[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5949-H5951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2320
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). 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} 2321
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 Campaign Act of 1971 to
reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Barr of Georgia (Chairman pro tempore) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) had been postponed.
Under the previous order of today, it is now in order to consider the
amendment by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith).
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington to the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays of Connecticut
Mrs. Smith of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Smith of Washington to the
Amendment No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Shays of Connecticut:
In Section 301(20) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as added by section 201(a) of the substitute, strike
subparagraph (b) and add the following:
``(B) Voting Record and Voting Guide Exception--The term
``express advocacy'' does not include a communication which
is in printed form or posted on the Internet that--
``(i) presents information solely about the voting record
or position on a campaign issue of 1 or more candidates,
provided however, that the sponsor of the voting record or
voting guide may state its agreement or disagreement with the
record or position of the candidate and further provided that
the voting record or voting guide when taken as a whole does
not express unmistakable and unambiguous support for or
opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates,
``(ii) is not made in coordination with a candidate,
political party, or agent of the candidate or party, or a
candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a
candidate or a candidate's agent; provided that nothing
herein shall prevent the sponsor of the voting guide from
direction questions in writing to candidates about their
position on issues for purposes of preparing a voter guide,
and the candidate from responding in writing to such
questions, and
``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for,' `re-
elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `(name of
candidate) for Congress,' `(name of candidate) in 1997,'
`vote against,' `defeat,' or `reject,' or a campaign slogan
or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other
than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly
identified candidates.''
In Section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the substitute,
strike paragraph (D) and insert
[[Page H5950]]
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term
``professional services'' means polling, media advice,
fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for
mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter
guides as defined in section 431(20)B)) services in support
of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or
election, to Federal office.''
In Section 301(8)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the
substitute, add at the end thereof,
``, provided however that such discussions shall not
include a lobbying contact under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 in the case of a candidate holding Federal office or
consisting of similar lobbying activity in the case of a
candidate holding State or elective office.''
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Washington?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want
to say that I am happy that the gentlewoman has agreed to work with us.
I think that her amendment makes some important clarifications to the
voter guide and safe harbor provisions in the bill. I know that I have
worked with the gentlewoman, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) has, for some time on campaign finance reform, and this is a
good opportunity to take a number of the amendments, and as the
gentlewoman knows, we have many, many amendments left to go in order to
get the Shays-Meehan legislation passed.
So I thank the gentlewoman for her cooperation. Both sides of the
aisle have looked at this. I think it is a good amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda
Smith).
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this actually is a group of amendments, all dealing
with grassroots organizations' concerns. From liberal groups to
conservative groups, they have been very, very concerned about their
voter guides.
To begin with, it starts with clarifying some things that were never
intended in the bill anyway. There was never an intention to restrict
voter guides or individual grassroots lobbying, and yet some felt that
this bill went across the line. To begin with, they wanted to be able
to say, even if one guy is running, we want to be able to put out a
record on him. We believe we should be able to do that.
So they have graciously said, sure enough, that makes some sense, and
so we will allow one. The original said there had to be two or more
candidates to be able to put out a voter guide, so this is a step in
the right direction.
The second thing that is very much a concern of the groups is that
they cannot explain why they were for or against an issue. Now, the
makers of the bill felt that they had taken care of this, but many
groups did not. So this simply clarifies that they not only are able
to, but it clarifies that they can explain their positions and cleans
up that problem.
Another issue that they were concerned about is that possibly
collecting information to build score cards might be considered
coordination. These amendments make it clear that that is not the case.
There are some other things that were of concern of the groups, and
they were worried that their grassroots lobbyists could be in trouble,
that this could be a problem if they were lobbying elected officials on
issues, and that that could qualify as coordination. This language says
no, that was not meant to be considered as coordination, so it cleans
that up, and so there is no problem with the grassroots groups lobbying
now.
Then there was a section that was a little more difficult, that has a
purpose, a very important purpose, and that is where one finds that
there are coordinated efforts of groups, vendors, and actually it comes
out in kind of ugly things. One finds TV ads and radio ads and all
kinds of things happening, and it is supposed to be independent but it
clearly is coordinated.
What this does is clarify that and makes it very clear that it is not
meant to deal with voter guides; that we are making it real clear that
voter guides are not a part of the problem, and so again, we have made
it very clear in this amendment that we are not aiming at them and
definitely not even trying to get close to them.
So with that, this clears up a lot of the problems with the voter
guides; it clears up a lot of the problems that the grassroots groups
had with being able to lobby and being restricted from their lobbying
and goes a long ways, I would think, to alleviating some of their
fears.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 5
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I do not think I need a minute, but paragraph small ``i'' at the
end where it says, ``candidates,'' I believe that there is a printing
error and after the comma, it should be ``and,'' as we go to each of
the paragraphs.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
clarify which paragraph he is in.
{time} 2330
Mr. MEEHAN. Small ``I'' at the end of that paragraph, I believe it
should say ``and.''
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The word ``and'' appears after the second little ``I.''
So we have a comma, ``and.'' Under normal rules of construction, that
is a conjunction not a disjunctive. So, I do not believe the
gentleman's point is necessary. Of course, it would do no harm to add
the word ``and.'' But we have a comma after little 1, comma ``and''
after a little 2.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I do so to recognize the contribution of the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith). The bottom line is that
she has offered six amendments to deal with voter guides and advocacy
because she is sincerely concerned that groups would be denied the
opportunity to provide these voter guides.
