John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to have the time. Did the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to address a question?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, we believe as Republicans that we ought to leave the First Amendment alone.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am perfectly aware that there are no spending limits in the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, there are terrible constitutional problems with this bill. How can the gentleman say that? This bill is filled with problems. Does the gentleman really believe for a minute that this bill is constitutional?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not. It is a disaster. It gave birth to the cancer we face today that you cite as the reason for your reform; your side gave us all of this monstrosity.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. That is correct. No limits.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) a question, if he would consent to answer it. The gentleman indicated in his debate that we spend too much money on campaigns. I just wondered, I want to ask him what does he mean? What is too much money? Too much money compared to what? What amount of money is appropriate?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can I get a simple answer to the question? How much is too much money? Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, how much is too much money? I keep hearing this assertion made out here, we spend too much money on campaigns. How much should we spend?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Shays-Meehan substitute and support the Thomas amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in the context of the debate in the House, the phrase ``campaign finance reform'' is really synonymous, it is a code word for the government regulation of political speech. I would just like to pose this question: If regulation works so well, then why are we in such a mess after 25 years of regulation? It was the liberal Democrats that rammed this through in 1974 with the cooperation of a Republican President. This is when we received the limits on what individuals could contribute. This is what gave birth to PACs. This is what gave birth to the terms soft money, hard money, issue advocacy, independent expenditure. All of these, it is like opening Pandora's box. It started maybe in 1971 but got infinitely worse in 1974. Pretty much, that is how we have continued through the present. This has produced the morass of complex, disastrous laws that we have right now where loopholes were closed in 1971, and more were closed in 1974. Guess what. For every loophole that was closed, a new one opened up over here on the other side. We cannot enact comprehensive campaign finance reform; i.e., complete government regulation of political speech. Why? Because we have a Constitution. The Constitution, as long as it exists, provides certain ``loopholes,'' namely, certain freedoms that American citizens will have. So the more we attempt additional regulation, the more unintended consequences we will have over here; and the morass we have now will be made even worse. That is why I believe the answer is deregulation. The largest State in the Union, California, is free of the heavy- handed regulation in the present law as well as the way that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) wish to make it. The Commonwealth of Virginia has the same type of a law. Anybody can contribute, just disclose it. Just let the voters know who is giving to whom. Then let them make the decision. That is what the founders intended. That is why I said I do not know what could be more clear than this. But leave it to Congress to foul this up in the First Amendment. It says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' What could be more crystal clear than that? The Shays-Meehan bill is a bill about how to abridge the freedom of speech. Other bills we will take up, including the Hutchinson-Allen bill, are about how to abridge the freedom of speech in ways they think they can somehow get around the Constitution. Well, it has been pointed out and I believe, the Shays-Meehan bill is an incumbent protection bill. If I wanted to do one thing to help me the most as a candidate incumbent, I would vote for Shays-Meehan. It will guarantee that I will be in office as long as I wish to. Why? Because we have certain inherent advantages as incumbents that challengers do not have. The bill violates, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the tenth amendment, because it federalizes State election law. It violates the first amendment by abridging the freedom of speech. This bill is unconstitutional for those reasons. It is undesirable. Even if it somehow were constitutional, it is undesirable. It limits political discourse. What we need is the free interchange of ideas in elections. I find the biggest complaint my constituents have is they want more information. They are hungry for information. And bills like Shays- Meehan are going to cut off that information and they are going to turn over the power to the government czar. And we can trust the government, right? This bill is also unworkable. Let us suppose for a minute somehow it met the constitutional test; somehow we could, in the remotest way, consider it desirable as opposed to undesirable. It is unworkable. For 25 years we have had their disastrous approach to campaigns. It has utterly failed. And the more they regulate, the worse it gets. And instead of stepping back and figuring out maybe we have got the wrong approach here, maybe regulation is not the answer, no, we have a plethora of bills that want to add to the problem. More regulations, more restrictions, more heavy hand of government. Freedom works, Mr. Chairman. And this is a very key debate in this House, and we will take this up. Freedom works. We all know what the founders meant when they said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I urge my colleagues to oppose Shays-Meehan and to support concepts of freedom that have made us the greatest and the freest country in the history of the world.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying there may be provisions in this bill that could be deemed unconstitutional?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our House Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that each side has remaining.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and point out there are other amendments.