[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 143 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9478-H9484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ONLINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of
public communication.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1606
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Online Freedom of Speech
Act''.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term shall not
include communications over the Internet.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe
Lofgren) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I seek to manage the time allocated for the
opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California support
the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will
control the 20 minutes reserved for the opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
General Leave
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1606.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet Age has brought about a host
of new ways for citizens to participate in the political arena. Web
sites, e-mail, and blogging have provided new avenues for political
activists to reach out to potential voters, to raise issue awareness,
to solicit contributions, and to mobilize the get-out-the-vote efforts.
The Internet has also generated a more widespread flow of news
information through not only mainstream media sources but also
independent Web sites and blogs. Most importantly, it has created a
completely new opportunity for all citizens to exercise their right to
free speech by opining on the most important issues of the day as they
see them, as the citizens see them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this activity is actually under
attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it
would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election
Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to
regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors
disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts.
A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a
rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not
act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be
regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and
by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act,
Congress can prevent this from happening.
H.R. 1606, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling),
amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude Internet
communications from the definition of ``public communication,'' thus
exempting Web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from Federal
Elections Commission, FEC, regulation.
This bill has very, very strong bipartisan support. In testimony
before the FEC and before the Committee on House Administration, both
liberal and conservative bloggers expressed their support for this
exemption. Senate minority leader Reid has introduced a companion bill
in the U.S. Senate and written to the FEC to express his belief that
the Internet should not be regulated.
The regulations proposed by the FEC could limit the ability of online
activists to talk to campaigns, to give discounts on advertisements, to
spend money maintaining their site, to link to candidates' sites, to
advocate the election of a candidate, or to send political e-mails.
The FEC would potentially grant some bloggers and online publications
what is known as the ``media exemption,'' which would allow these
bloggers to operate free of FEC regulation like any standard newspaper
or news program. However, the rules were very unclear about how the FEC
would determine who qualified for the exemption. Potentially, the FEC's
rulings could become content-based restrictions on speech and on free
speech.
As we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that
the Internet is not like traditional forms of media. Unlike television
and radio, activists do not require large sums of money to post their
message on the Internet. Also, the number of people reached and the
success of communication are not directly linked to the amount of money
that is spent.
In addition, the Internet is not an invasive medium. In other words,
the recipients of communication are exposed to the communication only
after they take deliberate and affirmative steps to find a particular
Web site. Further, the Internet has generated a surge in grassroots
involvement in the political process.
Mr. Speaker, historically, Congress has regulated political speech
only where it has the potential to cause corruption or the appearance
of corruption. There has been no demonstration that the growth of the
Internet has had a corrupting influence on politics. There is, however,
ample evidence that the Internet has had a positive effect on our
political system by encouraging young people, a whole new generation of
people, to get involved in our political process.
{time} 1430
Any Internet regulations would be complicated and difficult for a lay
person to understand. Bloggers and other online activists should not
have to worry about accidentally running afoul of campaign finance laws
when they are expressing their own opinions on the Internet.
Regulatory proponents claim regulations are necessary to reduce the
influence of wealthy interests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these complex
regulations, if enacted, would actually increase the influence of big
money and politics, because then only the wealthy could afford to hire
election attorneys to be certain that they were abiding by these very
complicated regulations.
The Committee on House Administration, under Chairman Ney's
leadership, had a hearing on this topic back last September; and, at
that hearing, several Members of Congress and of the committee,
including myself, actually suggested that the Congress needed to step
into this process to clarify Congress' intent on this issue instead of
leaving it up to Federal agencies and the court system.
Congress began this discussion by passing BCRA. By debating and
voting on this bill today, the House will clarify once and for all its
intent on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House bill 1606. This
legislation, under the guise of protecting bloggers, actually undercuts
the progress made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and reopens the
floodgates of corrupting soft money in Federal elections.
I also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the
suspension calendar when it is so clearly a
[[Page H9479]]
controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup
for members to offer amendments and, under the rules, we cannot offer
amendments here today.
