[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5452-H5458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2183.

                              {time}  1730


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Friday, June 19, 1998, pending was an amendment numbered 82 by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to amendment number 13 by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that basically 
protects voter guides to be distributed by groups. The Shays-Meehan 
bill severely chills the freedom of speech in this regard and places 
restrictions that will subject anybody currently distributing voter 
guides to second-guessing by a Federal czar, and the imposition of 
sanctions should the second-guessing be interpreted as a violation of 
the provisions of the Shays-Meehan law.
  For this reason I have offered this amendment to make clear that 
organizations that do voter guides are exempt from the application of 
this law and may continue to issue their voter guides without fear of 
chilling their freedom of speech or of being intimidated. And the 
intimidation that I am talking about is the intimidation of having to 
spend $400,000 or $500,000 in attorneys' fees and months of disruption 
of schedules preparing for depositions, et cetera, for the act of 
exercising their right of free speech protected by our United States 
constitution, and which I feel the Shays-Meehan bill impinges upon. For 
that reason I have offered this amendment.
  I have, Mr. Chairman, an illustration of a voter guide. If I may, I 
am going to switch positions here to bring that up and illustrate it. 
This is an illustration of a 1994 Christian Coalition voter guide for 
the Iowa Congressional district, district number 4, the district of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). This is distributed, as I am sure 
Members know, typically in churches.
  The Christian Coalition describes itself as a pro-family 
organization. This includes different positions on issues, from Federal 
income taxes, the balanced budget amendment, taxpayer funding of 
abortion, parental notification for abortions by minors, voluntary 
prayer in public schools, homosexuals in the military, promoting 
homosexuality to schoolchildren.
  Now, the Shays-Meehan language that my amendment seeks to replace 
says that an organization can only do voter guides in an educational 
manner, and in a way that no reasonable person could conclude that that 
group is advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Well, it is 
quite clear from the context of this voter guide, it is distributed in 
churches, and the Christian Coalition describes itself in a statement 
down here, as a pro-family citizen action organization, quote-unquote.
  So when we take those words in context, then, when they rank somebody 
as having a position on homosexuality in the schools or on abortion, 
that ranking could be interpreted by the Federal czar as advocating the 
defeat of a candidate and, therefore, as being proscribed. My amendment 
just protects this voter guide.
  And I have heard several supporters, or I understand several 
supporters of Shays-Meehan have indicated in their opinion that this 
type of thing could continue to be distributed. I am just saying that 
based on the reading of the law as being proposed by Shays-Meehan and 
their supporters, it would not be allowed. That is why I am offering my 
amendment, to make clear that this can be allowed, so that 
organizations who do voter guides can characterize the positions of the 
candidates.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is going to bring up here 
another one from the NAACP, and that has zeros and heroes, I believe is 
the characterization. I think that ought to be able to continue to be 
allowed. It would be proscribed under Shays-Meehan. And for that 
reason, I think it needs to be amended in the way that I have proposed 
in order to allow the unfettered discussion to occur near election time 
by organizations exercising their first amendment rights to comment on 
candidates and on elections.
  And that basically, Mr. Chairman, is the purpose of my amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what the previous speaker was indicating with the voter 
guide can easily be made available under the Shays-Meehan bill. It is 
not a problem in getting that type of voter guide out. It easily can be 
done, either in the method it is, or by very minor modifications. The 
problem with the amendment before us is that it would allow almost 
anything to be sent out and would gut the protection on express 
advocacy in the Shays-Meehan bill. That is the reason why we must 
oppose it.
  There is already a provision in the underlying bill that allows for 
voter guides. Voter guides are permitted if

[[Page H5453]]

