and let people make the choice and report what they're doing it's ludicrous to tie the hands of parties and sit here and pretend that's ok and then we have these unaccountable five twenty seven which will result in you said that the democrats were the ones who got way out on this but now you have said that mr delay was out in front of the early on i think mr de lay educated what you could do with the law load him and you've got you've got a slew of big voices were not heard as occurs the parties do voter registration you just made it much harder by having to use hard dollars every time is a federal election which is every other election it is so nice to have you in california with the with  the let me lay before the committee the bill h r five thirteen open to an amendment and i do offer an amendment nature of a substitute and for the record i have a statement christopher shays on the substitute amendment have you you'll have that statement thirteen the five point seven reform act which will require five twenty seven organizations to live by the same rules as other political committees work to influence federal elections the substitute clarifies the intent of the original bill while the original bill exempted five twenty seven's engaged exclusively in state elections from the registration requirement denied the exemption to groups that carry out voter drive activities defined as get out the vote voter id voter registration during a federal election year this made the exemption to narrow the sub's to bill insurers in two important ways to the state five twenty seven only work on behalf of nonfederal office holders will not have to become a federal pac where is complete versus completely it completely exempt organizations of state local candidates  officeholders groups such the democratic governors association republican governors association or state legislative caucus will be exempt as long as their voter drive activities only mention state candidates or ballot issues these groups do not qualify for the exemption however if they mention federal candidates in their communications second the bill provides a slightly narrow exemption for state tax their active only state elections and i'll get a copy and it's in the subject to i'm told by yes i'm told by mr shays i think question just a couple of comments i think although an attempt to narrow the effect of the bill apparently it does not cure the constitutional defect that i  earlier i just would like to note i mean clearly each of us are sent here by our district to represent them and america is a very diverse place and we have different points of view and that's one of the great things about america  i want to ask my colleague from california mr du level you know he and i don't agree on a lot of things but i do respect his integrity and his point of view and i know he opposed because he thought it was an impermissible intrusion really into first amendment rights and that would be consistent against i mean at least that would be a principled position i might not completely agree with as to the bigger part but consistent and so i would hope that consistency might be applied for those who oppose as a an unconstitutional intrusion into free speech that that same principle would be applied on this measure as well and i think it moves forward on a partisan basis that's unfortunate i guess the only good news is that ultimately there is an arbiter of the constitution that will sort it out and i thank the general and for will you correct because it's my understanding in this five thirteen bill that it gives an unfair advantage to corporations and trade associations by allowing them to continue spending on limited and on disclose amounts of my county in new york state politics out of this and just allow it to be oversight of the federal or mr brady as chairman of the philadelphia committee the city of philadelphia the state of pennsylvania out of it would correspond to the complaint you would have on the five twenty seven action of federal money or federal money or involved in federal campaigns would be to call up the i r s when they got around to a complaint review whether the tax exempt of the and the city of philadelphia in the state of new york in the county of area which would be exempt from this oversight as long as they weren't there the authors as i understand it also when they wrote the bill made it clear that our old fashioned politicking of the still restricted from engaging in state and local elections and those cards because we're on board the law and so given that irrespective of the exemption that comes from this bill could be wrong but i think the gentleman was commenting on a point that i made earlier and it's not all to clarify because the five twenty seven  are engaging in protected first amendment activity they are not subject to regulation however because you can according to the court constitutionally regulate federal candidates to avoid corruption the point i was making is that if you cannot tie federal candidates to the five twenty seven activities if you do that is regulated it can be regulated prohibited and so be referring to the u s attorney is the federal candidates who are doing the legal time i have not heard actually there's been a lot of talk about the various ad campaigns i haven't really heard that there was such illegal spying by five federal candidates you know i didn't like make i really wish we would allow an accord this body to deliberate more on this issue as opposed to rushing legislation to the floor as we're doing  we hardly had time to review the selection we have hardly had time to review some of the elements of what you are now putting forth this legislation and my think it's a good thing to do i don't control when these things go to the floor i will say i was a bit amazed today it's one of the only legislative bodies in the world where i offer about knowledge we're trying to kill the bill that does amaze me but i think they have the ability to with everybody on the all the principles of the house and the senate they did our will and soft money as we know it and i believe even not agreeing with them philosophically that they have stepped up to the plate because we all politicians and political parties were going to be corrupt and were being corrupted by all the money that was flowing in there and yet now we have five point seven with all the money unregulated and there is a presumption that they are not corrupt and i thought it was interesting that you had move on dot org who said it's our party we own it we bought it and we're taking it back i don't know what anybody would think about that but to me it sounds like something that sort of corrupt in my mind and i think we again need to move toward full disclosure