The debate today is about what is the best way to approach
coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We
all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political
activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to
the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time
they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates
and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology
for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about
attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance
laws.
Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have
generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to
regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the
Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission.
That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as
I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as
labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions
at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the
direction of candidates.
That is why The New York Times editorialized yesterday in opposition
to H.R. 1606, and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a
fig leaf.
The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft
money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation
is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates
or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the
Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of
soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned.
We are talking about legislators. For example, let us say we had a
prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry.
This Congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night, and then
Members of Congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same
pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads
for them to appear on the Internet.
But let me give another example. What could happen is you could have
an energy bill, provisions of which were written by the oil and gas
industry. Let us say a company like Exxon, as a result of it, had the
highest profits they have ever had, record profits because of gasoline
prices going out of control. The same people who advocated for that
energy bill that Exxon supported could go to Exxon and say, could you
use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online
campaign ad buy.
This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law.
As Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear, this is not free
speech, this is paid speech, politically paid for with unlimited
corporate and union contributions.
It is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses
the exact same language that the FEC tried and that a Federal court
struck down. The judge in that case, Colleen Kollar-Kottelly, wrote
that the provisions would ``permit rampant circumvention of the
campaign finance laws and foster corruption.'' She went on to say that
the provision would ``severely undermine'' the campaign finance law.
Her rulings have gone before the D.C. Court of Appeals twice, and they
have been upheld.
Just days ago, a CNN poll found that the American people believe that
corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this
Nation after the economy. The American people are tired of the
scandals.
We are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public
concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and
new scandals. The bill that we are considering will also allow
political parties to use soft money to pay for Internet ads bashing
candidates.
Experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find
ways to exploit any perceived loopholes. For example, the national
party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and
exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle.
Corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for Internet-
related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties, and
the public will not have a clue where this money comes from, because
virtually all they will see is the Internet advertising designed and
created by candidates.
That is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Common Cause,
opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by Democracy
21, and opposed by the League of Women Voters. That is why The
Washington Post editorialized this week that this would be carving a
huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban. That is why The New York
Times said yesterday, ``make no mistake about it. This bill is to
protect political bagmen, not bloggers.''
In protecting bloggers, we need to approach this the right way, and
this bill is the wrong way.
I have introduced a bill with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) called the Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection
Act of 2005. Under this legislation, communications over the Internet
by individuals on their own Web sites would be treated the same as they
are in H.R. 1606. But our substitute, which we cannot allow today, we
are not allowed to present, would not blow open the same gaping
loophole for paid advertising.
Unfortunately, because the leadership has chosen to bring this up
under a suspension of the rules, we are unable to offer our substitute.
The suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other
noncontroversial matters. It is not a place to create new loopholes in
the campaign finance laws. Limiting the democratic process and stifling
the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter
of public policy. It is wrong to do so. It is unfair. It is an abuse of
power.
So why are we rushing through this suspension? I urge my colleagues
to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full
debate, including consideration of the Shays-Meehan alternative bill to
protect bloggers, without creating new avenues for corruption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to
respond to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who referenced
three editorial boards.
I think it is important to note that these editorial boards are
nothing more than paid scribes. They literally make their living by
using the first amendment. But everyone knows that the Internet has
negatively affected the cash flow of the institutional print media. It
is the height of hypocrisy for the print media to use their right to
free speech to opine against their competition on the Internet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech
Act.
My bill is a simple one. It is only one sentence long. It achieves
one goal, but that goal is a worthy one: the protection of free speech
on the Internet.
Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, callous, and clumsy
hand of Federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace.
Recently, we know the Federal judiciary ruled that, absent our
congressional action, the FEC must regulate this form of speech, even
though the FEC clearly does not want to. The newest battlefield in the
fight to protect the first amendment is the Internet. Today, the
Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly, it should remain that
way.
The Internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants
on equal footing. It is extremely cheap. In fact, if one has access to
the Internet at home or a public library, it can be free, absolutely
free. A Web site's success is driven by the quality of its content, not
the quantity of funds that are poured into it. It is one of the most
democratic forms of speech that we know today, and it is an outstanding
opportunity for all individuals across
[[Page H9480]]
our Nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public
policy.
The Internet, Mr. Speaker, is the new town square; and campaign
finance regulations are not appropriate there. Not only would such
regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce, it would place
complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally
restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment
rights. Today, thousands and thousands of Americans run blogs that are
focused on politics, and millions of viewers visit their favorite
bloggers' Web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream
media.
Without H.R. 1606, I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for
improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a
candidate's press release to an e-mail list, and the list goes on. If
bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray,
murky world of Federal regulation, many will simply cease to operate.
That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere
and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller
groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion.
Those opposing the bill claim that some day, somehow, somewhere,
there may be corruption. Yet the FEC itself could not see the threat of
corruption that is present in a ``medium that allows almost limitless,
inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the
American population.'' Let those who cry corruption cite examples and
carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights
of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is a heavy burden to carry.
In 2002, before I came to this body, Congress passed a sweeping new
campaign finance law; and, in a rare moment of restraint, nowhere in
the new law did Congress impose restrictions on the Internet.
Consequently, the FEC, the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign
activity, left that promising new technology alone.
Under the new law, public communications were clearly defined; and,
just as clearly, the Internet does not appear on this list. Mr.
Speaker, I am quite certain that Congress was aware of the Internet's
existence 3 years ago. Indeed, it is mentioned in other parts of the
legislation.
So, logically, the FEC declined to regulate public communications
online, equating the give and take on the Internet to candidate forums
and rallies and debates that are open to the public. Just like on the
street corner, people can talk back to a blog by writing their own
posts or establishing their own sites. How do you talk back to a radio
ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of
dollars to run? This is very different. Web sites and messages are very
effective, very democratic, and very affordable tools, a different
means of communication.
Despite congressional silence on this matter, in 2004, a Federal
court instructed the FEC to regulate Internet communications, and that
process is under way. Because the vast majority of Web sites are
independently and inexpensively operated, regulatory burdens are going
to limit the Internet's usefulness as a political forum.
I am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the
blog-osphere to these proposed rules. It is just this type of free
exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today. The bottom
line is that campaign finance laws must enhance, not hinder electoral
participation; and I should note that campaign blogs and all official
campaign activities will still be regulated by the FEC after the
passage of this legislation.
I am proud that my democratic colleague, the gentleman from Michigan,
the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has cosponsored
this bill, signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort. In the
other body, the distinguished Senate minority leader has partnered with
my friend, Senator Coburn, to defend American freedom of speech online
by introducing this identical language in the other body.
Over 200 years ago, in this House of Representatives, James Madison
stated, ``The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right
to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.'' Today, Congress
finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern
realities.
{time} 1445
New regulations are not the answer each time a new technology
emerges. The bipartisan Online Freedom of Speech Act protects the first
amendment rights of Internet users and prevents the FEC from making
needless and arbitrary distinctions.
When the choice is between more regulation and more freedom, we
should always err on the side of freedom.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who knows and
understands the rules and procedures of this institution as well as
anyone who has ever served here.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the irony that we have people here
defending vigorous open debate and free speech by invoking one of the
most restrictive procedures of the House of Representatives.
Apparently, people here believe that James Madison thought that there
should be free debate except in the Congress of the United States.
Under the procedure, and people should understand who will be
monitoring this debate, for many of us the key issue is not the
substance. Yes, I thing we ought to legislate. It is the outrageous
high-handed arrogance we have seen now become, unfortunately, second
nature to the majority, that brings an important bill invoking
constitutional principles and history and modern technology, and how
you integrate those, and the question of campaign finance, into the
most restrictive procedure.
We have 40 minutes to debate this. No amendments are possible.
