[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5295-H5298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            OPPOSE H.R. 4717

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Values Action Team, I rise 
to bring to the Members' attention the strong opposition of many of the 
outside pro-family groups to the Archer-Houghton disclosure bill, H.R. 
4717.
  Since this bill has been broadened to include, not only 527s, but now

[[Page H5296]]

501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, (c)(6)s, and it is being marketed as a disclosure 
bill, the provision would result in such burdensome regulations that 
many of these organizations feel they would be out of business as far 
as issue advocacy and representing their constituencies in lobbying.
  I submit for the Record about 30 letters from 30 organizations, 
including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Christian 
Coalition, National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, 
American Conservative Union, Traditional Values Coalition, U.S. 
Business and Industry Council, Citizens Against Government Waste, and 
many others, and trust that Members will take this into consideration.
  The letters are as follows:
                                                 National Right To


                                         Life Committee, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to express the 
     strong objections of the National Right to Life Committee 
     (NRLC) to the punitive and unconstitutional legislation 
     approved yesterday by the Ways & Means Committee, which is 
     expected to come before the full House during the week of 
     June 26.
       NRLC, Inc. and its state affiliates are 501(c)(4) 
     corporations. These organizations have non-profit status 
     simply because they exist not to make a profit but to promote 
     a cause--the protection of innocent human life. Contributions 
     to 501(c)(4) corporations are not tax-deductible.
       HR 4717 is being marketed as merely requiring 
     ``disclosure'' by organizations, including 501(c)(4) 
     corporations, that engage in so-called ``political 
     activities.'' But in fact it would impose extremely 
     burdensome regulations on the day-to-day advocacy and 
     grassroots lobbying activities of many long-established and 
     respectable membership organizations, including NRLC and 
     NRLC's state affiliates. The bill would required groups such 
     as NRLC and NRLC affiliates to file reports with the IRS 
     giving a ``detailed description,'' including ``the purpose 
     and intended results,'' of communications to our members or 
     to members of the public merely because those communications 
     mention the name of a member of Congress, or Vice-president 
     Gore or some other ``candidate.'' (Under current federal law, 
     the term ``candidate'' includes every member of Congress who 
     has not announced his retirement, including each senator 
     throughout his six-year term.)
       These requirements are triggered by an expenditure of as 
     little as $1,000 on any such activity. This requirement would 
     apply, among other things, to routine grassroots alerts 
     regarding upcoming legislative events--whether disseminated 
     by mail, telephone, paid ads, e-mail alert systems, or 
     websites.
       Incredibly, these requirements would apply even to 
     communications to our own members that mention the name of a 
     member of Congress or other federal politician, if the 
     communication ``urges such members to communicate with 
     another person or to take an action as a result of such 
     communication.'' Thus, an ``action alert'' in the National 
     Right to Life News, urging our members to write ``letters to 
     the editor'' of local newspapers expressing support for the 
     ``Hyde Amendment,'' would need to be reported to the IRS. 
     Indeed, if a group spent $1,000 on a mailing to urge its 
     members to ``pray for the defeat of the Kennedy bill,'' that 
     group would be required to give a ``detailed description'' 
     of that activity to the IRS, including a listing of ``the 
     candidates intended to be affected.''
       In addition, the bill would unconstitutionally require that 
     our organizations report to the government--and place in the 
     public domain--the name, address, occupation, and employer of 
     any person who contributes $1,000 per year or more to our 
     organizations. Stripping our best donors of privacy in this 
     manner will expose them to harassment and exploitation by 
     fly-by-night telemarketers and other outside parties. It 
     would also expose them to retribution from employers or pro-
     abortion activists who do not agree with their support for 
     the right-to-life cause. This is not a hypothetical concern--
     pro-abortion activists have in the past used boycotts and 
     other means to ``punish'' businessmen and others who support 
     pro-life causes.
       Respectfully, we do not believe that the Constitution 
     permits our elected representatives to demand that groups of 
     citizens, organized to promote a cause, must report to 
     government bureaucrats every instance in which they dare to 
     utter the name of a federal politician to multiple listeners. 
     The Constitution protects the rights of our members to 
     associate, to express opinions on the actions of federal 
     politicians, and to urge other citizens to communicate with 
     their elected representatives, without being subjected to 
     intrusive oversight by politicians, political appointees, or 
     federal bureaucrats.
       Finally, it is worth noting that the burdens imposed by HR 
     4417 would not apply to the largest organizational sponsor of 
     pro-abortion lobbying and issue advocacy--the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). That is because PPFA 
     is 501(c)(3) organization, which are not covered by the bill. 
     Private donors to PPFA obtain tax deductions, unlike donors 
     to NRLC. Yet, because PPFA files under the special 501(h) 
     category, PPFA can and does engage extensively in mass 
     communications that mention the names of members of Congress 
     (issue advocacy), including grassroots lobbying campaigns 
     aimed at Congress. Inclusion of 501(h) organizations would 
     not make the bill constitutional, but the exclusion of PPFA 
     makes the bill even more outrageous.
       We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation. We intend 
     to inform our members and donors regarding how members of the 
     House vote regarding protection of their rights to privacy 
     and their ability to collectively petition their elected 
     representatives.
           Sincerely,
     David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.,
       Executive Director.
     Douglas Johnson,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                          Christian Coalition,