they present information in an educational manner solely about the 
voting record or position of a candidate on a campaign issue of two or 
more candidates, that is not made in coordination with the candidate's 
political party or agent of the candidate or political party. There are 
specific provisions in Shays-Meehan that would allow it.
  The amendment before us would gut an essential provision in the bill. 
It would not allow voter guides, it would allow just about any type of 
express issue advocacy without the restrictions that are currently 
contained in the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here is bring forward a 
reasonable campaign finance reform proposal that has bipartisan 
support, that deals with issue advocacy, that deals with soft money, 
that deals with some of the other problems that we all agree need to be 
addressed. The Shays-Meehan bill will do that. The amendment before us 
does not permit voter guides, the amendment before us would gut the 
provision that deals with issue advocacy in the underlying bill.
  If there was a need to adjust the language for voter guides, let us 
talk about it. But that is not what this amendment would do. Voter 
guides are permitted under the underlying bill. This amendment is 
unnecessary. It jeopardizes the ability for a bipartisan bill. I urge 
my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I wanted to say to my colleagues that this 
afternoon we continue the effort to restore integrity into the campaign 
process. The substitute proposed before the chamber, the Meehan-Shays 
proposal and McCain-Feingold in the Senate, seeks to ban soft money, 
the unlimited sums by individuals, corporations, labor unions and other 
interest groups. It seeks to recognize sham issue ads as they are, 
campaign ads, and put them under the campaign law. It seeks to codify 
Beck. It seeks to improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. It seeks 
to ban district-wide franking 6 months to an election. And it seeks to 
ban foreign money and fund-raising on government property.
  We have an amendment before us right now which basically seeks to gut 
the second part of our proposal dealing with the sham issue ads. Now, 
the voter guide that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) put 
forward is legal under Meehan-Shays. The language in our bill is clear. 
In printed communication the term express advocacy does not include. In 
other words, it is not a campaign ad, does not come under the campaign 
law if it is a printed communication that, one, presents information 
and educational matter solely about the voting record or position on a 
campaign issue of two or more candidates, and, two, that is not made in 
coordination with a candidate, political party or agent of that 
candidate or party, or a candidate's agent or a person who is 
coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent. That voter guide 
is not done in coordination. It is showing the voting record of a 
candidate.
  What the gentleman from California seeks to do is take out the very 
language that I read that is in the Meehan-Shays substitute. So we need 
to recognize that, one, he is incorrect when he states it would not 
allow for the voter guide. It would. And the language is in our 
substitute to allow it. He, in fact, seeks to take it out.
  Mr. Chairman, we have lots of amendments that are going to come 
before us, and it is difficult to try to describe amendments that are 
totally gutting of our proposal; those that, while we would recommend 
they not pass, would not do serious harm. There are others that would 
actually maybe help the bill and we would urge their being supported. 
This is an amendment, however well intended, that is gutting Meehan-
Shays, which would then break down the coalition that exists of a 
majority of Congress to pass Meehan-Shays, and it needs to be defeated. 
It would gut the sham issue ads.
  The sham issue ads are those ads that are clearly campaign ads. They 
are the ads that seek to have someone vote for or against an 
individual, and they should come under the campaign law. When they come 
under the campaign law, those groups can advertise and encourage 
someone to vote for or against, but they do it under the campaign law.
  So I sincerely request this chamber and the Members who are paying 
attention outside this chamber to recognize that the Doolittle proposal 
is a gutting proposal. It would destroy the integrity of the Meehan-
Shays amendment and would not do what it says it would do. And what it 
says it would do is the allow for the voter guides. In fact, the bill 
presently allows for voter guides.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress is on trial. With each election, big 
money is talking bigger and the voice of the average citizen is growing 
smaller.
  This amendment, as has been said, is not essentially about voter 
guides. The caption says it is about voter guides, but it goes way 
beyond it. It says the term express advocacy, and we are now talking 
about these ads that are really campaign ads, that it shall not apply 
with respect to any communication which provides information or 
commentary on the voting record or positions on issues taken by any 
individual holding Federal office or any candidate for election for 
Federal office unless the communication contains explicit words 
expressly urging a vote for or against any identified candidate or 
political party. So this, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
has said, guts the express advocacy provisions of this bipartisan bill.
  Next, this is not a question about banning anything. The question is 
whether voter guides under any circumstances should fall within the 
regulations of Federal elections that are now in place: the limits on 
contributions and also disclosure.

