by John Rich
JohnRRich@compuserve.com

February 15, 2002

As you may have heard, the House of Representatives approved the Campaign Finance Reform Act yesterday.

One of the features of this bill is that it prohibits private advocacy organizations from publishing advertisements for or against candidates, and prohibits them from making voting recommendations to their membership, within 60 days of an election. 

This is a clear violation of the constitutional right to free speech.

Despite this, here is how our Representatives voted on this free speech issue, as shown in the Congressional Record:

• Pickering amendment No. 27, that sought to exempt non-candidate communications pertaining to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Rejected by a recorded vote of 209 ayes to 219 noes. 

• Sam Johnson of Texas amendment No. 28, that sought to exempt non-candidate communications pertaining to Veterans, Military Personnel, or Seniors. Rejected by a recorded vote of 200 ayes to 228 noes.

• Combest amendment No. 30, that sought to exempt non-candidate communications pertaining to workers, farmers, families, and individuals. Rejected by a recorded vote of 191 ayes to 237 noes. 

• Watts of Oklahoma amendment No. 31, that sought to exempt non-candidate communications pertaining to civil rights and issues affecting minorities Rejected by a recorded vote of 185 ayes to 237 noes.

• Hyde amendment No. 32, that sought to clarify that nothing may be construed to abridge the freedoms found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the freedom of speech or of the press. Rejected by recorded vote of 188 ayes to 237 noes.

That demonstrates how little Congress cares about our right to free speech, when advocacy organizations might use it to say things about them that would hurt their chances of re-election.

But just look at how their view changes when it comes to something that helps keep them in office:

• Wamp amendment No. 12, that increases the contribution limits for House candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. Agreed to by a recorded vote of 218 ayes to 211 noes.

• Armey amendment No. 13, that sought to ban all soft money activities of parties and candidates. Rejected by a recorded vote of 179 ayes to 249 noes.

• Emerson amendment No. 33, that sought to ban soft money expenditures by a State, district, or local committee of a political party for Federal election activity. Rejected by a recorded vote of 185 ayes to 244 noes.

• Wicker amendment No. 34, that sought to ban political contributions in Federal elections by all individuals not citizens or nationals of the United States. Rejected by a recorded vote of 160 ayes to 268 noes.

• Reynolds amendment No. 29, that sought to require that any soft money funds unexpended on this date be returned on a pro rata basis to the contributors. Rejected by a recorded vote of 190 ayes to 238 noes.

• Ney amendment No. 26, that sought to place restrictions on the soft money of national political parties, modify contribution limits, and disclose information on targeted mass communications. Rejected by a recorded vote of 181 ayes to 248 noes.

So, in summary, they don't want the organizations you've joined to be able to keep you informed about the candidate positions on interests which affect your life. And at the same time, they do nothing to restrict their ability to raise funds from foreigners, or anyone else. 

Your Congress at work. The foxes are in charge of the hen house. And we are the chickens.

The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. Tell your Senators to reject the prohibitions on free speech!

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/r107/r107d13fe2.html