[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 15 (Friday, February 15, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E178-E179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 13, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2356) to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide 
     bipartisan campaign reform:

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, last night, the House passed H.R. 2356 as 
amended, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
  I would like to speak today to provide guidance to the Federal 
Election Commission regarding its future interpretation of one of the 
provisions of H.R. 2356.
  H.R. 2356 sets forth a definition of ``electioneering 
communications'' in Title II. Certain exceptions to this definition are 
set out in Section 201(3)(B) of the bill, and include (i) news 
distributed by broadcast stations that are not owned or controlled by a 
candidate, (ii) independent expenditures, (iii) candidate debates and 
forums and (iv) ``any other communication exempted under such 
regulations as the Commission may promulgate . . . to ensure 
appropriate implementation of this paragraph.''
  Specifically, I wish to address some questions that have been raised 
about the purpose of the fourth exception.
  The definition of ``electioneering communication'' is a bright line 
test covering all broadcast, satellite and cable communications that 
refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and that are made 
within the immediate pre-election period of 60 days before a general 
election or 30 days before a primary. But it is possible that there 
could be some communications that will fall within this definition even 
though they are plainly and unquestionably not related to the election.
  Section 201(3)(B)(iv) was added to the bill to provide the Commission 
with some limited discretion in administering the statute so that

[[Page E179]]

it can issue regulations to exempt such communications from the 
definition of ``electioneering communications'' because they are wholly 
unrelated to an election.
  For instance, if a church that regularly broadcasts its religious 
services does so in the pre-election period and mentions in passing and 
as part of its service the name of an elected official who is also a 
candidate, and the Commission can reasonably conclude that the routine 
and incidental mention of the official does not promote his candidacy, 
the Commission could promulgate a rule to exempt that type of 
communication from the definition of ``electioneering communications.'' 
There could be other examples where the Commission could conclude that 
the broadcast communication in the immediate pre-election period does 
not in any way promote or support any candidate, or oppose his 
opponent,
  Charities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code are prohibited by existing tax law from 
supporting or opposing candidates for elective office. Notwithstanding 
this prohibition, some such charities have run ads in the guise of so-
called ``issue advocacy'' that clearly have had the effect of promoting 
or opposing federal candidates. Because of these cases, we do not 
intend that Section 201(3)(B)(iv) be used by the FEC to create any per 
se exemption from the definition of ``electioneering communications'' 
for speech by Section 501(c)(3) charities. Nor do we intend that 
Section 201(3)(B)(iv) apply only to communications by section 501(c)(3) 
charities.
  But we do urge the FEC to take cognizance of the standards that have 
been developed by the IRS in administering the law governing Section 
501(c)(3) charities, and to determine the standards, if any, that can 
be applied to exempt specific categories of speech where it is clear 
that such communications are made in a manner that is neutral in 
nature, wholly unrelated to an election and cannot be used to promote 
or attack any federal candidate.
  We urge the Commission to exercise this rulemaking power consistent 
with the time frame specified in the bill for the promulgation of new 
regulations to implement the provisions of H.R. 2356. We also expect 
the Commission to use its Advisory Opinion process to address these 
situations both before and after the issuance of regulations.

                          ____________________