                              {time}  1745

  So I just want to make it clear. Voting guides are permitted in terms 
of the Federal system under Shays-Meehan. The only contrary case would 
be where they clearly are a campaign document and not essentially 
otherwise, where the only reason they are not arguably a campaign 
document is because they do not say the word ``elect'' or ``defeat,'' 
Mr. Doolittle presents on the floor a voter guide. Now, if it were 
clearly a campaign document and it just left out the words ``defeat'' 
or ``elect,'' I guess he would say, that is fine, unrestricted amounts 
without disclosure. But the point is that Coalition document would not 
fall within the language of Shays-Meehan placing it under Federal 
regulation in any event.
  Now, I just want to say a word about the reference to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and tell my colleagues what this amendment is 
all about. Here is an ad in 1996 by the League of Conservation Voters 
about the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). I want to read it.
  ``It is our land, our water.'' This was a TV ad. ``America's 
environment must be protected. But in just 18 months, Congressman 
Ganske has voted 12 out of 12 times to weaken environmental 
protections. Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue 
releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air. Congressman Ganske 
voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him 
thousands of dollars in contributions. Call Congressman Ganske. Tell 
him to protect America's environment for our families, for our 
future.''
  Now, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would essentially say that 
that kind of an ad could continue to be classified as a non-campaign ad 
without any disclosure and without any limits as to how much is spent 
simply because instead of saying after that clear attack on the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), it says, ``call him, tell him.'' It 
does not say, ``defeat.'' It says, ``call him.''
  Now, I do not think anybody can reasonably argue that that was not a 
campaign ad. And what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is 
proposing is that we gut the provisions in this bipartisan bill so that 
for any amount at any point, any amount, any point, this kind of an 
attack ad could be continued without any Federal regulation at all as 
to amount or disclosure. That is why we are on trial here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)

[[Page H5454]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Because if we are serious about giving every citizen a 
voice and it not being submerged by big, undisclosed contributions, and 
I do not care if it is from corporations or from the labor movement or 
from wherever it comes, if they want that individual citizen to 
continue to have a real voice in America, we cannot vote for this 
amendment. We simply cannot vote for it.
  Now, look, there may be some question about what the Supreme Court 
will eventually do. It has been 20 years since their decision. A lot 
has happened, including the explosion of these issue ads. One Circuit 
says we can regulate them. Another casts doubt on that. But we will 
leave that up to the courts.
  What we should do is do what is right in terms of our obligations. Do 
not hide behind your theories of the First Amendment, especially when 
some of my colleagues not so recently rather glibly voted to amend it. 
We have here a question of the future health of this democracy.
  I just want to conclude by reading from a nonpartisan study, the 
Annenberg study; and this is what it says. ``This report catalogues one 
of the most intriguing and thorny new practices to come into the 
political scene in many years, the heavy use of so-called issue 
advocacy advertising by parties, labor unions, trade associations, and 
business, ideological and single issue groups during the last campaign. 
This is unprecedented and represents an important change in the culture 
of campaigns. To the naked eye, these issue advocacy ads are often 
indistinguishable from ads run by candidates.''
  I just want to read what the executive director of the NRA said about 
these. And I am not talking about the substance of their ads. I have no 
quarrel with them in terms of whether they should be permitted or not. 
That is not the issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LEVIN. The question is whether they should come within the kind 
of regulation that now applies to ads that say ``elect'' or ``defeat.''
  Here is the what the executive director of the NRA's Institute for 
Legislative Action said. ``It is foolish to believe there is any 
practical difference between issue advocacy and advocacy of a political 
candidate. What separates issue advocacy and political advocacy is a 
line in the sand drawn on a windy day.''
  Now, look, I think Shays-Meehan protects voter guides like we 
presented here. If there is any question about that, let us have an 
amendment that relates to voter guides. Though I do not think it is 
necessary. But do not present an amendment that guts the entire issue 
advocacy provisions of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to 
compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for offering 
it.
  Certainly, if nothing else, we ought to protect the rights of 
individuals and groups to distribute voter guides. There is an argument 
here whether or not it is actually doing this. But, obviously, the 
Member from California feels strongly that this is necessary in order 
to protect this right.
  There has been a lot of talk here about soft money. I just often 
wonder about soft money. I know something about hard money. But this 
business of soft money and soft money automatically being bad is 
something we should think seriously about. Because so often when we are 
talking about soft money, we are talking about the people's money, 
their money, their property. Sure, it is a first amendment right. But 
there is also a property rights issue here. When people have money, 
they have a right to spend it; and if they want to spend it on a voters 
guide, they certainly ought to be able to do this.
  So I think it is a very important amendment and we should pay close 
attention to this to make sure that we pass this amendment. The problem 
with attacking big money without knowing why there is big money 
involved in politics I think is the problem that we face. Big money is 
a problem. They are spending $100 million a month to lobby us in the 
Congress and hundreds of millions of dollars in the campaign, but 
nobody ever talks about why they are doing it.
  There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. 
Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, 
so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance 
reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. 
Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to 
invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we 
are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved.
  But what is wrong with people spending their own money to come here 
and fight for their freedom? What if they are a right-to-life group? 
What if they are a pro-gun-ownership group? What if they are a pro-
property-ownership group? Why should they not be able to come and spend 
the money like the others have?
  It just seems like they have been able to become more effective here 
in the last few years, and it seems like now we have to clamp down on 
them because they have an effective way to come here and fight for some 
of their freedoms back again.
  So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money 
and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big 
government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. 
We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 
1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems.
  So I think openness and reporting requirements to let people know 
where we are getting the money, let the people decide if we are taking 
too much from one group. But to come down hard and attack on individual 
liberty and the right for people to spend their money and the right for 
the people to distribute voters guides, I cannot say see how that is 
going to solve any problems. I mean, what are we doing here? I think it 
is total foolishness.
  So I strongly endorse this amendment, and let us hope we can pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or someone from the side 
of the proponents of Shays-Meehan to explain to me why, in their 
opinion, the 1994 Christian Coalition voters guide is approved under 
Shays-Meehan. They say that so clearly, but it is quite clear to me 
that there is nothing clear about Shays-Meehan. I would like to have 
them specifically address themselves, instead of making the assertion 
and moving on, if they would please specifically address that 
illustration down there, which let us have it brought up in front of 
the House here, and explain to me why they think that that is 
protected.
  If I were satisfied that that were protected by Shays-Meehan, I 
probably would not offer this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to take up the challenge offered.
  If we take a look at the voter guide, the standards under Shays-
Meehan are met. The voter guide is not express advocacy if it presents 
information in an educational manner solely about the voting record or 
position on a campaign issue with two or more candidates. It does. 
There are two candidates there, and it presents simply their positions 
on the issues.
  Two, that it is not made in coordination with a candidate, political 
party, or agent of that candidate. We do not know if this was or not. 
But, obviously, there is nothing I can tell from the four corners of 
the document that it was.
  And, lastly, that it not contain a phrase such as ``vote for,'' 
``reelect,'' ``support,'' or ``cast a ballot for.'' And I