Each of her amendments had some element of merit and in some cases we
could have accepted the amendment in whole. But she has combined these
six amendments and I think has dealt sincerely with the concerns that
various groups have.
The bottom line is she has tried to perfect this legislation and made
a tremendous contribution and I really appreciate the contribution of
the gentlewoman to improve this bill and make it clear what the
intention is of the supporters of this legislation. I am very grateful
for her contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell). I do not know if I want to call him ``professor,'' but I
will call him ``gentleman.''
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), my friend, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I join him in applauding the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith). From the first day that I met her, her
concern was campaign finance reform and it continues to manifest itself
in work such as this amendment.
In reading it, I would clarify the following points that I think are
in its
[[Page H5951]]
favor: The phrase is now that in order to qualify, the commentary on a
candidate's voting record can appear just by itself. They do not have
to have another candidate. And it is all right, so long as it falls
short of expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or
opposition to that candidate.
And I emphasize that, because in our earlier debate on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), our colleague
and friend, the question arose as to whether a voter advocacy group
could say here is the position of candidates and we happen to agree
with this position. And whether under the unamended version of Shays-
Meehan that would have been acceptable was the point that was
contested.
I do not believe that it is in doubt anymore if this amendment is
accepted. That if it purely communicates accurate information as to the
position of a candidate and falls short of saying ``and for this reason
vote for the person'' or ``for this reason we overwhelmingly support,''
in other words, if it falls short of unmistakable and unambiguous
support, then it is indeed what it purports to be, a voter guide.
Mr. Chairman, I also note that the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington is preferable to the one offered by our
colleague from California in that it preserves the prohibition on
coordination. If the organization in question has coordinated the
entire voter guide with a plan to assist a candidate, then it is not a
voter guide. It is a sham. The gentlewoman preserves that.
Lastly, she repeats the so-called magic words test, which is the
starting point, but for many of us it is not sufficient to handle the
area of potential abuse.
So with those observations, I am pleased to add my voice to those of
the unanimous membership who is speaking on this bill in favor of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say that
this is an issue that I struggled with in our bill. I compliment the
gentlewoman. I think this is a great improvement on existing law,
because it clearly separates what is express advocacy.
Express advocacy under this definition is any time one gets out and
says this is the record of a candidate and this record is evil, do not
vote for this person. Or this is the record of an angel, please vote
for this person. That is express advocacy. That will trigger that the
people who publish such things will have to disclose where their money
came from. It would have to be hard money.
That is the kind of thing that we have been saying that we need to
do. If we just say this is a voter guide, we do not agree with it. But
you cannot say therefore vote against this person. That would be an
example, because one does not advocate a position, as the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) said in the gentlewoman's words, of
unmistakable or unambiguous support for or in opposition to one or more
candidates. So you clearly have drawn a line between what has been the
problem, which is these kind of hit pieces that have come out that the
candidate knows nothing about, even the opposition knows nothing about
because they are independent of either, and have been expressing sort
of evil actions based on a record. I think that you are commended
because this makes a clear distinction
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has one
minute remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just quickly say that the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
Linda Smith), and using the word ``gentle'' is sometimes a misnomer
because she is extraordinarily strong, again has made a wonderful
contribution to this process and has been a leader in campaign finance
reform throughout the country. I thank her again for her contribution
and would again yield my time to her to allow her to close.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his comments.
This particular area of campaign finance reform probably has had more
objections, more confusion, than anything I have seen in my nearly 4
years in Congress. I do not think that this agreement or this amendment
is going to make everyone happy but those that used to say we cannot
even advocate our position of what we think is right in the voter
guide, to them this is taking care of it. To those that do not want
people to have any speech about what they think is a good position from
their perspective, a group, to them they are not going to necessarily
like it either.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith), to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it have it.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Pursuant to House Resolution
442, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Washington will be postponed.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate on campaign
reform, I have repeatedly voiced concern that the Shays-Meehan
legislation, if enacted would threaten citizen participation in our
democratic system.
Numerous provisions in Shays-Meehan restrict the right of the people
to express their opinions about elected officials and issues through
unprecedented limitations on text accompanying issue group voting
records and restraints on citizen commentary prior to an election.
Why would any group of citizens distribute a voting guide or
scorecard on a candidate when the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
would be empowered to decide, after the distribution of the scorecard,
whether it was written in an ``educational'' manner?
Why would a citizen's activist organization issue a ``voter alert''
to its supporters warning them to an upcoming vote in Congress, when
they could be potentially fined for violating the burdensome
``coordination'' section of the bill?
Why would a group of citizens concerned about an issue like partial
birth abortion or affirmative action run a television advertisement to
try to influence the way their Member of Congress votes, when they
could be fined for violating new free speech restrictions that are
contained in the bill?
The Shays-Meehan bill contains a provision that prohibits non-
citizens from contributing to campaigns. When you combine that
provision with the amendment offered by Representative Pickering, I
believe political contributions by minorities would become suspect.
As a stand alone, the Shays-Meehan bill is patently unconstitutional
on its face. It violates the First Amendment rights of all Americans.
But it would be a mistake to compound those constitutional errors by
somehow making suspect political contributions by Americans with non-
western names. With these two amendments adopted, the threat to
minority participation in our election process would compound the
threat to freedom by the bill.
Mr. SHAYS. 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.
Calvert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barr of Georgia, 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.
____________________