                                    Chesapeake, VA, June 26, 2000.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to you about one of 
     the most important votes for the Christian Coalition 
     membership that you may ever cast in your career--that is the 
     upcoming vote on campaign finance reform. The Christian 
     Coalition strongly opposes H.R. 4717, the ``Full and Fair 
     Political Activity Disclosure Act,'' because of the impact it 
     would have on the Christian Coalition as an organization by 
     forcing us to publicly disclose the names of our donors, and 
     because of its intrusive and burdensome reporting 
     requirements. H.R. 4717 is a blatant violation of our 
     constitutional right to free speech and to freedom of 
     association. Be assured that the Christian Coalition intends 
     to publicize to our supporters in the clearest possible terms 
     how you vote on H.R. 4717, and the impact of your vote on the 
     Christian Coalition.
       H.R. 4717 would require the Christian Coalition and many of 
     our affiliates to publicly report the name, address, 
     occupation, and employer of any contributors who contribute 
     an aggregate of $1,000 or more during the reporting period. 
     Freedom of speech and freedom of association are two of the 
     most fundamental rights acknowledged by the U.S. 
     Constitution. The freedom to donate money to support 
     controversial or unpopular views is crucial to both these 
     rights. Activists committed to social change will never be 
     able to lead the rest of us to a better life without the 
     financial support of generous souls willing to sacrifice 
     their hard earned capital as an investment for the future. 
     H.R. 4717 would punish individuals who support political 
     action on controversial issues. Opposition activists could 
     target contributors for harassment, both legal and illegal. 
     What would have happened to the Civil Rights movement of the 
     1950's and 60's if the KKK had access to the donor lists for 
     the NAACP and the ACLU? Americans must never be forced to 
     risk their jobs, their homes, their friends, or their lives 
     merely because they choose to contribute money for causes 
     that others may not yet understand.
       The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the 
     public disclosure of donors has ``the practical effect of 
     discouraging the exercise of constitutionally protected 
     political rights,'' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 65 (1976), 
     since ``revelation of the identity of rank-and-file members 
     expose[s] these members to economic reprisal, loss of 
     employment, threat of physical coercion and other 
     manifestations of public hostility.'' NAACP v. Alabama, 357 
     U.S. 449, 462 (1958). In light of the controversial issues 
     that the Christian Coalition has been willing to stand and 
     fight for over the years, the public reporting of our 
     donor base cold cripple the Christian Coalition as our 
     donations dry up.
       H.R. 4717 would also require the Christian Coalition to 
     file quarterly reports of any communications over $1,000 that 
     involve the name or likeness of a candidate, or which meet 
     the IRS definition of political intervention--an extremely 
     vague and nebulous definition. But the bill goes even further 
     and goes so far as to force disclosure of the money spent for 
     internal communications from an organization's officers to 
     its general membership regarding elected officials if the 
     communication calls for the membership to take action. Even 
     legislative alerts and other communications to our membership 
     regarding pending legislation would need to be reported to 
     the government if they exceed the $1,000 threshold. We reject 
     the notion that Congress can require grassroots citizen 
     organizations like the Christian Coalition that are organized 
     to promote a cause, to constantly report to the government 
     our internal communications with our membership regarding 
     pending legislation would need to be reported to the 
     government if they exceed the $1,000 threshold. We reject the 
     notion that Congress can require grassroots citizen 
     organizations like the Christian Coalition that are organized 
     to promote a cause, to constantly report to the government 
     our internal communications with our membership, or our 
     communications with the public merely because they mention 
     the name of a candidate, and be subjected to intrusive 
     oversight by political appointees and other government 
     employees.
       It is particularly offensive that H.R. 4717 applies to 
     groups like the Christian Coalition, but not to the Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America, a 501c3 organization that 
     is the largest organizational sponsor of pro-abortion 
     lobbying.
       On behalf of the members and supporters of the Christian 
     Coalition, I urge you to stand up for the rights of our 
     membership and vote against H.R. 4717.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Susan T. Muskett,
                                    Director, Legislative Affairs.