[[Page H5455]]

again look to the document, and it has none of those words in it.
  I rest my case.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Paul was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) fails to 
continue reading the language that concerns us the most. And the 
language says, it does not contain words that in context can have no 
reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or 
more cleared identified candidates.
  This is where the rift is, where reasonable meaning. And we say that 
big government gets to decide, according to the language of the 
gentleman from California, what ``reasonable meaning'' is. And if I 
pass this out in a church, my opposition could very well say that, 
under reasonable understanding, that they are trying to sway the people 
in that church with this voter guide towards the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Ganske) on this voter guide. Therefore, they would have to come 
under Federal regulations.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to answer the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) as well.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is quite correct, He 
conveniently left out that key phrase.
  I want to note that one of those points says promoting homosexuality 
to school children. And then down below in the real fine print, which 
no one can read from here, the Christian Coalition is described as a 
pro-family action organization, I believe is the phrase.
  In context, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that a pro-
family action organization does not think it is a good idea to promote 
homosexuality to schoolchildren and, therefore, that would fall under 
Shays-Meehan as being held to be applicable to their law and, 
therefore, would be banned.
  I would like the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to explain 
to me his interpretation.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. The phraseology in Shays-Meehan refers to the words, 
the phrases, the slogan, that in context can have no reasonable meaning 
other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly 
identified candidates.
  The example we have before us does not give any statement regarding 
whether it is a good position or a bad position to be in support or in 
opposition to any of the listed subject matters. Accordingly, it passes 
the test under Shays-Meehan.
  More fundamentally, the language that the gentleman from California 
would put in instead of the narrowly tailored voter guide exception of 
Shays-Meehan says that any communication that makes a comment on any 
position on an issue, even by a single candidate, qualifies as a voter 
guide. It does not have to refer to a voting record, it can refer only 
to a position taken, and he extends it to the phrase ``commentary.''

