[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 29, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. VIRGINIA FOXX

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 24, 2010

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5175) to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit 
     foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit 
     government contractors from making expenditures with respect 
     to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure 
     requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and 
     for other purposes:

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, in January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens 
United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations and unions 
alike have the right under the First Amendment to speak out in 
political races. What that decision overturned was the portion of 
current law that allows political speech to be banned based on the 
speaker's corporate identity. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban is 
unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment right to free speech 
and I share this sentiment.
  The Constitution clearly states ``Congress shall make no law, 
abridging the freedom of speech.'' Upholding the Constitution and our 
freedoms does not in any way degrade our democratic process. The First 
Amendment has long been applied not only to isolated individuals but 
also to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety 
of purposes ranging from political to commercial.
  Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a republic 
and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. 
If the government can ban expenditures related to political speech, it 
could easily apply that to any communication. In the argument before 
the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart even 
asserted that under current law the government has the authority to 
``prohibit the publication'' of books and movies by corporations 
containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for 
public office. That statement is chilling.
  During the drafting of H.R. 5175, the so-called ``DISCLOSE'' Act, 
Democrats dismissed Republican requests to collaborate and wrote the 
bill behind closed doors. Due to lack of support for this 
unconstitutional bill, they were forced to pull it from consideration 
on at least two occasions. After weeks of opposition to this very bad 
bill which was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens 
Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union, the Democrats 
were able to craft language acceptable to the NRA which then lifted its 
opposition because it became exempt from the bill. That action alone 
violates what the Supreme Court said which is that all groups must be 
treated the same.
  The DISCLOSE Act's effort to limit political speech is not even-
handed, those favored by the Democrats are excluded from the 
requirements, and it encourages partisan advantages. But the bill is 
more than inequitable treatment; it is an outright attack on free 
speech and the First Amendment. It is government censorship and I 
oppose H.R. 5175.

                          ____________________