[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1140-E1141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   BILL OF RIGHTS AND CAMPAIGN REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 16, 1998

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on so-called campaign 
reform, my colleagues should take a moment to read the following column 
from Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Sun Times. He has it exactly right--
reformers think the First Amendment is a ``loophole'' that must be 
closed.

              [From the Chicago Sun-Times, June 10, 1998]

                 Bill of Rights no obstacle to `reform'

                           (By Dennis Byrne)

       When the House last week defeated a constitutional 
     amendment to strengthen religious freedom, its opponents 
     argued that we shouldn't be messing around with the Bill of 
     Rights.
       House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri joined 
     many fellow Democrats in defeating the amendment based on the 
     logic that the First Amendment already protects religious 
     freedoms.
       So, guess who has introduced an amendment to change the 
     Bill of Rights? That's right, Gephardt. He would allow 
     Congress to restrict the First Amendment by limiting what 
     Americans can say about political candidates and issues. But 
     as the debate is joined on campaign finance reform, a 
     Gephardt spokeswoman said he would vote ``present'' on his 
     own amendment. Democrats charge that Republicans are calling 
     for a vote now on the amendment to embarrass the Democrats.
       They should be embarrassed.
       It was bad enough that many Democrats, along with a few 
     Republicans, were pushing a version of campaign finance 
     ``reform'' that would fly in the face of Supreme Court 
     rulings limiting how much Congress can restrict Americans' 
     political speech as expressed through their campaign 
     contributions. Now their favorite bill, McCain-Feingold, is 
     being topped by a worse version, Shays-Meehan (HR 3526), 
     backed by President Clinton, Common Cause and the League of 
     Women Voters.
       Get a load of some of its proposals, according to an 
     analysis by the National Right to Life Committee:
       It would impose year-round restrictions on what 
     incorporated citizens advocacy groups that are not political 
     action committees can say about issue and candidates. They 
     wouldn't be allowed to publish anything that mentions a 
     lawmaker in connection with judgment about his actions or 
     beliefs. For example, a community organization would not be 
     able to note approvingly that Rep. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) 
     opposed the recycling of napalm in East Chicago.
       Any group that ``coordinated'' with a candidate, even to 
     the point of having the same printer, would be banned during 
     the year from even naming a candidate ``for the purpose of 
     influencing a federal election,'' a test that is so vague as 
     to be unconstitutional. Such a group couldn't issue any 
     communication having ``value'' to the candidate, even if the 
     candidate isn't named.
       ``Coordination'' also would include the common practice 
     among groups of sending a written questionnaire to candidates 
     and then disseminating the results. It also would include 
     ``policymaking discussions'' with a ``candidate's campaign,'' 
     which could rule out lobbying.
       Within 60 days of a congressional primary campaign, such 
     groups couldn't mention the name of a candidate, even in ads 
     that alert citizens to upcoming votes in Congress. Groups 
     could obtain an exception for putting out materials about 
     voting records and positions, but the information must be 
     presented ``in an educational manner''--another 
     unconstitutionally vague test.
       There's more, but this is as much as I can take.
       The meaning of the First Amendment is clear: In the 
     interest of hearty debate, government can't restrict the 
     people's right to talk about the government. Instead, 
     campaign finance ``reformers'' would have government decide 
     what people are allowed to say about their elected officials 
     (read: their government).
       The answer to campaign finance abuse is to enforce the laws 
     we already have--would that Attorney General Janet Reno ask 
     for an independent counsel to investigate presidential fund-
     raising shenanigans.
       The constitutional answer is to strengthen free speech by 
     removing the arbitrary restrictions now imposed on campaign 
     donations, while requiring complete, clear and immediate 
     disclosure.
       But if ``reformers'' get their way, the rules will become 
     so complex and arcane that Americans first will have to 
     consult their lawyers to find out what government allows them 
     to say about government. The answer will be: Not much.

  Dennis Byrne is a member of the Sun-Times editorial board.

[[Page E1141]]



                          ____________________