Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am asking for unanimous consent.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope that in order to expedite things here, we would be able to come to an agreement on limiting debate, but at this point, that we could roll votes until tomorrow on any amendments that we take up, and I would ask that we amend the gentleman's unanimous consent request so that votes will be rolled until tomorrow.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 30 seconds.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready for a vote on this. Maybe we could move and get a vote.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, the language in here that is the appropriate language is ``expressly unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to the external events, such as proximity to an election.'' So this is not something that is a reasonable person's standard at all. In fact this is ``expressly, unmistakable, unambiguous.''

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I objected.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would continue to yield, people have a right to privacy. However, when people spend their money to influence elections in this country, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the public does have a right to know who is spending money and how much they are spending and where it is coming from to influence elections. Under this amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) basically, it says, any communication, any commentary on the voting record positions or anything else would be okay. That is a different right to privacy.

Mr. MEEHAN. Certainly there may be some other people that want to speak on amendments, but I just wanted to get a clear understanding of what the schedule was so that Members could make their plans.

Mr. MEEHAN. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has brought up an interesting point. These ads, that are supposedly issue ads, let us talk turkey here and do one of the ads. I have it right here. Now, this is an ad we cannot find out where the money came from, but it was spent by a tax exempt organization founded on June 20th, 1996 called Citizens For a Republic Education Fund. Here is the ad. ``Senate candidate Winston Bryant's budget as Attorney General increased by 71 percent. Bryant has taken taxpayer funded junkets to the Virgin Islands, Alaska and Arizona. And spent $100,000 on new furniture. Unfortunately, as the State's top law enforcement official, he's never opposed the parole of any convicted criminal, even rapists and murderers. And almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners have been sent back to prison for crimes committed while they were out on parole. Winston Bryant: government waste, political junkets, soft on crime. Call Winston Bryant and tell him to give the money back.'' Now, if somebody wants to run an ad like that, that is fine, but the American public has a right to know who funded that ad. The American public has a right to know what money is behind that kind of a negative ad. And that is what we are talking about here. The gentleman's amendment would gut our ability to have the public know who has funded that ad. Voters in any district, in any State, anywhere in America have an absolute unequivocal right to know who funded that particular ad, as well the first amendment guarantees a right to run that ad. That is a negative ad that can be run anywhere in America. But the public deserves to know who funded an ad like that. And that is what this debate, by the way, is all about. The question is does the public have a right to know when somebody blatantly uses a negative political ad in a race and spends $300,000. The public has a right to know.

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will yield, I did not see it on television, but I read the transcript of it and it was a television ad and about $300,000 worth.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the next amendment will be the Gillmor amendment, at which time a vote would be expected sometime just after 1 o'clock. Then we would go to other amendments, but there would not be a vote after the Gillmor amendment, that would be sometime after 1 o'clock. That is my understanding, and I think it would be helpful to Members to get what the schedule is.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the merging of their substitute with the Shays-Meehan bill. In putting together a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, it is a very difficult task and we look to get proper compromises on both sides of the aisle. The fact is that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) have a good proposal. It is a proposal that stems out from the meeting in Claremont, New Hampshire, 3 years ago, where the Speaker and the President shook hands and greed to establish a commission, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in a race to the floor of the House to introduce a bill. And I support that effort. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on the Republican side for all of their efforts. The merging of the supporters of a commission with the supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill means that we are now at that critical majority where we have a majority of the Members of this House finally ready, willing, and able to pass real campaign finance reform. That would not be possible without compromises being made, like people like the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) all who have excellent proposals who are merging and coming together with the Shays-Meehan substitute so that we can forge a majority in this House. If we look at the votes that have been held thus far, it is very encouraging to those who have been fighting for reform. The vote on the commission bill with Members voting present or against it so it will not provide an impediment to passing the Shays-Meehan bill and the most recent votes that would have gutted the Shays-Meehan bill was resoundly defeated. What we see here is a critical mass of Members from both sides of the aisle, from all parts of the country, who have joined together to reach compromise to pass real campaign finance reform. I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who are forging this very important critical majority. I look forward to getting through these amendments as soon as we can. Because the evidence is clear and overwhelming that we have a majority of the Members of this House who are prepared to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.

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

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

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would further yield, it is not so much the problem of the disclaimer on the bottom of the advertisement. The problem is that nobody knows where this money came from. The problem is we have an ad that is clearly meant to influence an election; and when we run ads that are clearly meant to influence an election, the public has a right to know where the money came from. That is what the issue is.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. So the gentleman did not favor the reforms after Watergate either?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. MEEHAN. So the gentleman is aware that there are not constitutional problems in this bill?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that there are no spending limits in this bill?