527 Reform Act of 2005
527 REFORM ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 05, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 513, the so-called 527 Reform Act of 2005 and the restriction that they are placing on the first amendment rights of Americans. 527s are named after a section of the Internal Revenue Code that specifies certain political organizations as tax exempt for tax exempt purposes under the Federal law.
Added to the Tax Code in 1975, 527 organizations have been legally recognized as operating entities for over 30 years. The Federal Election Commission has recently implemented additional regulations of these groups, which are subject to rigorous Federal reporting and disclosure requirements. Anyone with a computer can go online and see that millionaire Bob Perry gave $4.5 million to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans.
How do I know this? 527 organizations regularly submit detailed financial information to the IRS. They have to disclose where they get their money and how they get it. In fact, just last week, a Federal court remanded part of a case back to the FEC to present a more reasoned explanation for its decision that 527 organizations are more effectively regulated through case-by-case adjudication rather than general law.
I believe that FEC should be given a chance to review this matter before further legislation is introduced in this House. The Senate is providing leadership in this area. They set out to do what they wanted to do and that was lobby reform, unlike this House, which is just bringing up this type of legislation to circumvent their lobbying reform bill that they do not have, and downplaying groups that had more voters than ever before in history outside demonstrating their democracy and getting the vote out. This is what the BCRA bill was all about.
I voted for BCRA because it would sever the connection between Members of Congress in raising non-Federal funds, so-called soft money, and to ensure that there were limits on what we did in terms of money. BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corruption link between Members of Congress, the formation and adoption of Federal policy and soft money.
However, BCRA was not passed to impede legitimate voter registration and Get Out the Vote by those 527 community groups which did just that, but this bill impedes that democratic process. It impedes the 527 organizations.
This bill is not needed, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting listening to the majority speak in favor of campaign finance reform after they did everything possible to stonewall the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Also interesting is watching the Republicans avoid any discussion about the activities of 501(c)6s and those organizations that have no disclosure requirements, and yet are running television ads designed to directly reelect a Senator from Pennsylvania. Unfair and impartial regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put in the RECORD a statement by the National Review magazine, which is a conservative magazine, and the National Review states, One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would level the playing field ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false. Wealthy individuals will still be free to say whatever they want and whenever they want. This proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues and speak and criticize Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I will include this statement in the RECORD as follows:
Advocates of this bill have yet to identify the problem they hope to correct with this misguided proposal. 527s wield no corruptive influence over parties or candidates, which is the only constitutional justification for restricting free expression.
One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would ``level the playing field,'' ending the ability of the wealthy to fund ``propaganda.'' This is completely false. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they want whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues.
America needs the First Amendment and the ability of individual citizens to form groups precisely for speech that is controversial. To suppress views of those we dislike will inevitably risk suppression of our own.
We who oppose such a proposal want to continue to freely debate our ideas in the public arena. We want Americans to hear all sides--and to decide for themselves who's right.
When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to ``support this Constitution.'' We ask you to faithfully uphold that oath by rejecting H.R. 513, S. 1053, and any other bill that restricts political free speech.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Thomas A. Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; Matt Kibbe, CEO and President, Freedom Works; James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech; Bradley A. Smith, Professor of Law, Capital University Law School, and former Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Fred Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Speaker, unfairly regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech. I believe this legislation will have a negative impact on the voter participation bill silencing segments of the population that we need to hear from. Of particular concern is that the fundamental rights and the needs of all Americans including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor not be left out of the political dialogue just because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527s.
In fact, thousands of Americans gave to 527s through small donations of $25, $50 and the like because they believe, Mr. Speaker, in the message of 527 organizations.
Through the first amendment, Americans are playing an ever increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions, through the debate of public policy, and the shaping of this American democracy. Their voices should not be silenced.
In fact, I would like to put in the RECORD again the statement by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher when she stated upon the plea agreement of Mr. Rudy of his crimes involving illegal favors and lobbying activities which lasted from 1997 to 2004, and she says, ``The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open court today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate.''
The American public, Mr. Speaker, will not tolerate what is about to happen here with this elimination of 527 organizations, transferring them into 501(c)s, not allowing them to work independently of Members of Congress and having to deal with any congressional campaign committees.
In fact, this bill sharply curtails the ability of individuals and groups to associate in the pursuit of political and policy goals, and I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unjust shade of Federal policy holders, which are us, the Members of Congress, this bill will allow the public to not criticize or even ask for accountability because they want to outlaw those groups who engage in the type of public speech, the public speech that might criticize us or ask for accountability.
This is what they are trying to muffle. They are trying to muffle the voices of the American people who spoke through 527s. They are independent groups. The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people.
I will vote in opposition of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, this is not what we voted for. We did not vote to transfer 527s to 501(c)s. That is dishonesty. I oppose those who say this is an obscene bill, 527s are not obscene.
What they are trying to do now here with this bill would provide each national and State party committee to be free from any limits in spending on behalf of its candidates and the spending would take place at any time for the primary or general elections.
This is the flow of money that the American people are saying take out of campaigns.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the 527s have been and must always file with the Internal Revenue Service. They have to do quarterly reports. Unlike what has been said, that they do not have disclosure and they do not have reporting, that is not true, and I include for the RECORD the IRS filing dates so that can be placed in the RECORD.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 513, will have a chilling effect on tax exempt 501(c) organizations. Despite a provision exempting nonprofit charities and social service organizations, this bill, H.R. 513, regulates the same activities that such entities are permitted to engage in.
Should this bill become law, a precedent may be set that all nonprofit activities should be heavily regulated leading to significant new restrictions on 501(c)3s. H.R. 513 thus may represent a trend with chilling implications for the nonprofit sector.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD a statement from the CATO Institute, a conservative think tank.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, the CATO Institute writes that limiting the speech of independent speakers is unwise and unconstitutional. In fact, forcing PACs on citizens is a matter for courts and not Congress. To constitutionally regulate campaign finance, the government must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real, not just mere speculation or conjecture. Proposals to subject section 527 organizations to political committee status with scant regard to their activities effectively imposes an any-purpose test in brazen disregard for the major purpose test of the Supreme Court established under Buckley v. Valeo.
Mr. Speaker, conservative groups are saying this is not good policy, that this policy is shutting down those groups that were independent, free of Congress, free of the Members of Congress, and this bill influences the outcome of elections and in fact money will be flowing all over the place as it is doing right now. Money will be flowing all over the place as we are speaking today.
This is a bad bill. The American people do not want more money into these campaigns. They want less money. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/