U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–306 2004

FEDERAL ELECTIONS IN A POSTBCRA ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

Ranking Minority Member 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PAUL VINOVICH, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHEVLIN, Minority Staff Director 

(1) 

FEDERAL ELECTIONS IN A POST-BCRA 

ENVIRONMENT 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Mica, Doolittle, Larson, 

Millender-McDonald, and Brady. 

Staff present: Fred Hay, General Counsel; Matt Petersen, Counsel; Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas, Professional Staff 

Member; Jennifer Hing, Assistant Clerk; George Shevlin, Minority 

Staff Director; Charles Howell, Minority Chief Counsel; Thomas 

Hicks, Minority Professional Staff; and Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to examine the proliferation of 

527 groups, so called because of the section of the Tax Code under 

which they register as 527 organizations. Established in the wake 

of last year’s passage of BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act or Campaign Finance Reform, media reports suggest that such 

527 groups are amassing and spending large amounts of soft 

money to influence Federal elections; and there have been many, 

many media reports on this subject. 

I want to thank the witnesses who accepted our invitation to be 

here today voluntarily, the three witnesses that are here. 

I would note for the record that a total of nine witnesses were 

invited today. Only three have accepted that invitation. However, 

of the nine who were invited, three are associated with Republican 

organizations, while six are associated with Democrat organizations. All of these witnesses were invited by the majority party in 

this committee. To the best of my knowledge, the minority did not 

invite any witnesses, though I would point out for the record they 

always have the opportunity to do so. 

The three witnesses who are here today represent Republican organizations. Representatives of the Democrat organizations have 

regrettably—and I do stress regrettably—have chosen not to appear, have chosen to thumb their nose at the Committee on House 

Administration. 

I appreciate the appearance of those who did accept our invitation. However, I don’t intend to take testimony from only one side 

2 

of the political spectrum here today. That wouldn’t be fair, and it 

wouldn’t tell the entire whole story. 

So I want to thank the three of you for coming and apologize on 

behalf of those who did not see fit to attend, apologize on behalf 

of those who saw fit to thumb their nose at the United States Congress, the U.S. House. I would like to note that they apparently 

don’t feel comfortable talking, and I would assume that is why they 

are not here today. 

Accordingly, with my apologies, I would like to excuse Mr. 

Terwilliger, Mr. Donatelli, and Ms. Hirschmann. I will be working 

to secure the appearance of those witnesses who choose not attend 

today. Once we have done that, we will have another hearing; and 

I hope the three of you will agree to come back. Would you be willing to come back at some other time? 

I want to thank you, and you are excused. 

Momentarily we will commence a special meeting of the committee where all members will have a chance to be heard on the 

subject of this investigation. 

Having completed our business for this hearing, the committee is 

hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the committee proceeded with a business meeting.] 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement—opening statement; and I object to adjourning the committee at this time. And 

I want to make sure that everyone got a copy of the questions of 

the day that have been circulated as well. Have all of you out there 

received a copy of the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson, you are out of order. 

Mr. LARSON. This hearing is out of order. That is what is out of 

order. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have been amused at quotes at me. I guess 

you are not amused at your own quotes. But you are out of order. 

We are reconvening. We have adjourned. The committee is now in 

order for the purpose of a special meeting, and you will have your 

chance at statements. 

The committee is now in order for the purpose of a special meeting to discuss the committee’s investigation of 527 organizations. I 

have a statement I wish to make and then will recognize the Ranking Member and any other members of the committee that would 

like to be heard. 

Last year, Congress passed BCRA and the President signed it 

into law. Supporters of this legislation claimed that it was necessary to purge the Federal campaign finance system of the allegedly corrupting influence of soft money, the unlimited and largely 

unregulated contributions from labor unions, corporations, and 

wealthy individuals. 

According to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the passage 

of BCRA was necessary; and the statement was made by others, 

because of the corrosive and corrupting effect of special interests, 

big money, and the political process is indeed a danger to our 

participatory democracy. And that is a quote. 

To further emphasize this point, Leader Pelosi likened the Nation’s capital to a swamp of special interest money that was in dire 

need of being drained. 

3 

I did not support the passage of BCRA, and I waged an unsuccessful battle to defeat it. I joined with my friend Al Wynn of Maryland in offering an alternative. Regrettably, it was not adopted, 

and 198 Democrats in the House voted for the Shays-Meehan legislation, with only 12 Democrats voting no. The Shays-Meehan, of 

course, took along Republican votes. 

