John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) or the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or someone from the side of the proponents of Shays-Meehan to explain to me why, in their opinion, the 1994 Christian Coalition voters guide is approved under Shays-Meehan. They say that so clearly, but it is quite clear to me that there is nothing clear about Shays-Meehan. I would like to have them specifically address themselves, instead of making the assertion and moving on, if they would please specifically address that illustration down there, which let us have it brought up in front of the House here, and explain to me why they think that that is protected. If I were satisfied that that were protected by Shays-Meehan, I probably would not offer this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that basically protects voter guides to be distributed by groups. The Shays-Meehan bill severely chills the freedom of speech in this regard and places restrictions that will subject anybody currently distributing voter guides to second-guessing by a Federal czar, and the imposition of sanctions should the second-guessing be interpreted as a violation of the provisions of the Shays-Meehan law. For this reason I have offered this amendment to make clear that organizations that do voter guides are exempt from the application of this law and may continue to issue their voter guides without fear of chilling their freedom of speech or of being intimidated. And the intimidation that I am talking about is the intimidation of having to spend $400,000 or $500,000 in attorneys' fees and months of disruption of schedules preparing for depositions, et cetera, for the act of exercising their right of free speech protected by our United States constitution, and which I feel the Shays-Meehan bill impinges upon. For that reason I have offered this amendment. I have, Mr. Chairman, an illustration of a voter guide. If I may, I am going to switch positions here to bring that up and illustrate it. This is an illustration of a 1994 Christian Coalition voter guide for the Iowa Congressional district, district number 4, the district of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). This is distributed, as I am sure Members know, typically in churches. The Christian Coalition describes itself as a pro-family organization. This includes different positions on issues, from Federal income taxes, the balanced budget amendment, taxpayer funding of abortion, parental notification for abortions by minors, voluntary prayer in public schools, homosexuals in the military, promoting homosexuality to schoolchildren. Now, the Shays-Meehan language that my amendment seeks to replace says that an organization can only do voter guides in an educational manner, and in a way that no reasonable person could conclude that that group is advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Well, it is quite clear from the context of this voter guide, it is distributed in churches, and the Christian Coalition describes itself in a statement down here, as a pro-family citizen action organization, quote-unquote. So when we take those words in context, then, when they rank somebody as having a position on homosexuality in the schools or on abortion, that ranking could be interpreted by the Federal czar as advocating the defeat of a candidate and, therefore, as being proscribed. My amendment just protects this voter guide. And I have heard several supporters, or I understand several supporters of Shays-Meehan have indicated in their opinion that this type of thing could continue to be distributed. I am just saying that based on the reading of the law as being proposed by Shays-Meehan and their supporters, it would not be allowed. That is why I am offering my amendment, to make clear that this can be allowed, so that organizations who do voter guides can characterize the positions of the candidates. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is going to bring up here another one from the NAACP, and that has zeros and heroes, I believe is the characterization. I think that ought to be able to continue to be allowed. It would be proscribed under Shays-Meehan. And for that reason, I think it needs to be amended in the way that I have proposed in order to allow the unfettered discussion to occur near election time by organizations exercising their first amendment rights to comment on candidates and on elections. And that basically, Mr. Chairman, is the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my colleagues a rare opportunity to be able to do what is right. To stand up for the freedom of those who are forced to pay union dues against their will to keep their jobs, and at the same time to vote for legislation supported by nearly 80% of the American people. Congress created compulsory unionism with its power-grabbling National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act. Coercive unionism has a crippling effect on our nation's competitiveness, preventing hard-working Americans from being as productive as they know how to be, destroying businesses and the jobs they provide, or sending those good jobs overseas. Now, Congress can fix its mistake and free working Americans from this forced dues tyranny. H.R. 59, the National Right to Work Act, would end the forced payment of union dues or fees. Joining a labor union is a right and will remain so. But not joining a union should be a right as well. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 59 and I urge the leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just got a copy of the bill. Give me the line again.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am trying to get a copy of the language to respond. I am looking at what our language strikes, and it does not say anything about coordination.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is that while I support the coordination language that we talked about, I want to make the point that this amendment does not deal with it. All this amendment deals with is basically allowing communication with regard to voting records to require terms of express advocacy.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my amendment is pretty clear, I think. What the gentleman was describing was exactly what Bill Clinton and Al Gore did in this last election. Now, Shays-Meehan wants to make that illegal. I do not want to make that illegal, although I will render it unnecessary because we will wipe away this monstrous regulation in present law that the big government, is that okay to say, or the pro-government reformers gave us 25 years ago, and instead we will just remove the limits and then the contributor can give to the candidate. That is the natural flow of money. We will not have to have these diversions and circumventions, soft money, issue advocacy, et cetera. It can just go right to the candidate. I do not outlaw any of that, because we have a first amendment which protects speech.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I think feel similarly about the trend of our elections. We draw different conclusions as to what is the cause of this. But in response to the question ``where is the bill that addresses this?'' I would submit my bill addresses this, H.R. 965. Because I would submit it is the severe limits on hard-money contributions, which are contributions by contributors directed to candidates, that are driving this problem. The Constitution allows, under the various court rulings, which I think are generally correct, people to contribute and express their point of view. It limits contributions right now to candidates. But they can still, under the Constitution, comment on issues. As my colleagues heard me quote from Buckley the line between issues and candidates, it is hard to distinguish. That is why the Court in order to preserve free speech, said that, in order to fall under the scope of regulation, they have to have words of express advocacy which are clearly related to the election or defeat of the candidate. What I think this bill is going to do is actually go against the result my colleague seeks to achieve and I frankly seek to achieve, which is that more of our money in campaigns should be centered from the candidate, not from groups out on the periphery that are getting as close to the line as they can without crossing it and influencing the election.