Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, just a block away from this Capitol stands the Supreme Court. Like many other courthouses across this country, it bears the image of the Goddess of Justice. Many of you know the statue. She holds a set of scales symbolizing the fairness and equality of law. She wears a blindfold symbolizing impartiality. Unfortunately, this bill does not represent either of those issues.

Like so many other bills this House Democratic leadership has forced onto the floor, this bill suffers the same taint. The provisions in this bill are a result of backroom negotiations and special deals to exempt some powerful interest groups at the expense of smaller ones.

But the unfortunate thing about this bill today is rather than respecting the First Amendment promise to protect the speech of all Americans, it attempts to use the First Amendment as a partisan sledgehammer to silence certain speakers in favor of others, especially unions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill bans corporations with government contracts over $10 million from political speech. The sponsor says that is because those contractors might try to influence decisions by government officials. But this bill does nothing for the labor unions who are parties to collective bargaining agreements with the government. Even though unions have huge amounts of money at stake and every incentive to influence decisions about the contracts by government officials, it does nothing.

We offered an amendment to uphold fairness and equality, but that was rejected in committee.

A second example, Mr. Chairman, is we all agree that foreign citizens shouldn't influence our elections, whether they are foreign citizens that are part of the foreign corporation, or foreign citizens that are part of a union with interests in the United States.

This bill requires CEOs to certify, under penalty of perjury, that their companies are not foreign nationals, under the newly expanded standard of the bill. But the bill does nothing to ensure that when labor unions are spending money on elections, that money did not come from people who are themselves prohibited from spending money to influence American elections.

Again, we offered an amendment to treat corporations and unions equally under the bill by requiring the same certification of labor union chiefs, but again, it was rejected.

Mr. Chairman, a third example: I point to the centerpiece provision of this bill, the so-called disclosure requirement. The bill requires organizations to disclose information about the individuals who gave more than $600. But the Federal Election Committee asked everybody else to do it at $200.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. As one of the majority members of our committee asked, Where did that number come from? Well, it is just high enough to make sure that unions will not have to report any of their dues, because as you see, the average for a union is $377 in 2004, so it treats them different than we treat every other American and every other campaign. So while candidates and political parties have to itemize contributions from donors above $200, we have a different rule in this bill, a rule apparently designed for the convenience of unions.

Again, we offered an amendment to make this disclosure requirement the same as how all Federal laws have long required disclosure of donors to candidates and political parties, but again, it was rejected.

Rather than spending time today listening to Americans and addressing the number one priority in this country, helping to create jobs and grow our economy, again and again I watch this Congress mired in its own partisan priorities. I listened to the gentleman from Maryland. He happens also to be the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Mr. McCARTHY of California. As I listened, I remembered last week as we sat on this floor thinking this bill would come together, but the backroom deal was not done. As I started the speech, thinking of the Goddess of Justice, and I go through this bill, the blindfold is taken off and the thumb is put on the scale to weigh to one side. This does not honor the First Amendment. This does not honor the fairness of what this building represents.

I ask for a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Source