I opposed BCRA because I believed its provisions infringe upon 

the freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment of our Federal Constitution. Furthermore, I feared BCRA would hurt our 

democratic system by weakening the two major political parties 

and any other political party that would like to blossom upon the 

scene and participate in the energetic give and take of public debate. So I felt at that time it would weaken the political parties 

and would give more power, as I stated many times, to unaccountable idealogical-driven groups. 

As I pointed out repeatedly during the debate of campaign finance reform, it did not ban soft money. Repeatedly I was told it 

banned soft money, and I repeatedly restated it doesn’t ban soft 

money. Today proves it doesn’t ban soft money, despite incessant 

claims by its supporters to the contrary. Rather, it merely shifted 

to new organizations. 

Today’s hearing was convened simply to look at those organizations, not to look at what zip codes they were looking at or their 

internal political situation as they have written in what I consider 

an insulting letter to this committee. 

As I said, BCRA prohibits the national political parties from raising or spending soft money. Nevertheless, under the new law, 527 

groups may continue to receive and consume soft money to finance 

their political activities. 

The use of soft money by 527 groups in relation to Federal elections is subject to a number of restrictions. 

First of all, a 527 group may not be established, financed, or controlled by a Federal officeholder or a political party committee or 

be affiliated with them in any way. In addition, a 527 group may 

not coordinate its activities, its message, its expenditures with Federal officeholders, or political party committees. Finally, Federal officeholders and political party committees are prohibited from soliciting soft money on behalf of 527 groups. 

I think if we had Mr. Shays, Mr. Meehan, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold here today and I asked them, is this the intent of the 

law, is this what you supported and those who supported BCRA, 

their answer would undoubtedly have to be yes. 

As critics of BCRA predicted, including myself, a multiplying 

number of 527 groups are currently being set up to vacuum up the 

soft money that was once contributed to the political parties better 

than any Hoover ever made in this country in doing that. However, 

one cannot help but be taken aback by the larger amounts of 

money being raised by these groups and the wide range of their activities. These reports are particularly startling in the case of 

groups put together to benefit Democrat candidates, given that 

they wanted to ban soft money from our system, get it out of our 

system, get rid of this evil soft money, and voted overwhelmingly 

just last year for a bill that claimed to do that and was portrayed 

as doing just that. 

4 

Recent proliferation of media reports indicate that wealthy individuals are funneling millions of dollars in soft money into 527 

groups for the purpose of supporting or defeating particular candidates. More than ever, organizations whose purpose is to function 

as shadow political party committees have been formed with the 

apparent blessing of Federal officeholders and party officials to collect soft money to be spent in support of the parties’ candidates and 

the parties’ agenda. Because of these recent developments and because of the major changes in the political landscape caused by 

campaign finance reform, the committee believes that it is necessary to examine more closely the continuing use of soft money in 

our Federal system; and that is again why we are simply here 

today. 

The purpose of today’s hearing, was twofold: One, to provide an 

opportunity for representatives from 527 groups, whether they are 

leaning Democrat, Republican, independent, or anywhere else, to 

explain their activities and to learn more about their role in the political process; number two, to gain a greater understanding about 

the extent to which the campaign finance laws have reallocated political power and resources in the United States of America. We 

will not be able to do that today due to the refusal and the thumbing of their nose at the Committee on House Administration by the 

Democratic representatives who refuse to appear here today. 

On Tuesday, the committee received a letter from five of these 

representatives explaining their reasons for refusing to appear. It 

was signed by Cecile Richards, President of America Votes; Ellen 

Malcolm, President of America Coming Together; Steve Rosenthal, 

President of the Partnership for America’s Families; Howard 

Wolfson, founder of the New House Pact; and Mark Farinella, Executive Director of the Democratic Senate Majority Fund. 

All of them have long histories in Democrat politics. For example, Mr. Wolfson is the former Executive Director of the Democratic 

Congressional Campaign Committee and the Press Secretary to 

former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Mrs. Richards is 

the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Leader Pelosi. 

I will enter the letter sent by these representatives into the 

record, but I think it is worthwhile to discuss some of the points 

that letter raises. 