                              {time}  1800

  Accordingly it is a Mack truck kind of exception. Virtually anything 
could be called a ``voter guide.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Paul was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentleman's 
explanation. The phrase in this bill that he supports says that words 
in context have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election 
or defeat. I would submit to my colleague that the words ``office of 
promoting homosexuality in schools'' where one candidate opposes it and 
one supports it, those words in conjunction with the Christian 
Coalition card, which in context is being distributed in churches and 
the card or the word says it is a Christian action organization, those 
would be deemed, or could be deemed, to constitute the context 
advocating the election of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the 
defeat of his opponent.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, 
particularly since I was back in my office, and all of a sudden I saw 
my campaign reenacted on the floor here.
  I oppose the Doolittle amendment. If I thought that the Shays-Meehan 
language would prohibit a voter guide like this one, I would not 
support the Shays-Meehan language. But when I read the Shays-Meehan 
language, it seems to me clear that this type of voter guide is okay; I 
mean, presents information in an educational manner about a voting 
record or a position on a campaign of two or more issues, and in terms 
of this particular item here, it refers to a vote that was made here.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, if that is the case for 
the gentleman from Iowa, then he ought to support Doolittle because 
Doolittle is very clear. In fact it uses Supreme Court language as his 
amendment that says that we can do voter guides unless we specifically 
advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
  There is no in-between, and Shays-Meehan is very ambiguous.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) has expired.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, the evidence here is quite clear that the 
language does, in fact, in the Shays-Meehan bill, does allow this 
particular voter guide. That is why the amendment needs to be defeated.
  There has been some arguments here that voter guides are unallowable. 
I think the evidence is overwhelming that the language does not say at 
all that they are not allowable. In fact, I would say that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) was reading from the wrong 
section. The section says: expressly unmistakable and unambiguous 
support for our opposition; 2, one or more clearly identified 
candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external 
events such as proximity to an election.
  So it is overwhelmingly clear that this particular provision is 
nothing more than a smokescreen to try to defeat our bill.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we pass 
legislation that deals with issue advocacy.
  Once again, while I was watching from my office, I saw or heard about 
a campaign ad that was run against me in 1996. The text of the act 
reads:

       It's Orlando water. American's environment must be 
     protected, but in just 18 months Congressman Ganske voted 12 
     times out of 12 to weaken environmental protections. He even 
     voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing 
     pollutants in our air. Congressman Ganske voted for big 
     corporations who lobbied these bills, gave them thousands of 
     dollars in contributions. Call and tell him to protect bla 
     bla bla.

  That is clearly an issue ad. It is the type of ad that we need to get 
after in terms of this legislation. There is a great big difference 
between that type of issue ad and a voter registration, a voter guide, 
that is put out either by this organization or any other number of 
organizations, and I think that we should defeat the Doolittle bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Ganske) for going back to his election. He won it, so it is a little 
easier than if he had lost it. But he is a Republican, I am a Democrat, 
but the last thing I would deny is that that ad that was run against 
him was a campaign ad.

[[Page H5456]]

  I tried an ad like this out on a group of students. Every single one 
was amazed that anybody would call that anything but a campaign ad. 
Every single one, they could not believe that is the way we function in 
this democracy. And what the Doolittle amendment does is say it refers 
to voting records, but, as been said before by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), the sponsors, and by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), this amendment goes miles beyond voting records or voting 
guides. It says any communication on any position on any issue taken by 
a candidate.
  My colleague is trying to gut the issue advocacy provisions and 
essentially leave defenseless, if he does not or she does not have a 
lot of money to respond, an ad like was tried against the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and there was no need for the person or the 
group that presented it to indicate who they were.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, let me just give an example of what 
we are trying to provide, why we want to have this provision in. This 
is what the amendment would allow people to not have to disclose, where 
money comes from. This is what we are protecting. This is a Senate 
candidate.

       Senate candidate Winston Bryant's budget as Attorney 
     General has increased by 71 percent. Bryant has taken 
     taxpayer funded junkets to the Virgin Islands, Alaska and 
     Arizona. And spent about $100,000 on new furniture. 
     Unfortunately, as the state's top law enforcement official, 
     he's never opposed the parole of any convicted criminal, even 
     rapists and murderers. And almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners 
     have been sent back to prison for crimes committed while they 
     were out on parole. Winston Bryant: government waste, 
     political junkets, soft on crime. Call Winston Bryant and 
     tell him to give the money back.

