[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Page H4578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I take these 5 
minutes to speak on a subject that is of utmost importance but that 
does not regularly get discussed here on the floor, which is the First 
Amendment to the Constitution, that part of it which deals with freedom 
of speech--that is, with freedom of political speech.
  Now, obviously, the First Amendment of the Constitution does not 
merely protect political speech, but in the decision by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, known as Citizens United vs. Federal Election 
Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the First Amendment has its 
fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign 
for political office.
  In other words, they said, if you look at the essence of the First 
Amendment protection, it goes, first and foremost, to political speech. 
They had this in laying the premise for the decision that they came to 
because the Supreme Court realized that the First Amendment's 
protection for political speech had been under assault by various 
pieces of legislation passed by this body, not that it was done for 
evil purposes or intentionally to undercut the Constitution of the 
United States; rather, it was done in a good-faith effort to try and 
deal with political campaigns and with the position of money in 
political campaigns.
  The Supreme Court decided back in the 1970s, in Buckley vs. Valeo, 
that money is speech, meaning that the money you have you can use as 
you see fit to further your speech. You can print pamphlets; you can 
buy a megaphone; you can buy a radio ad; you can buy a television ad; 
you can hire somebody to represent your interest to appear in an ad for 
you. In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that, in the way that 
we communicate, oftentimes, it takes the use of money to further that 
communication.
  So they made a decision at that point in time that, by terms of the 
First Amendment, you could not stop one from using one's money to 
express one's point of view. Then they went to the point of asking, But 
how does that apply when you are giving money to a candidate?
  In those instances, the Court said that the government might be able 
to put some restrictions on speech--that is the use of money--but only 
if it is for the purpose of avoiding the corruption of the process. 
That is the only basis upon which the government can put some 
limitations, or parameters, around political speech.
  In the Citizens United case, they had to decide: As people 
individually and as associated with others--and the First Amendment 
talks about freedom of association--what are they allowed to do, 
permitted to do, protected under the First Amendment, when they expend 
funds to express a point of view during a period of time that is close 
to an election?
  That is why the Court said that First Amendment freedoms are at their 
height when the speaker is addressing matters of public policy, 
politics and governance and has its fullest and most urgent application 
to speech uttered during a campaign for political office, because that 
is the point in time when you might have the most influence on your 
fellow citizens.
  Now, what does this have to do with what we are doing here on the 
floor?
  Well, there is a bill that has been introduced, called the DISCLOSE 
Act--Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in 
Elections Act. We are led to believe by the majority that all this does 
is promote disclosure. Yet, in fact, what it does under its very terms 
is chill political speech, so much so that the National Rifle 
Association came out with a large complaint about the bill, saying that 
it would have an undue burden on its operations in expressing itself 
and would intimidate membership. Now, some people scoffed at it and 
said, Well, it's the National Rifle Association talking again.
  But what happened?
  We have found that the majority listening to the National Rifle 
Association has created a specific exemption for that group and for 
others similarly situated, but not for others. That is the crux of the 
question: Do we have a situation in which now we say not only too big 
to fail but, for some, too big to file?
  It is an affront to the First Amendment, and my hope is that we will 
not bring this bill to the floor, because, of all things, we should be 
most protective of the speech of our fellow citizens when they engage 
in political debate.

                          ____________________