Apparently this is the perfect bill. This must have sprung like Minerva
from the forehead of Zeus in perfect form, and here it is. God forbid
that the United States Congress or House of Representatives should be
able to amend it or change it.
It will be here. Take it or leave it. And of course the assumption is
that people who agree that we should not be restricting the free use of
the Internet will be so intimidated by the fear that if they voted
``no'' they will be criticized that they will fall in line.
No, I do not think that works any more. I think the American public
is smart enough to know that the end does not always justify the means
and that the irony of purporting to defend free speech by shutting it
down in the Congress of the United States is too bizarre.
You want to know how restrictive this is? This procedure allows a
total of 40 minutes for debate. Is 40 minutes a lot of time? This
Republican majority has regularly kept roll calls open after debates
have finished for longer than we get to debate this bill. They will
spend way more than 40 minutes twisting each other's arms in private,
rather than allow us to have the debate time.
What, are we overworked? We are hardly as a Congress overworked. We
would have plenty of time to debate it. Whatever happened to the notion
that a bill comes out of committee, and I am a ranking member of a
committee. I would not allow for my committee, if I could help it, a
bill to come to the floor where there was substantial opposition under
suspension of the rules.
This has nothing to do with the substance. There are issues to be
debated here. Forty minutes and no debate. The rules are suspended
because free speech is so important to these supporters that free
speech must be sacrificed as we get it. They are going to destroy the
village in order to save it. If someone would explain to me, I would
yield my time, why we could not have this as a regular bill under
regular procedure.
Is there some reason unbeknownst to me that kept us from having this
as a bill that came to the floor, that people can go to the Rules
Committee and we could have amendments and we could debate it for more
than 20 minutes on each side. I would be glad to yield to any advocate
of free speech who can tell me why it has become inapplicable in this
bill.
Well, I have no takers. Apparently, all we get in defense of this is
free silence. And I will commend my colleagues for having the good
sense not to try to defend their procedure.
[[Page H9481]]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it was the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) who thought this would be an appropriate
procedure to bring it to the floor on suspension. So there was no abuse
of power. This is strongly supported by both parties. I anticipate it
will pass today. Otherwise, we will take a rule, and we will do it the
regular way.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us
do that. Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. The gentleman
from California's (Mr. Doolittle) idea of a substantive defense is
maybe a tribute to the gallantry that he continues to exemplify long
after it may have gone out of fashion. He says the reason this is a
good idea is that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren)
said so.
I highly esteem my colleague from California with whom I disagree in
this case. But the notion that her imprimatur is in itself a
substantive defense of failing to follow the regular procedure does not
meet the argument.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I did opine at the
hearings, since there was complete agreement among all of the Members
present, that we did not want to regulate the Internet, that we might
be able to take care of this on the suspension calendar.
And I never have felt so powerful in the minority as I do today.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, you said
all of the Members there present. How many were there?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was the only Democrat
present.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how many Republicans?
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, so apparently four or five
Members have been able to do this. I will repeat that we have heard no
substantive defense of why this came.
I would agree with what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe
Lofgren) said, sometimes you do not know something is controversial;
but once you learn that it is, then you have the regular procedure.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Hampshire.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am planning to speak in opposition to the
bill, but I thought that I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that he
planned to oppose it. Is that correct?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I
oppose it? Yes, I oppose it. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I
will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy
in the House.
And I think, yes, there could be a lot of free speech, but not by
shutting it down in the House. I will say again, nobody can give us a
substantive justification of why this is being done this way. Look,
this involves the Constitution. It involves the complex issues of
campaign finance regulation. It involves how you take technology and
how you adapt basic constitutional principles to it, and that is to be
debated by 20 minutes on each side, and that is to be preformed with no
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, it is a joke. It is self-parody. Let us all defend free
speech by not having any. I hope that this is voted down and that we
then can have an appropriate debate under the rules of the House with
amendments and with full discussion.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to
respond to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, we are actually being accused of abuse of power, as I
understand it, for bringing up the Senate minority leader's companion
bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, invoking one other
individual does not pass for substantive debate. I am surprised. Do you
not understand what real argument is?
