[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H3167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               GRASSROOTS LOBBYING AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as part of the Constitutional Caucus, we try 
every week to raise issues that are of concern to us, because dealing 
with the Constitution, observing the Constitution and honoring the 
Constitution is very, very important to us. It is the basis of 
everything that we do here in the Congress and should be the basis of 
every lawmaking body in our country. So tonight I want to talk a little 
bit about the first amendment and a concern that I have about an 
assault that has been made on the first amendment by a previous 
Congress.
  The first amendment clearly states that ``Congress shall make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech.'' Our Founding Fathers understood the 
vital role that free speech played in the health and functioning of our 
democracy. They lived under the restrictions of colonial England, and 
were very intent on creating a new system of government that respected 
the right to speech and political expression.
  One of the strongest proponents of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, 
Patrick Henry, said: ``Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. 
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.''
  Today, as Mr. Henry advised 200 years ago, I look with suspicion at 
some of the legislation that has emerged from this body. I am 
suspicious that we have at times not given adequate attention to the 
``public liberty'' that Patrick Henry so strongly urged us to guard.
  Congress must take great care when attempting to control political 
expression. But, unfortunately, this has not always been the case. In 
the past, Congress has created laws which restrict organizations' 
rights to participate in the electoral process.
  The First Amendment Restoration Act, H.R. 71, would restore America's 
first amendment rights by repealing the ``electioneering 
communication'' provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 
2002, known as BCRA.
  This provision stifles the speech rights of corporations, nonprofits 
and labor unions. They are prohibited from sponsoring no-PAC funded 
radio and TV advertisements that include any references to Federal 
candidates during the 30 days before primary elections and 60 days 
before general elections. This is a severe infringement on these 
organizations' constitutional rights to free speech. It communicates to 
them that they have no right to voice their views during elections.
  It is a clear violation of the first amendment to restrict the speech 
of organizations and limit what people can say about a candidate and 
when they may say it. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, upheld the 
constitutionality of these restrictions on groups in the days leading 
up to an election. But the Supreme Court has erred in the past.
  This bill offers a much-needed correction to the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act. The 30/60 day BCRA provision was an attack on the primary 
purpose of the first amendment's free speech clause, which is the 
protection of political speech. This bill fully restores those rights 
which were hampered by BCRA.
  We must be vigilant and heed the words of America's founders. They 
knew firsthand the democracy-choking effect of restrictions placed on 
political speech. But the minute we begin to craft laws that hamper 
expression, we demonstrate we have forgotten the priceless lessons of 
liberty that have been fought for by the patriots who have gone before 
us.
  I urge my colleagues to support the First Amendment Restoration Act, 
H.R. 71.

                          ____________________