[[Page H5297]]

                                                  Eagle Forum,

                                                    June 23, 2000.
       Dear Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Armey, and Majority 
     Whip DeLay: On behalf of Eagle Forum members nationwide, I am 
     writing in strong opposition to the Full and Fair Political 
     Activity Disclosure Act of 2000 (H.R. 4717), which was 
     approved by the Ways and Means Committee yesterday. This bill 
     gives the federal government the authority to police the 
     activities of section 527, 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and section 
     501(c)(6) organizations.
       Eagle Forum functions as a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt 
     organization and does not receive tax-deductible 
     contributions. While H.R. 4717 is being marketed as a 
     ``disclosure'' bill, implementing its provisions would result 
     in burdensome paperwork that would take a heavy toll on our 
     day-to-day activities and grassroots lobbying. Once Eagle 
     Forum spends $10,000 on legislative activities that merely 
     mention the name of a Member of Congress or a candidate, we 
     would be required to file reports with the Internal Revenue 
     Service giving a ``detailed description . . . including the 
     purpose and intended results'' of our communications. We do 
     not want the IRS knocking on our door every time we send an 
     alert, conduct a postcard campaign, or generate phone calls.
       It is Eagle Forum's policy to respect and protect the 
     privacy of our members. Therefore, we do not rent or share 
     our lists. However, H.R. 4717 would force us to report to the 
     government, thereby placing in the public domain, the name, 
     address, occupation, and employer of any person who 
     contributes $1,000 or more in one year to Eagle Forum. This 
     requirement would force our members into the public sphere 
     despite our long-standing policy of protecting our members' 
     privacy, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment, see 
     NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
       Finally, our system of government relies on citizen 
     participation. The U.S. Constitution does not give federal 
     government the authority to police or force organizations, 
     such as Eagle Forum, to report to government bureaucrats. 
     Freedom of speech and association are fundamental principles. 
     Yet, H.R. 4717 replaces these freedoms with intrusive 
     government oversight.
       I urge you to pull the bill from the legislative calendar. 
     If this bill in fact reaches the floor, I encourage you to 
     oppose it. Eagle Forum members in your district will be 
     waiting to hear our report on how you voted.
           Faithfully,
                                                 Phyllis Schlafly,
     President.
                                  ____



                                      Family Research Council,

                                     Washington DC, June 26, 2000.
     Re: HR 4717, ``Exempt Organization Political Activity 
         Disclosure Act of 2000''
       Dear Member of Congress: The Family Research Council urges 
     you in the strongest possible terms to vote ``NO'' on the 
     ``Exempt Organization Political Activity Disclosure Act of 
     2000'' (H.R. 4417) and the Doggett substitute. These measures 
     would unconstitutionally restrict First Amendment freedom of 
     speech rights and permit the government to intrude 
     egregiously on the privacy of millions of Americans. The 
     measures also would impose an undue burden on the 
     constitutional right to petition government for the 
     grievances and unnecessarily limit freedom of association.
       Requiring non-profit organizations to report all 
     contributions in excess of $1,000 would needlessly expose 
     donors to possible harassment, reprisals and public abuse. 
     The U.S. Supreme Court already has ruled that non-profit 
     donor confidentiality is constitutional and an important 
     privacy protection for those who wish to exercise their 
     constitutional rights by expressing their opinions on matters 
     of public policy. Two weeks ago, a federal appeals court 
     struck down a Vermont law that sought to force disclosure by 
     groups that sponsor issue ads. ``The constitutional defects 
     are particularly serious because of their impact on anonymous 
     communications, which have played a central role in the 
     development of free expression and democratic governance,'' 
     the appeals court said.
       Information regarding donors, moreover, is proprietary. 
     Making such information public through government agencies 
     would allow competing groups, unscrupulous hucksters or other 
     outside parties to target an organization's supporters.
       Extending donor reporting requirements to non-profit 
     organizations is unneeded. Such organizations already are 
     ``explicitly barred from having a primarily electoral 
     purpose.'' H.R. 4417 has nothing to do with ``campaign 
     finance.'' It would, however, subject non-profit 
     organizations to unwarranted government scrutiny when they 
     are engaged in good faith, lawful public policy advocacy. 
     This requirement would have a profound chilling effect on 
     public policy debate and almost all grassroots issues 
     advocacy.
       H.R. 4417 would inappropriately cede too much power to the 
     IRS to scrutinize the daily activities of issue advocacy 
     groups. The bill would not only require the reporting of 
     gifts and contributions to non-profit organizations, but 
     would compel them to disclose the ``purpose and intended 
     results'' of such donations. This would drive the IRS into 
     the mind-reading business. The potential here for abuses of 
     power or manipulation of the tax-collecting agency for 
     political purposes is painfully self-evident. H.R. 4417 
     effectively would empower the government to control and limit 
     public debate on policy issues or pending legislation. This 
     would be fatal to participatory democracy.
       Our nation's founders neither intended nor imagined that 
     one day American citizens would be required to subject 
     themselves to the dictates of the government, federal 
     bureaucrats or political appointees, or be required to obtain 
     permission simply to exercise their unalienable rights. The 
     Constitution protects the rights of the American people to 
     freely associate, to petition their elected representatives 
     and express their opinions individually or collectively 
     without intrusive oversight by the government.
       The Family Research Council strongly urges you to oppose 
     the misguided provisions contained in H.R. 4417 and the 
     Doggett substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                               Charles A. Donovan,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                  Concerned Women for America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Pitts,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts, Concerned Women for America 
     (CWA) is writing to express our firm opposition to the 
     Houghton 527 amendment. This amendment threatens the future 
     of ``issue advocacy'' for many non-profit public policy 
     groups.
       This measure is over-broad and attempts to solve a 
     perceived problem with one type of organization by targeting 
     even 501(c)(4) non-profit educational groups. Reporting their 
     donors is wholly unwarranted and a violation of the donor's 
     right of association.
       Furthermore, the IRS definition of ``political activity'' 
     is vague and may change in the future. Organizations which in 
     good faith attempt law-abiding efforts to further their 
     public policy agenda could be held hostage by the IRS and 
     this legislation.
       This measure has been hastily drawn and it shows. 
     Therefore, the over 500,000 members of Concerned Women for 
     America urge the House of Representatives and House 
     leadership to oppose the Houghton 527 amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Beverly LaHaye,
     Chairman and Founder.
                                  ____