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I guess we are not going to be able to clear this up because I do not really have the same text that the gentleman does. This is going to continue and we will address the issue upon continuation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Only to say, right up until now and even now, it is clear we do not have to look at what the purpose or the intent is. Unless the words themselves are express and advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, then it is not subject to regulation. The man in Furgatch said, I think it is Harvey Furgatch ran this ad and said, do not let them do this, meaning defeat them. I think they were talking about Jimmy Carter. It is quite clear. We should not seek to blur the line.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, what does the gentleman understand the term in the Shays-Meehan to mean in an educational manner?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Furgatch is an express advocacy case and is perfectly consistent with our beliefs in the Buckley case. Furgatch, as I understand the case, the court named, I do not know, seven or eight words in the Buckley case, and Furgatch, the facts of the case amounted to essentially the same thing. That is all it says. But it is express advocacy. It does not advocate blurring the line between express advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate versus everything else.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer this amendment which is short and to the point. I believe I will just read it, because it makes the point. It is entitled the Nonapplication to Publications on Voting Records: The term ``express advocacy'' shall not apply with respect to any communication which provides information or commentary on the voting record of, or positions on issues taken by, any individual holding Federal office or any candidate for election for Federal office, unless the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for or against any identified candidate or political party. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this language is to preserve the Buckley opinion, which of course is going to stand whether or not we enact Shays-Meehan. But it is to make sure that we do not place citizens in jeopardy for exercising their God-given right to free speech protected in the U.S. Constitution. The Buckley case, which is so demeaned by our left-wing reformers, is quite clear on this. And it was a case that was a very strong case by judges, most of whom supported it. We have heard Buckley defamed time and time again. I want to quote a couple of things from Buckley and my colleagues will see why it has remained the constitutional foundation for so many years. In the words of Buckley, The Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA, their regulation: . . . apply only to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for public office . . . this construction would restrict the application of FECA regulations to communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot for,'' ``Smith for Congress,'' ``vote against,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject.'' Now, here are the so-called magic words that are demeaned by our left-wing reformers. But the reason we have such words is further explained by the Court itself. ``. . . the distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not only do candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate issues of public interest.'' And then we come to this, and this really is the philosophical underpinning of the First Amendment. It explains how that applies to these disastrous attempts such as Shays-Meehan to abridge our freedom of speech. And it goes on to say: Whether words intended and designed to fall short of invitation would miss that mark is a question both of intent and effect. No speaker, in such circumstances, safely could assume that anything he might say upon the general subject would not be understood by some as an invitation. In short, the supposedly clear-cut distinction between discussion, laudation, general advocacy, and solicitation puts the speaker in these circumstances wholly at the mercy of the varied understanding of his hearers and consequently of whatever inference may be drawn as to his intent and meaning. Such a distinction offers no security for free discussion. In these conditions it blankets with uncertainty whatever may be said. It compels the speaker to hedge and trim. This is why we have all said on our side that Shays-Meehan is patently unconstitutional on its face, because its regulation compels the speaker to hedge and trim. Now, in Shays-Meehan, they claim they allow voter guides, but their regulation compels the speaker to hedge and trim. Why? Because there is a requirement that it be done in an ``educational manner.'' Clearly, it is intended to require only a flat recitation of facts and to bar commentary or advocacy on an event or issue. But certainly the scorecards and voter guides put out by issue groups and labor unions do reflect a point of view. They do contain commentary. And under the First Amendment, they have every right to do so.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, also the requirement in Shays-Meehan is that the publication must contain, ``no words that in context have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates.'' See, this is the inference they are talking about here where whatever inference may be drawn as to its intent and meaning. All of a sudden a Federal bureaucratic czar is going to determine whether or not what citizens have said in their voter guide fell within the law or outside the law. It chills the speech. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to just think of this. Any organization that wants to distribute a voter guide, such as the Christian Coalition, such as National Right to Life, such as, I think the Abortion Rights Action League does them, any organization is now going to have to have in the back of its mind, and in its bank account, a half-million dollars, knowing that they will then be prepared to withstand a prosecution by the Federal bureaucratic czar who may determine that through the inference and so forth of the words, that the words fell within the scope of the Shays-Meehan law and, therefore, can be punished. Now, the First Amendment of course would never allow this. But as we all know, when we have statutes that infringe on the Constitution, the only way to deal with that problem is to go through the extremely time- consuming and costly litigation process. So this puts every issue advocacy group in the country in jeopardy. They will all have to raise more money in order to fight the half-million dollar legal battle. I think that is wrong. By the way, a voter guide, here is one from the Christian Coalition, this is what a lot of the incumbents who are not casting votes consistent with the wishes of the Christian Coalition get very upset by. This is very influential and it is definitely determined to influence the outcome of elections, which the Constitution says they have the right to do. But it takes a Member's vote, they have votes probably of 20 different things or so, and it lists the voting records of everybody around the country. But it is an advocacy thing. It does have a point of view, because it says, ``How did your congressmen and senators vote on issues critical to the family?'' And on the backside it says, ``Christian Coalition, giving pro-family Americans a voice in their government again.'' Well, I think would it not be safe to infer that if Members are casting antifamily votes as related by the Christian Coalition, that they would think that Member should be defeated rather than elected? I do not think it is a large jump in logic to understand that that would be the intent. When we get into the language of Shays-Meehan, they then are violating what can be done because this is not neutral. They now have words and context that can add no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates. Under Shays-Meehan, they are not just doing a flat recitation of facts such as they intend by the words ``educational manner.'' Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we need this amendment and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then support my amendment and then it will make it unambiguous. The problem with the Shays-Meehan language is it is ambiguous because we have the phrase ``in an educational manner''.