Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act

* Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, in January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations and unions alike have the right under the First Amendment to speak out in political races. What that decision overturned was the portion of current law that allows political speech to be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment right to free speech and I share this sentiment.

* The Constitution clearly states ``Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech.'' Upholding the Constitution and our freedoms does not in any way degrade our democratic process. The First Amendment has long been applied not only to isolated individuals but also to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety of purposes ranging from political to commercial.

* Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a republic and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. If the government can ban expenditures related to political speech, it could easily apply that to any communication. In the argument before the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart even asserted that under current law the government has the authority to ``prohibit the publication'' of books and movies by corporations containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. That statement is chilling.

* During the drafting of H.R. 5175, the so-called ``DISCLOSE'' Act, Democrats dismissed Republican requests to collaborate and wrote the bill behind closed doors. Due to lack of support for this unconstitutional bill, they were forced to pull it from consideration on at least two occasions. After weeks of opposition to this very bad bill which was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union, the Democrats were able to craft language acceptable to the NRA which then lifted its opposition because it became exempt from the bill. That action alone violates what the Supreme Court said which is that all groups must be treated the same.

* The DISCLOSE Act's effort to limit political speech is not even-handed, those favored by the Democrats are excluded from the requirements, and it encourages partisan advantages. But the bill is more than inequitable treatment; it is an outright attack on free speech and the First Amendment. It is government censorship and I oppose H.R. 5175.

Source