[The information follows:] 

5 

6 

7 

8 

The CHAIRMAN. To begin with, they refuse to appear because 

they do not—and this is a quote—they ‘‘do not believe that the 

committee has a legitimate purpose in undertaking an open-ended 

inquiry into ongoing core first amendment protected activities of 

private political groups.’’ 

First, let me say I am glad to hear that these Democrat organizations acknowledge that core first amendment activities are involved 

here. I made that point repeatedly to no avail during my efforts to 

defeat campaign finance reform. It is ironic to hear this raised as 

an objection now, though, given it is precisely because of the passage of BCRA that committee inquiry into these activities is appropriate and legitimate now more than ever to see if these laws are 

being followed. 

The letter takes issue with my characterization of BCRA as having purported to bar the use of soft money to influence Federal 

elections, claiming this is a misstatement of both the intent and effect of BCRA. 

I think it will certainly come as news to many of us, its congressional supporters, and to the American people that it was not the 

intent or effect of BCRA to get soft money out of Federal elections, 

just as we predicted. 

The letter goes on to flatly state that a number of the organizations they represent will be seeking—this is their quote in the letter to the House Administration—will be seeking to elect Democratic Members in the Congress. How organizations that raise soft 

money could have this as a goal is, without question, a very legitimate subject for inquiry before this committee today. 

Finally, the letter points out the fact that I opposed campaign finance reform and, thus, suggests that my interest in compliance 

with the law is evidence of a political motive. 

Indeed, I do oppose campaign finance reform. I opposed it yesterday, I will oppose it today, I will oppose it tomorrow and every 

other day it remains on the books. That doesn’t change the fact 

that it is the law, whether I like it or I don’t, and it is the law of 

the land. And it was going to take soft money out of that system 

and officeholders can’t raise it. As long as it is the law, it should 

be complied with. I would like to see this law repealed, frankly. 

However, until it is, I will see that it is complied with; and that 

is the duty of the House Administration Committee and the duty 

of the United States House. 

I don’t intend to sit idly by and watch people subvert a law that 

they said they wholeheartedly supported. Those who claimed to 

support campaign finance reform achieved a political benefit for 

making that claim back home with the voters. Now they seek to 

achieve a political benefit by evading the law they claimed to support. This cannot and will not be permitted. They must be forced 

to sleep in the bed they have made for themselves. If they find it 

uncomfortable, I have little sympathy for them today. 

The sixth invitee, Gerald McEntee, wrote separately to decline 

our invitation and also to inform us he had resigned from Voices 

for Working Families. No other details, frankly, were provided in 

his letter. 

I do note Mr. McEntee is the President of Ask Me, which recently, of course, endorsed Howard Dean. Mr. McEntee was reVerDate May 04 2004 14:38 May 11, 2004 Jkt 092306 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A306.XXX A306
9 

cently quoted in the Washington Post as having said: We will work 

like hell night and day to make Dean our nominee. When I read 

that quote, I wondered how this would leave him any time to do 

anything on behalf of Voices for Working Families. I will be interested to learn how he balanced his schedule prior to this resignation. 

Finally, I note that media reports about the activities of these 

Democratic groups stand in stark contrast, frankly, to the activities 

of the Republican groups. These Democratic groups are far more 

numerous and far more active than anything that exists on the Republican side. You know, in the energetic give and take of public 

debate, it is fine to have groups. It is just that this is not how the 

law was intended for people soliciting for these groups. 

Not surprisingly, seeing these reports, Republicans are starting 

to realize they need to get into the game. Mr. Terwilliger’s group 

was recently formed, frankly, for that purpose. It is worth noting, 

though, that rather than just going ahead and engaging in questionable and highly suspect activities under the law, this group has 

drafted an extensive advisory opinion request seeking guidance 

from the Federal Election Commission on the types of activities in 

which 527 groups can and cannot engage. 

I am not aware of any similar request, unless I stand corrected 

today, that has been made by any of the Democrat groups. Perhaps 

they did not ask because they don’t really want to know the answer. 

In any event, the advisory opinion request details a number of 

activities the groups are seeking to engage in and demonstrates the 

need for guidance in this area. I hope the FEC will pay prompt attention to it. I think it is important. I think it is critical. 

With that, I yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I learned in politics 

a long time ago not to take matters personally but to make sure 

I take serious the responsibilities of my job. 

