House Will Again Debate
Bills To
Restrict Free Speech About Politicians
WASHINGTON (May 7) - - Within the next few weeks, the House of Representatives will conduct a wide-open floor debate over what restrictions should be placed on your right to free speech about politicians - - the issue referred to in the press as "campaign finance reform" legislation.
The House could begin the debate as early as the week of May 18, or the floor fight might not begin until after Memorial Day. Either way, a vote on final passage of so-called campaign reform legislation, as amended by the House, will not occur until sometime in June.
It had seemed, for a time, that Congress might be finished with the issue for this year. The McCain-Feingold bill has been stopped twice in the Senate, most recently in February. (See March 11 NRL News, page 24.) In addition, on March 30, the House rejected an omnibus "reform" bill that was opposed by both supporters and foes of free speech about politicians. (See "74 House Members Vote for Bill to Place Some Restrictions on Free Speech About Politicians," April 14 NRL News, page 9.)
However, the House Republican leadership was forced to agree to revisit the issue when a small faction of Republicans joined all but a few House Democrats in signing (or threatening to sign) a "discharge petition" on the issue. (See "194 House Members Sign Petition to Advance Bills That Would Restrict Free Speech About Politicians," April 14 NRL News, page 7.) If promoters of the discharge petition had succeeded in getting a majority of House members (218) to sign the petition, it would have placed the entire process into the hands of advocates of the most extreme speech restrictions, such as Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.) and Rep. Scotty Baesler (D-Ky.).
To prevent this, in late April the House Republican leadership reluctantly promised to bring up the so-called "bipartisan freshman bill" (HR 2183), sponsored by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R- Ark.), under an "open rule" that will allow many types of amendments. It is expected that the Shays-Meehan bill (HR 493, HR 3526), the House counterpart to the McCain-Feingold bill, will be offered as a "substitute amendment."
Both bills are opposed by a coalition of citizen groups, including NRLC, the Christian Coalition, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In the House, opposition to the bills is being led by Republican Whip Tom DeLay (Tx.).
NRLC Opposes Hutchinson
NRLC opposes the Hutchinson "freshman" bill (HR 2183) for three reasons:
It requires citizen groups to report to Congress when they sponsor broadcast ads to the public that mention the name of a member of Congress, at any time of any year, if the sponsoring group spends more than $100,000 per year on such communications in the entire country, or $25,000 on communications that mention a single officeholder or office-seeker.
It prohibits members of Congress from endorsing the fundraising or membership recruitment efforts of any group that mentions the name of any member of Congress or other "candidate" in any communication to the public.
It infringes on the right of national political party committees to educate the public about candidates' positions on issues, by banning these committees from raising the so-called " soft money" usually used to pay for such ads. This is an attempt to shoot holes in the First Amendment umbrella that also protects the right of NRLC, NRLC affiliates, and other citizen groups to communicate with the public about politicians' positions, without government-imposed rationing or other restrictions.
Shays-Meehan Bill Worse
Objectionable as the Hutchinson bill is, the rival Shays-Meehan bill goes substantially further in restricting free speech about politicians. The Shays-Meehan bill is supported by Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and other special-interest groups that seek to limit free speech about politicians.
The current version of Shays-Meehan (HR 3526) - - based on the September 1997 version of the McCain-Feingold bill - - contains multiple provisions that would greatly restrict the right of citizen groups, such as NRLC or NRLC affiliates, to communicate with the public about politicians' positions or voting records. This is a form of free speech known as "issue advocacy."
For example, one provision restricts certain communications to the public (such as an ad about partial-birth abortion) that are deemed to be "of value" to a "candidate" - - even if no candidate is named. Another provision would permit publication of congressional voting records only if they conform to an elaborate series of "speech specifications," including the requirement that the voting records be presented "in an educational manner" (i.e., no interpretative commentary allowed!). Contrary to many press reports, these restrictions operate year-round, not "merely" in the months prior to elections.
In addition, for 60 days before any primary or general election, the bill would flatly prohibit citizen groups (other than federal PACs) from sponsoring any TV or radio communication that even mentions the name of a "candidate" (including any incumbent lawmaker).
Both the Hutchinson "freshman" bill and the Shays-Meehan bill may be modified further before they are actually voted on. (The final versions must be published in the Congressional Record, but not until two days before the floor debate.) There is no doubt, however, that the final versions will contain attacks on the First Amendment rights of NRLC and NRLC affiliates, and indeed of all citizen groups. Congressman Chris Shays (R-Ct.), the prime sponsor of the Shays-Meehan bill, recently said that his minimal goal is to restrict "issue advocacy" and ban "soft money."
If the House passes one of these bills, it will allow advocates of speech restrictions - - including the news media - - to pressure the Senate to re-open the issue.