 
as fact and as woefully damaging to GOPAC, in fact it was vacuous. It 
lacked any substance whatsoever.
  Here is the issue. The allegation is that because people are involved 
in GOPAC, including the Speaker and his advisors, discussed their 
ultimate goal at retreats of winning the presidency and some day taking 
over the Congress of the United States for the Republican cause, for a 
conservative movement, for a movement which believes in limited 
government and lower taxes and sending authority away from Washington 
and giving it back to the people and the States, that because they 
generally discussed those ideas at GOPAC meetings, that was a violation 
of Federal law. Think about that theory. I call upon the ACLU across 
this nation to think about that theory.
  The theory is that if you and a group of like-minded people sit down 
in a room and/or at a retreat and you discuss your goal, your goal is 
some day to have a Republican President, because we do not have one, or 
your goal is to take over Republican majority, a conservative majority 
of the United States Congress, because we do not have the right then, 
instantaneously, as a result of those discussions, you are required to 
register with the Federal Election Campaign Committee and to file their 
reports year in and year out. Every first amendment lawyer in America 
ought to be aghast at that allegation, but that is the premise that the 
FEC brought.
  What does it mean? It means if you or your wife or your husband are 
the member of a Republican women's club or men's club back home or a 
Democrat women's club or men's club and if in fact you attend one of 
your meetings and in those discussions you talk about the fact that you 
would like to see a President elected of your party or you would like 
to see the Congress strengthen its hold in your party or take over the 
majority for your party, suddenly those mere discussions subject you to 
regulation by the FEC.
  The notion is shocking. It is a frontal assault on the first 
amendment. And yet that is exactly what happened, because we learned 
that at the North Pole Basin retreat of GOPAC, where those involved in 
this movement, a grass roots movement, which admittedly had as its goal 
the election of State and local officials to State and local offices, 
who believed in the agenda of smaller government, who believed in lower 
taxes, that when they discussed those things, that that was okay until 
the moment that they said, and some day it would be nice to take over 
Congress or some day it would be nice to have a Republican President, 
suddenly at that moment because they had those discussions, there was a 
requirement that they register with the FEC and a requirement that they 
then comply with all of the laws.
  I submit that that argument is so absurd that the reverse is true. If 
you had had a retreat of GOPAC and they had simply discussed the Super 
Bowl or whether or not somebody was going to win the national bake off, 
then there would have been shocking news. In fact, the allegations are 
vacuous, and 

[[Page H15174]]
no one can substantiate what was said against the speaker or against 
GOPAC on those occasions.

                          ____________________