You know, this committee started off with a great week; and I 

want to commend the Chairman and the staff of this committee for 

the extraordinary work that they did. I said on the floor on Tuesday evening that if it weren’t for their efforts a very sensitive and 

important bill to my colleagues John Lewis and Eleanor Holmes 

Norton would not have made it to the floor and would not have 

been passed. 

Just yesterday we had another hearing here in the committee. 

Again, I commend the Chairman. I commend him for the thoughtful deliberation and establishing the foundation and working even 

when we disagree bipartisanly to bring this forward. The Chairman 

also distinguished himself nationally with the passage of the Help 

America Vote Act. That bill served as a model and the committee 

participation served as a model after a highly contentious election 

in which partisanship could have reigned on the committee. Ranking Member Hoyer and Chairman Ney made sure that it didn’t. 

Only recently we had a forum that we put together for members 

on BCRA, and 527s were never discussed. And what is totally out 

of character for the Chairman, I learned about this concern 

through the press. I understand, nothing personal. I understand 

when there are agendas that have to be carried out. I understand 

10 

what happens when a committee swings from the purposes of having deliberate meetings to carrying out partisan agenda. 

Here is what concerns me. There has been no foundation laid for 

the basis of questioning legal foundations of 527s. They are legal 

entities under the law. They have existed for nearly 30 years, since 

1975. But there is now a sudden interest in this committee to focus 

on and interrogate a few of them, the majority of which are, as the 

Chairman says, Democratic leaning. 

This I believe is undermining the credibility of the committee’s 

oversight and brings into question the motives of the Republicancontrolled House. Activities of 527s were legal before the enactment 

of BCRA, and they remain legal after BCRA. But even though they 

are legal political organizations, their status is being besmirched by 

rumor, innuendo, and suggestion. 

I clearly can understand why the Republican-called witnesses did 

not show. I think the entire letter, which I would also submit for 

the record, fully explains itself and the concern. Many Republicans, 

as the Chairman duly notes, oppose BCRA, claiming it violated 

first amendment rights. Some of those same Members now want to 

suppress the exercise of 527s and their first amendment rights, 

which, again, I would reiterate are both legal under the IRS Code 

and the Federal Elections Campaign Act, both fully accounting for 

their actions as well. 

As my grandfather Nolan used to say, well, I may have been 

born at night, but not last night. This is a partisan inquiry, evidenced by the imbalance of the targets of the invited witnesses. 

This hearing is viewed by many as the hijacking of official government resources to carry out the majority party’s political agenda, 

as recently articulated to the media by National Republican Party 

Chairman Gillespie; and I would like to submit that in those press 

accounts in the record as well. 

[The information follows:] 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Mr. LARSON. No lawsuits or administrative complaints have been 

filed against any of these 527s. Now it would seem to me, with distinguished attorneys and people that are here and especially those 

witnesses that have been called, that if there was any concern of 

illegality that, both with the FEC and the IRS, where these groups 

have to fully disclose something I know Mr. Doolittle has been a 

champion of, this information, that that is the route that they 

would have chose, and yet we find ourselves here in this committee. 

In the event of a 527 violation, the IRS, as everyone knows, 

would deny continued tax-exempt status, which essentially closes 

down the organization. Compared to the exaggerated but in reality 

minimal impact of 527s, the new nonprofits and charities look to 

be a much larger problem, at least according to last week’s press 

accounts. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot sit here and allow to go unaddressed the 

rumor and innuendo which has attempted to paint Democrats attending hard money fund-raisers as somehow engaged in an illegal 

activity. That assertion is both untrue and beneath the dignity of 

any Member of the House of Representatives; And I will submit an 

attached article with respect to that as well. 

[The information follows:] 

15 

16 

17 

Mr. LARSON. Initially, I was at a loss to learn about this hearing, 

but I, like many, have been able to connect the dots with respect 

to what is happening and transpiring here. But evoking my grandfather Nolan again, it is not so much that I mind you dumping the 

buckets of cold water on my head, it is your insistence on telling 

me it is raining; and that is how we feel as a minority caucus. 

If this committee is truly interested in holding constructive oversight hearings on the context of F–27s under BCRA, it astounds me 

that we would not have followed the outstanding model that this 

Chairman created, this model of inquiry during 2001 when he resolved to exercise the committee’s jurisdiction over election matters 

to develop election reform legislation that eventually became the 

Help America Vote Act. 

