[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 103 (Monday, June 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S8352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUPREME COURT RULING

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 6 years ago I took to this floor to 
express the view that any campaign finance law must be written within 
the boundaries of the first amendment. It states:

       Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the 
     right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition 
     the Government for a redress of grievances.

  This very amendment adorns the facade of the yet-to-open Newseum a 
few blocks from here on Pennsylvania Avenue--a building constructed, 
both philosophically and physically, upon the cornerstone of our first 
amendment rights.
  Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the U.S. Congress went too 
far 5 years ago in legislating restrictions on First Amendment rights. 
In its ruling this morning in Wisconsin Right to Life vs. FEC, the 
Court righted that wrong.
  It took an important first step toward restoring the rights of 
organizations to petition the government and members of Congress.
  The court rejected an intent-and-effect test for advertisements and 
instead went with a susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation 
than an appeal to vote for or against a candidate.
  However, and most importantly, in a debatable case the tie is 
resolved in favor of protecting speech.
  As the Chief Justice noted in his decision for the majority:

       Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to 
     the speaker, not the censor:

  It is fitting that this opinion should come down as we approach the 
Fourth of July recess, when we return home to celebrate those freedoms 
for which our forefathers fought and died.
  What better tribute to their efforts than the affirmation of our 
right--not just ability--but right of freedom to speech and the right 
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  This afternoon, we will witness our new colleague from Wyoming be 
sworn, reminding us of the oath we all took upon election to this body 
to, ``Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States of America.''
  Chief Justice Roberts summed up this case and, in fact, the entire 
campaign finance debate so well that I would like to close with his 
words. He wrote:

       These cases are about political speech. The importance of 
     the cases to speech and debate on public policy issues is 
     reflected in the number of diverse organizations that have 
     joined in supporting Wisconsin Right to Life before this 
     Court: the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle 
     Association, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations, the Chamber of Commerce of the 
     United States of America, Focus on the Family, the Coalition 
     of Public Charities, the Cato Institute, and many others.

  In his closing paragraph, the Chief Justice reminded us what lies at 
the heart of this issue. After quoting the language of the first 
amendment, he wrote:

       The Framers' actual words put these cases in proper 
     perspective. Our jurisprudence over the past 216 years has 
     rejected an absolutist interpretation of those words, but 
     when it comes to drawing difficult lines in the area of pure 
     political speech--between what is protected and what the 
     Government can ban--it is worth recalling the language we are 
     applying: when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as 
     the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such 
     a ban--the issue we do have to decide-we give the benefit of 
     the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment's 
     command that ``Congress shall make no law .  .  . abridging 
     the freedom of speech'' demands at least that.

  It is a good day for the first amendment.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________