                                                    June 23, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert: A vote on a bill sponsored by 
     Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY) in regard to disclosure of 
     tax-exempt group's political activities is scheduled to take 
     place prior to the Congressional July 4th recess. This vote 
     should be postponed.
       The signers of this letter are gravely concerned that this 
     important issue is being treated with undue haste. Hasty, 
     ill-considered legislation may not only fail to address the 
     problem this legislation purports to solve, by may also 
     broadly impact all public policy organizations.
       The current version of the ``Exempt Organization Political 
     Activity Disclosure Act of 2000'' suffers from several 
     drafting problems. The legislation includes language which 
     would require the Internal Revenue Service to hire mind 
     readers to conduct audits by establishing an intent standard 
     (e.g. page 2, lines 12 & 13: ``The intended results for the 
     major categories of expenditures'').
       Exactly how the IRS will verify compliance with the 
     reporting requirements this legislation imposes on all law-
     abiding 501(c)(4) organizations also merits scrutiny. Will an 
     organization's entire computer membership file be turned over 
     to the IRS during an audit in order to allow the IRS 
     computers to search for undisclosed donors? The security of 
     this information, which is the lifeblood of any organization, 
     may well be compromised if accessed by persons opposed to the 
     organization's beliefs.
       This chilling effect of membership disclose on 
     Constitutionally-protected activity has been addressed by the 
     Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama 78 S. Ct. 1163 (1958): ``It 
     is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of 
     affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute 
     a(n) effective restraint on freedom of association.''
       Please postpone consideration of the ``Exempt Organization 
     Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000'' until affected 
     organizations and concerned Members of Congress can properly 
     and fully evaluate the scope and impact of this legislation.
       (Titles and organizations of signers listed for 
     identification purposes only)
       Paul Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; 
     Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women for 
     America; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; 
     Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America; Rev. 
     Lou Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition; Gordon 
     S. Jones, President, Association of Concerned Taxpayers; Joe 
     Glover, President, Family Policy Network; Ronald W. Pearson, 
     Executive Director, Conservative Victory Fund Kent Snyder, 
     Executive Director, Liberty Study Committee; Joe Douglas, 
     Director, Redwood Institute; Dr. Emillio-Adolpho Rivera, 
     Popular Republican Party of Cuba; Tom DeWeese, President, 
     American Policy Center; David N. O'Steen,

[[Page H5298]]

     Ph.D., Executive Director, National Right to Life Committee; 
     Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste; Kevin L. Kearns, President, U.S. Business 
     and Industry Council; Linda Chavez, President, One Nation 
     Indivisible; Jennifer Bingham, Executive Director, Susan B. 
     Anthony List; C. Preston Noell, III, President, Traditio, 
     Family, Property, Inc.; Jim Boulet, Jr., Exeutive Director, 
     English First; Laszlo Pasztor, Honorary Chairman, National 
     Republican Heritage Groups Council; Juraj Slavik, Washington 
     Representative, Czechoslovak National Council of America; 
     Jack Clayton, Washington Representative, Public Advocate; 
     Joan Hueter, American Council for Immigration Reform; Wes 
     Vernon, Writer & Broadcaster.