[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.

                          ____________________