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), who is a distinguished
member of the House Administration Committee that did ask for us to
bring this up under suspension.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the procedural objections to this, and
certainly when I made the suggestion during our hearing that we could
probably handle this on the suspension, I believed that was the case.
Obviously, there is more controversy than I had believed at the time.
But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and
I do support this bill. If I believed what the New York Times and the
Washington Post said, I would indeed be concerned. I was a strong
supporter of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I signed the
discharge petition.
I voted for it. I am glad it passed. I would note, however, that what
the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the
rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal section 441(b)
of the act that prohibits contributions or expenditures by national
banks, corporations, or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah
about soft money and corporate money, I am sure it is sincere, is
simply, as a matter of law, incorrect.
What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the
Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that
is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they
decide to say something very positive about the election of their
party's candidate for President, they have a problem under the FEC
rule.
And if my Web site, Lofgren for Congress, links to Feinstein for
Senate, I probably am violating the rules. And there is no need for
that. We do not want the heavy regulatory load on the Internet, nor do
we need to do it.
Under current law, unless we pass this exemption, Daily Chaos, which
if they call me for a comment on a candidate and it was run on their
daily Web site within the specified time, we might have an actual
problem here unless they are entitled to the press exemption. It is not
clear that they are.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important since the court was not
sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it
clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications
covered by the act.
I do believe that in coming from Silicon Valley, especially so, that
the ability to use the new technology to promote the viewpoint of
individuals is essential to the growth of democracy. We have seen ever-
increasing numbers of people participate in elections.
I think part of the reason for that is the ability to use the
Internet to communicate. We are concerned, and rightly so, about the
cost of TV. It costs a huge amount of money to run TV ads. Well, the
cost to send an e-mail is almost nothing. So the use of the Internet is
a great democratizer; that is little ``d,'' not big. We need to make
sure that communications using the Internet are protected.
Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that what this bill will do would be
to protect the technology, to protect the Internet itself. It would not
reduce in any way the prohibitions found in 441(b) any more than a
corporation could use its funds to buy lawn signs or political signs;
they could not pay for ads either.
And so I do think that it is worth noting that for the record I would
just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This
bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political
speech on the Internet.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of the Internet. In fact, I sponsored
legislation that would exempt bloggers from FEC legislation.
But the issue is how we draw the lines to balance. We do not exempt
the Internet from laws controlling child pornography; we do not allow
child pornography on the Internet. We do
[[Page H9482]]
not exempt the Internet from consumer safety laws. We do not exempt the
Internet from intellectual property or copyright laws. We do not
because we think those laws are important.
We wrestle with the details of unavoidable and unintended
consequences. Why do we do the hard work of wading through the details?
Because why would we do anything else? Why should we disregard the
integrity of the political process?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1606, the soft money loophole ban.
Three years ago, Congress spoke: corrupting soft money should not be
part of the Federal election process. When President Bush signed the
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, he made unlimited Federal soft
money donations illegal.
Democracy was enhanced. Today, however, the House is debating an
attempt to make soft money legal again. H.R. 1606 would allow
corporations, labor unions, and wealthy financiers to make unlimited
soft money donations for campaign ads on the Internet coordinated by
candidates.
Bloggers should be free to write whatever they want about candidates
for office. But if this bill passes, the public will have no idea
whether or not Internet campaign ads are being financed by secret soft
money.
Why is this bill on the suspension calendar? Americans are frustrated
by the majority's corrupt habits of ramming through legislation in the
middle of the night without an opportunity to read or amend proposed
legislation.
Today, the majority is pushing through a bill that would enable
monied interests to regain undue influence on Federal elections. The
bill should be considered through regular order with consideration of
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, the better way is the bill that the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) have proposed.
Mr. Speaker, that should be an amendment to this bill on the floor.
