[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6051-S6052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               H.R. 4617

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, later today, I 
understand the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 4617. This is 
the latest installment in Speaker Pelosi's campaign to expand 
government's control over America's political speech.
  It is a transparent attack on the First Amendment that has united an

[[Page S6052]]

unlikely band of opponents across the political spectrum. Everybody 
from hardcore conservatives to the ACLU is speaking out against this 
effort to erode Americans' constitutional rights.
  The proposal would give the Federal Election Commission unprecedented 
license to track and regulate Americans' political speech on the 
internet and decide what speech qualifies as political in the first 
place.
  If it were not bad enough on principle to fill more Washington, DC, 
filing cabinets with which citizens hold what beliefs, their bill would 
also deputize media companies into this effort. They would force 
publications to keep excessive records for any advertisement they 
accept not only for political campaigns but on any issue of national 
importance.

  When this regulatory burden has been tried on a smaller scale, it has 
frightened media platforms into rejecting political ads altogether. It 
is a textbook example of policy designed to reduce the amount of free 
speech in our country. Press organizations such as the Washington Post 
and the Baltimore Sun have already sued over similar regulations on 
First Amendment grounds and won in court.
  House Democrats want to violate the First Amendment and harm 
journalists in order to give more control to the FEC. That would be the 
same FEC that Democrats have recently tried to shift from a bipartisan 
body to a partisan body for the first time in its history.
  A different part of the House bill refers to ``legitimate 
journalistic activities.'' I look forward to hearing what Orwellian 
commission or process House Democrats may have in mind for determining 
whether Washington, DC, deems a particular journalist legitimate.
  These are just a few examples. Even the ACLU--widely viewed as a 
left-leaning organization that is not known for siding with 
Republicans--is publicly opposing the Democrats' bill. Here is what the 
ACLU said:

       ``The SHIELD Act . . . strikes the wrong balance, sweeping 
     too broadly and encompassing more speech than necessary. . . 
     . The SHIELD Act goes too far . . . to the detriment of the 
     public and the First Amendment.''

  That is the ACLU.
  Congress has real business to attend to. House Democrats need to stop 
blocking the USMCA. Senate Democrats need to stop blocking defense 
funding. Yet, rather than working on these issues, we instead see 
Democrats continue to fixate--fixate--on chipping away at the First 
Amendment. It is a pet project they return to time and again. It is 
disturbing, especially in light of recent blatant attempts to 
intimidate Americans into silence.
  Just a few months ago, a sitting House Democrat earned national 
criticism when he publicly tweeted out a list of his own constituents 
in San Antonio, TX, who had donated to President Trump's campaign. He 
listed these private citizens' names along with their employers or 
businesses. In this era of political harassment and online mobs, the 
implication was clear as day.
  From Twitter posts to partisan messaging bills, House Democrats' 
mission is the same: Chill the exercise of free speech. Send a message 
to Americans with inconvenient views that speaking up is more trouble 
than it is worth.
  This proposal will not do anything to stop maligned foreign actors--
something that every Member of this body cares deeply about. As three 
former FEC Chairmen recently pointed out, foreign adversaries like 
Russia are not going to stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC 
fine. Let me say that again. Adversaries like Russia are not going to 
stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC fine.
  ``Campaign-finance law isn't the tool to prevent foreign meddling. . 
. . Adversaries won't be scared off by civil penalties. . . . This is a 
job for diplomatic, national security, and counterintelligence 
agencies. [This legislation] is a needless sacrifice to First Amendment 
rights, not a serious effort to secure elections.''
  That is three former Chairmen of the Federal Election Commission. I 
certainly agree. It was focusing on defense and counterintelligence, 
not attacking the First Amendment, that made the 2018 elections go more 
smoothly than the 2016 elections. That is why the hundreds of millions 
of dollars Congress has set aside for State grants have made a big 
difference. That needs to remain our focus as we continue our efforts 
to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016.
  House Democrats have achieved something remarkable here. They have 
drafted legislation that is so anti-First Amendment that it has united 
everybody from former FEC Commissioners, to the ACLU, to yours truly in 
opposition.
  I am sorry that Speaker Pelosi deems go-nowhere messaging bills a 
better use of the House's time than the USMCA and the 176,000 new 
American jobs that experts tell us it would create. The American people 
deserve a House of Representatives that works with the Senate and the 
President to actually make law and make progress for the families we 
represent.

                          ____________________