  Now should not the person who had that ad and the organization at a 
minimum have to disclose where that money comes from? And is it not 
reasonable to assume that the intent of that particular advertisement 
was to influence that election? Of course. The only thing that we are 
looking to do in this legislation: when somebody wants to spend 
millions of dollars in races clear across this country and have that 
type of a negative ad, at a minimum, at a minimum, the American public 
has a right to know where the money came from.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it may seem odd 
that I would be standing up here supporting the Doolittle bill because 
I can tell my colleagues this Congressman, as a candidate, had millions 
and millions of dollars of negative campaign ads targeted against her. 
The very ad that ran against the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) ran 
in my district, and I am very opposed to that kind of campaigning. It 
is despicable.
  But the way to get at it is not through more confused and confusing 
rules and regulations, not through a bureaucracy, but through a full 
disclosure, which the Doolittle bill requires. The bill that I am an 
original cosponsor on requires full disclosure, and then it leaves it 
up to the voters to be able to make that determination as to what is 
truthful and what is correct, as they did in the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Ganske's) campaign and as they did in mine. I probably had more 
dollars, millions and millions of dollars, targeted at me from these 
very kinds of groups with those kinds of ads than any other 
congressional candidate in the Nation. And yet the voters in Idaho 
decided to cut to the chase and get to the bottom line. What my voters 
in Idaho did not have was who was really paying for those ads, and the 
Doolittle bill requires full disclosure because then it takes it out of 
the hands of the bureaucracy and puts it in the hands of the voters to 
make the final decision.
  But if we are really going to cut to the chase, my colleagues, let us 
really define what this whole debate is about. It is about free speech. 
And even though I had a very uncomfortable campaign; I mean it was a 
carpet bombing, and it was mean, and it was vicious, and I did not like 
it at all, nevertheless, as a Congressman, my first responsibility is 
to protect the Constitution and free speech, and let me show you what 
this debate is really all about.
  In Time Magazine, February 1997, what the minority leader said is 
what we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of 
speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. We 
cannot have both. Well, maybe in their narrow scope of regulate and 
rule and rule and regulate we cannot have both, but in a country of 
free people where the people make the decisions, of course we can have 
both, and that is what we must defend and protect.
  The Washington Times really said it best in their June 5 editorial. 
They said if Congress wants to clean up the mess of money and politics, 
it should do so by encouraging free speech, free discussion and free 
debate. And that is the basis of good political activity in the United 
States of America.
  Now the Doolittle amendment protects voter education guides and score 
cards, and we need to protect that very vital free speech. The Shays-
Meehan substitute cuts to the very core of free speech that our 
Constitution so vigorously protects. It restricts the ability of 
organizations to engage in the freedom to educate the voters in this 
country. Whether we like it or not, we should protect free speech 
first. Not only does this prevent opportunities for the electorate to 
become more informed, but it violates the free-speech rights of all 
organizations, and organizations who are opposing a Helen Chenoweth as 
well as my opponent or anyone else still should have their free speech 
rights protected vigorously by this body.
  But the Shays-Meehan language also dictates a narrow set of speech 
specifications under which elected officials would deign to allow 
citizens groups to disseminate their voting records, specifications 
that would effectively ban the score cards that we saw here before, Mr. 
Chairman, and voter guides typically distributed by issue-oriented 
groups, and do we want to restrict the rights of groups or individuals 
to place ads in the Washington Post or the New York Times expressing 
their support or opposition to a piece of legislation? The Shays-Meehan 
substitute would restrict these sorts of actions regardless of whether 
the communication is express advocacy. This is a blatant violation of 
the first amendment, and I really do strongly support the Doolittle 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should not find ways to restrict speech or 
limit the information available to our voters. Instead we should be 
promoting free speech and encouraging an educated electorate. We are 
responsible for that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore The time of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. 
Chenoweth was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. What are we afraid of?
  As my colleagues know, I trust the American people to make the right 
decision when they are well-informed. I have faith in my fellow 
citizens, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Doolittle amendment. 
Do not restrict political participation by American citizens, do not 
restrict the fundamental rights to free speech, and do not destroy the 
most vital tool we have to maintain our representative government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I think many of us feel the way the 
gentlewoman feels, that many of us had ads run against us in the last 
campaign that we did not like.