It cannot be under this procedure. This bill should be defeated.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I know the theme of the minority is the
Republicans abuse power and they are corrupt; but I think this example
is absolutely ludicrous, given that it was recommended by a prominent
Democrat member of the House Administration Committee who happens to
support the legislation.
And she prudently recommended it because at the time it seemed like
it was a relatively noncontroversial idea, supported by most of us. I
would venture to guess that the outcome will be just as she assumed,
that it will pass by the two-thirds vote required.
{time} 1500
I just cannot sit here and listen to this recitation when it is so
unfair, given the facts of this particular case.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is clear, ``Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech.'' Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled to the contrary that, in this instance, in political speech
Congress may abridge the freedom of speech and it may do so under the
guise of preventing corruption or the appearance thereof in campaign
activities. I disagree with that decision, but the Supreme Court has
spoken for now, so we must live with it.
I am grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who at
least feel, as concerns the Internet, that there are compelling policy
reasons why that should not be subject to this kind of regulation.
Heaven help the average American if they fall under a regulation
similar to what any candidate must now undergo for Federal office
because that would basically mean that you would have to check with
your accountant and check with your attorney before you engage in the
Internet communication that might at all be perhaps close to whatever
the line would be. In other words, it would have a chilling impact on
people's exercise of what we believe should be their free speech
rights.
This rise of the Internet is one of the greatest democratic, with a
small d, trends the world has ever known. Anybody with access to a
computer can communicate throughout the world his or her views. Why
would we seek to regulate such an activity and to place this chilling
impact out there?
I commend, by the way, the FEC. They correctly decided not to
regulate the Internet. Unfortunately, the big government campaign
reformers found that intolerable, filed suit in Federal court and were
vindicated with the judge ruling that, indeed, the law required the FEC
to regulate. In the absence of our passing this kind of legislation,
the Internet will be regulated.
Mr. Speaker, we must put an end to this now before it spreads out of
control. Please vote yes for the Hensarling bill. I am so grateful the
gentleman introduced it, and I commend him for it. Please support
freedom of speech. The Online Freedom of Speech Act is what this
legislation is called.
Now is the time to draw a clean, clear, bright line and say if you
are engaging in speech over the Internet you do not have to check with
your lawyer or your accountant. You are a free American, and you have
the opportunity to engage in free speech over the Internet. Vote yes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I can appreciate the gentleman from California's consistency. He was
opposed to campaign finance reform. On the floor, he said he was
opposed to any limit. He would just as soon have no limits at all on
any campaign finance. He thinks corporations should give.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to the bill. We passed a bipartisan campaign
finance reform act 3 or 4 years ago to close huge loopholes in campaign
spending, including the soft money loophole. Now the Internet is
becoming an increasingly important medium for campaign spending and
advocacy. According to some surveys, 37 percent of the adult population
and 61 percent of Americans use the Internet to determine how they
would vote in an election.
Now I do agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that,
had this bill gone through the regular order, we probably could have
worked out some compromises that would have protected the rights of
individuals and bloggers and so forth, but we do not have that ability
at this point, so it is either an up or down vote on a complete
exemption.
In the absence of this compromise, we have to depend on the FEC for
regulation. Because if we do not and if this bill passes, we will in
effect have an exemption to BCRA that will allow for unlimited
advertising and advocacy over the Internet.
I do not believe that bloggers or individuals will ever be fined by
the Federal Election Commission. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill when it comes up later today.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1606 and ask us to
come back with a procedure that will permit the Shays-Meehan
alternative.
This bill opens a huge loophole in the campaign finance laws. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and others have been bulldogs
in moving us toward a more perfect democratic union by keeping
government of and by the people, not of and by some of the people and
by special interests; and this act would not add protections of freedom
of speech on the blogosphere as it is purported to do. Rather, it would
bring large amounts of money back into deciding who can buy the largest
microphone in a Federal campaign.
It will smother, not enhance, the voices of true grassroots
movements.
[[Page H9483]]
This would compromise not only the blogs it purports to help, it runs a
great risk of harming the political procedure. There are too many
questions raised by this. The procedure circumvents open debate.
All of us believe that bloggers should not be subjected to
censorship. I myself am an occasional guest blogger on political Web
sites. Bloggers, like traditional journalists, should be able to
communicate with their audience without any fear of violating FEC
regulations. However, this legislation is not ready for prime time.
I urge my colleagues to oppose it and come back with a procedure that
will permit the Shays-Meehan alternative.
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has been a courageous hero in the fight for
campaign finance reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1606, the
Online Freedom of Information Act. This controversial bill purports to
protect the freedom of speech of Internet bloggers but instead creates
a major Internet loophole for soft money in our Federal campaign
finance laws. These are exactly the soft money expenditures the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1992, BCRA, sought to prohibit.
Internet advertising should be no exception and ought to conform to
the same rules as those governing other media. H.R. 1606 is the wrong
way to address the issue of bloggers and will only lead to new
corrupting soft money scandals and campaigns. The Internet has
increasingly and rightly been used as a powerful political tool in
recent elections, but it is negligent that we would permit it to be a
safe haven from our campaign finance laws.
Under H.R. 1606, House members and other federal candidates would be
permitted to control the spending of soft money--provided by
corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals--to buy Internet
advertisements to support their campaigns. State political parties
would also be allowed to spend soft money on Internet advertising to
attack and promote federal candidates. And, these contributions would
never be disclosed in campaign finance records.
If the Congress is really concerned with protecting Internet
bloggers, I urge consideration of legislation introduced yesterday by
my colleagues Representatives Shays and Meehan, which reaffirms that
bloggers communicating on their websites are not covered by campaign
finance laws without allowing Members of Congress and other federal
candidates to use corrupting soft money to support their campaigns.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the
Online Freedom of Speech Act.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in this time when a cloud of scandal hangs over
Washington, when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United
States has been indicted for perjury, making false statements, when a
top White House official is led away in handcuffs, indicted on charges
of making false statements related to an investigation of his dealing
with lobbyists, at a time when a top Republican lobbyist and fundraiser
has been indicted for fraud, when that investigation is the subject of
a Department of Justice investigation, and today over in the other body
there is a hearing going on looking into possible other misdealings, at
a time when the American people have indicated that they are fed up
with scandals, how can this House support a bill that would open up new
avenues for corruption to enter the political process?
The courts have clearly argued that the reason why you can limit
campaign contributions is because of corruption and the appearance of
corruption. Why would we take a step backwards from campaign finance
reform and open up a loophole so big that you could drive a truck
through it?
Finally, I keep hearing Senator Reid's name mentioned here. I want to
assure you of something. If the Senate brings up this bill, they will
get more than 20 minutes a side to discuss it. They will discuss it for
as long as it needs to be discussed. That is what we should have done
here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I spent 8 years of my life as the Michigan Secretary of
State. That was a job where I had a principal responsibility as the
chief elections officer of that State. During that time, we made
constant attempts to increase voter participation and voter turn-out,
particularly among young people. And I believe this bill does that.
Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the right of freedom of speech and
for the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606, the
so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act. The legislation will exempt the
Internet from campaign finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole
for unlimited union dues money, corporate treasury money and large
individual donations to once again corrupt federal elections.
I understand that many web loggers are concerned that somehow
campaign finance law will restrict their speech, and I believe allowing
bloggers the assurance that they will not be so burdened is something
that we can ensure. Unfortunately, H.R. 1606 goes far beyond exempting
bloggers and allows federal candidates and political parties to again
make use of soft money in federal campaigns.
That is why Marty Meehan and I introduced legislation that would
preserve the soft money ban and protect bloggers from unnecessary
regulation. Because H.R. 1606 was considered under suspension of the
rules, though, we were not allowed to offer this alternative approach.
That is why we must defeat this bill.
If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a
large donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1
million in soft money to pay for political advertising all over the
Internet.