                              {time}  1815

  But we do believe that is the right of organizations to do that. I 
was just curious, what were some of the organizations that ran ads 
against the gentlewoman in her last election?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the organizations 
that I know about are the national labor organizations and national 
environmental organizations who tried to do the same thing that they 
did to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) by distorting the record. I 
believe we should have truth in advertising in everything that is put 
across the airwaves, but the Shays-Meehan bill does

[[Page H5457]]

not address that. So we need to leave it to the voters and their great 
discretion.


       Modification to Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will report the 
modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 82 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       The amendment is modified as follows:
       In section 301(20)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be inserted by the amendment, insert 
     after ``any communication'' the following: ``which is in 
     printed form or posted on the Internet and''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, will the 
gentleman explain the purpose of this proposed modification?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, it was my intent when we offered this to 
have it drafted in such a way as to protect the printed material or 
material on the Internet. It really was not my intent to go beyond 
that. The wording of the amendment arguably does go beyond that, so I 
offer this modification to conform the written language of what my 
intent clearly was.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I believe 
that every author of an amendment ought to have the right to put it in 
the way that he or she thinks is best, so I will not object. But my 
reason for reserving the right to object was to ask the gentleman from 
California, if he is going back and amending his amendment, the 
gentleman might recall the discussion that we had before the break, 
where I thought that inadvertently the gentleman had gone out and 
excluded, struck from the bill, the provision against coordination.
  Truly, in the interest of just giving the gentleman the best shot at 
his amendment, if the gentleman is going to go back and amend his 
amendment, all it would take to get rid of that issue entirely would be 
to say that the gentleman is striking section 301(20)(B)(1) instead of 
(301)(20)(B), if one reads what I am saying.
  I offer this merely from the point of view of helping. If my 
colleague and friend from California does not wish my assistance, then 
I have nothing further to add and would withdraw my objection to his 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in drafting the original amendment, 
which we are now seeking to modify, although we strike out the 
coordination language in this subsection B, I would just reference the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to the overall section 206, 
which deals with coordination of the candidates. Since that deals with 
providing anything of value, it was our experts' belief that that would 
still apply, and, therefore, it was not necessary to do it in the way 
the gentleman is suggesting.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
offer this in a friendly way. If the gentleman said strike section 
301(20)(B)(1), instead of all of 301(20)(B), you would remove all 
ambiguity. If, however, it is the gentleman's choice, then so be it.
  I think the gentleman does create a dangerous legislative history, 
which is that the bill presently says you may not coordinate an 
expenditure. The gentleman's amendment strikes the phrase saying you 
may not coordinate an expenditure and puts in something silent on 
coordinating an expenditure, and that degree of history is dangerous.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just 
wanted, one, to know the intent of my colleague, and also to say as a 
general principle, I think that anyone who offers an amendment should 
have the right to perfect it as they choose, so I really want to adhere 
to the concept that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
already expressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection, if this is the 
purpose of the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my purpose for rising was to engage my friend from 
California in a discussion, if he would wish, and I will reserve at 
least the requisite number of 2 minutes for that.
  Here is the main point: The Shays-Meehan bill itself does not 
prohibit voter guides. It would not reach them in its own words. What 
it does deal with is whether they can be funded by soft money or 
whether, if you are going to run an ad that really is a campaign ad, it 
ought to be under the same rules as a campaign ad: Namely, you have got 
to raise the money under the rules of disclosure and maximum 
contribution limits of the Federal Election Act. That is all that 
Shays-Meehan does.
  To make it absolutely clear though, Shays-Meehan then puts in a 
provision saying we exempt from the definition of express advocacy, 
which would require that only hard money be used, the following kind of 
notification. Where it discusses a voting record, deals with more than 
one candidate, and it is in a context that is not clearly devoted to 
advocating voting for or against somebody. So if one takes a look at 
the bill, there is an exclusion in its construction for what is a voter 
guide, and there is, in addition, then an explicit exclusion for a 
voter guide.
  My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), proposes an alternative. As you just heard, I was anxious 
that the gentleman try to clarify his alternative further. Instead, 
however, we still have the draft that the gentleman presented us with 
which removes the language that a true independent voter guide not be 
coordinated with an individual candidate. So the legislative history, 
if the gentleman's amendment passes, will be quite clear, that 
preparers of a voter guide can indeed go ahead and coordinate with the 
candidate favored in such a guide.
  That is just the first problem with this amendment. Here are the 
remaining problems.
  The Doolittle amendment creates a loophole for ``any communication in 
printed form, or printed on the Internet, which provides . . . 
commentary on . . . positions on issues taken by . . . any candidate 
for election for Federal office.'' I am going through and taking all of 
the ``or'' clauses and taking just one of the options at each ``or'' 
clause.
  So, as a result, the exception supposedly for voting records now 
covers any communication providing any commentary on positions on 
issues taken by any candidate.
  I submit to Members that campaign ads of the most garden variety fit 
this definition. Such an ad will ``provide commentary,'' and, if it 
does not refer to an issue taken by the individual, it would be an 
amazing piece of literature: Vote against this person because we do not 
like the way he looks; vote against this person, because of what? All 
that needs to be, in order for this loophole to apply, is to be a 
communication offering a commentary on a candidate's position on an 
issue.
  Now I would like to ask a hypothetical. The poor gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Ganske), our good friend and colleague, does not deserve to have 
his campaign ad brought up once more, but so be it. Neal Smith was his 
opponent, and that voter guide said ``Here is where Greg Ganske is on 
the issues and here is where Neal Smith is on the issues.''
  Suppose that the group in question, the Christian Coalition, put out 
a notification 1 week before the election, and all it said was, ``Neal 
Smith is a terrible Congressman because he opposes voluntary school 
prayer.''
  I believe that would fit through your loophole, and I would yield to 
the gentleman from California to answer this