This is precisely the type of behavior prevented when Congress passed
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. By all accounts, the law is
working--despite concerns about the law being the death knell of the
parties, the parties were strengthened as they raised more in hard
money in 2004 than they raised in hard and soft money combined in 2002
and greatly expanded their donor base.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606 and oppose the
return of corrupting soft money to our political process.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud
cosponsor of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which is
bipartisan and bicameral legislation offered by my colleagues, Mr.
Hensarling and Mr. Wynn, as well as the Minority Leader of the other
body. That's across the aisle support we don't see often enough these
days.
This bill is designed to protect the free speech rights of Americans
whose only alleged crime is wanting to use the Internet to express
their opinions. These individuals find themselves in jeopardy because
an activist court decided to radically expand the meaning of a law
beyond what Congress intended. The Court decided that the FEC, the
agency in charge of regulating our election laws, was in error when it
decided it did not have the authority to require the regulation of free
speech on the Internet.
As a result of this ruling, all computer users and bloggers now stand
to see their first amendment rights thrown out in the name of
``freedom''. The ruling effectively says that individuals have fewer
free speech rights than giant media corporations that pay people to
offer their opinions. Using this twisted logic, large newspapers and
media companies oppose this bill because they fear the competition
bloggers pose to them. I disagree with the mainstream media elites at
the Washington Post and the New York Times who seem to think that an
unregulated media is dangerous, unless it is them who are being
regulated.
What is disturbing and dangerous to me, and to the constituents I
represent in this House, is the ease with which so many advocate
government regulation of speech.
Mr. Speaker, bloggers don't have to spend millions of dollars on
printing presses, nor do they have to invest in TV or radio broadcast
towers. They are able to share their opinions and ideas free of charge
on the most powerful tool of free speech the world has ever known.
Bloggers are everyday citizens. They are our neighbors, friends, and
coworkers who want to be able to share their ideas without asking
permission from a gatekeeper in the mainstream media and certainly not
from a government official. They are the historical descendants of
Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and other pamphleteers who
contributed enormously to our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I read a children's book called House Mouse Senate Mouse
to school children across my district, to try to help them understand
the government that we will one day to turn over to their care. It
shocks me that
[[Page H9484]]
these schoolchildren have a better understanding of the meaning of the
freedom of speech than some federal judges.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to spread a message of hope, opportunity,
and freedom around the world. I support this legislation so that we
don't lose the ability to have that message shared among the American
people.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1606,
legislation that will exempt blogs, e-mail and other online speech from
campaign finance laws.
When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation
did not identify political speech over the Internet as a target of the
new regulations. The proponents of the law argued its intent was to
restrict money not speech. But in April a federal judge sided with
campaign finance reform zealots and ruled the FEC cannot completely
exempt online speech from the requirements of the Campaign Finance
Reform law.
I'm not here to revisit arguments for or against campaign finance
reform.
I'm here today to call for Congress to recognize the Internet as a
safe harbor for political speech.
Everyday thousands of bloggers register displeasure or support with
Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, even their local elected
officials.
But now, we are on the cusp of a new FEC regulation that could stifle
free expression.
Without Congressional action today, arbitrary restrictions would be
imposed on blogs and other web content deterring participation from the
very segment of our population that we want to encourage to be
politically active.
Thomas Jefferson was right when he said: ``The basis of our
government being the opinion of the people, the very first object
should be to keep that right.''
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will protect, in its infancy, what
could be a powerful medium (or media) for the opinion of the people to
be heard.
The way our Nation communicates today is almost unrecognizable for
those of us that were in Washington, DC during the 1970s.
We have seen the innovation and democratization of the Internet in
just the last decade. This legislation will promote democracy and
shutter those who intend to manage through regulation this amazing
engine of communication and knowledge.
The Internet, through such safe havens of individual expression and
opinion like blogs, has put the power in the hands of the people, where
it truly belongs, precisely where Thomas Jefferson wanted it.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for introducing this important
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1606.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________