[[Page H5458]]

question if he would care to. The ad I just read, ``Neal Smith is a 
terrible Congressman because he opposes voluntary school prayer,'' 
would that fit within your supposed ``voter guide'' exception?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the gentleman's 
response to me on the voter guide, why he thinks that is permitted by 
Shays-Meehan. Now the gentleman is asking me to comment upon his 
hypothetical.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my time. I 
yield to my friend to answer if he chooses. If he chooses not, I am 
also happy.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that the gentleman would 
want to stop an American citizen from putting out anything that they 
wanted to have the opportunity to say, that Neal Smith is a terrible 
Congressman. I am not advocating defeat or anything.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the Whip would 
stay in the well, I would like to engage him; it just has to be a 
colloquy, not just one way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the provision here is not that an ad 
shall be prohibited. The question here is whether soft money shall be 
allowed to pay for it. And a loophole designed for a voter guide----
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further on that 
point right there, the gentleman interrupted me, let me interrupt the 
gentleman on a point, because the gentleman claims it is soft money. 
No, it is money raised by Americans who want to participate in the 
political process and express themselves about positions or votes taken 
by Members of Congress or people wanting to be Members of Congress that 
the gentleman is trying to prohibit.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the Whip puts 
it quite well. It is a debate on this issue. But let us call it that. 
Shall we have limits to how much money potentially can corrupt our 
campaign system or not?
  A very legitimate different point of view from mine, but a very 
legitimate point of view, says no, let us not have any limits on 
campaign finance. That is actually the view I think espoused by the 
distinguished Whip.
  But it is contrary to the whole idea of campaign finance reform. If 
we are for limiting the potentially corrupting influence of money, as 
we have in the law now, by a $1,000 maximum, then we should not create 
a loophole so huge as to permit the example that I gave to my friend 
from California, as I gave to my distinguished colleague and friend, 
the Whip from Texas. I yield back the balance of my time, unless my 
colleague wishes to answer my hypothetical.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think the distinguished Whip has 
articulated his position quite clearly. I think that, Mr. Chairman, 
there is a disagreement about how this process should work. I do not 
think money may absolutely corrupt, but it does influence, and there 
are those of us that feel we should limit that influence and those who 
feel we should not.
  This, obviously, is an issue of a huge loophole and just how much 
resources are able to be funneled into a campaign process. I understand 
the gentleman who is introducing this amendment's position, because he 
feels that there should not be any limits, and I respect that.
  But if we are going to have limits, and if we are going to enforce 
those limits, then we cannot have a huge loophole that allows groups to 
come in and circumvent the entire premise that there should be a limit 
on money's ability to influence elections, and maybe this amendment's 
whole concept is to create such a loophole, that it destroys the entire 
enforceability of the limit concept.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California's position and the fact 
that we do not want to create a loophole.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Wicker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________