The Chairman evoked the names of McCain and Feingold and 

Shays and Meehan. I, too, wish that they were here. I don’t understand why they weren’t called, if in fact that is the concern that 

we were trying to address here. 

It is my understanding that during the spring of 2001 the Chairman and then Ranking Member Hoyer held a series of hearings 

that investigated different aspects of this Nation’s election system 

in a thoughtful, systematic, and collaborative manner, all in an effort to learn the truth about what ailed our election system and 

what needed to be done to reform it. These hearings were organized and carried out in the spirit of cooperation. At no point were 

the hearings used to demonize one party or the other or call into 

question the outcome of the controversial 2000 election, although 

they easily could have turned out that way if the members of the 

committee had chosen to do so. Members chose to take the high 

road, and the result was landmark legislation that everyone could 

be proud of. 

To my great disappointment, this model has been tossed aside in 

favor of a hearing that has been hastily organized without any effort by the majority to work with the minority in any collaborative 

manner. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the majority 

is not interested in learning the truth about 527s. Instead, the majority intends this hearing to result in innuendo and suspicions 

about 527s and has guaranteed such an outcome by ignoring all the 

lessons that were applied so well in 2001. 

It is my sincere hope that the committee can get back on track 

and repair the damage of the Republican party’s foray into committee business that this has inflicted. We need to work together 

collaboratively to improve the operation of the House, the laws of 

the land, to conduct the oversight in a manner befitting of the 

House. If the Republican National Committee wants to challenge 

these groups, Chairman Gillespie should pursue his interest in 

court before the FEC or before the IRS and not ask this committee 

to achieve his party’s aims. You have got the votes to inflict those 

ends, but this is a dangerous road we are considering. I make an 

appeal to the better angels of the good people on this committee. 

We owe that to this institution and to the people we are sworn to 

serve. 

[The statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

The CHAIRMAN. Before we move on, we need to address a couple 

of things. The minority could have had the opportunity to call Mr. 

Shays, Mr. Meehan, Senator McCain, and Senator Feingold. The 

minority was given ample opportunity under legal notice for this 

today. The minority has chosen not to ask one single person in either direction to be here today to testify. I want to point that out. 

What my good friend is referring to is the original talk about this 

entire subject and the media reports on it. But ample legal notice 

was given, ample time was given. For whatever reason, the minority has chosen not to call witnesses. 

I will also note for the record I have had zero conversations, directions, phone calls, et cetera, with Mr. Gillespie in any fashion 

or form. 

Also, the Help America Vote Act, the conduct of this committee 

with Mr. Hoyer, with our Ranking Member, and the way the House 

institution functions has zero to do with campaign finance reform. 

Zero. The Help America Vote Act didn’t claim it was going to do 

something in the voting system and then turn around and completely do the opposite. 

The institution of the House also will continue to work daily. We 

are going to continue to work together for what is the best interests 

with security of the Capitol, the way the House functions, and 

Members. This hearing today in no way impedes anything to do 

with the operation of this House. But innuendo and rumors shall 

continue because people refuse to come here and even talk to Congress. We don’t want to know how they function internally. We 

don’t want to know what zip codes they are looking at. We simply 

wanted to talk to them. And I think they could have cleared up a 

lot of innuendo and a lot of rumor. In my opinion, they are now 

perpetuating that as groups. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. Not at this point in time yet. 

Let me read something: Operating on the same floor of a 14th 

Street office building as Wolfson is Mark Farinella, former campaign manager for the late Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri 

and now executive director of the Democratic Senate Majority 

Fund. Quote: In three weeks, can I go to Microsoft and say 

Daschle, Reed, and other Senators are committed to this organization and ask the company for soft money? 

Let me read the that again. Can I go to Microsoft and say 

Daschle, Reed, and other Senators are committed to this organization and ask that company for soft money, said Farinella. Yes, I 

can have a conversation like that. Their presence makes clear that 

they think this is an important organization that will ultimately 

make a difference to help Democrats regain the Senate. 

Democrats will try to regain the House and Senate; Republicans 

will try and regain it. I have absolutely no problem with that. I 

have been in minorities. I have been in majorities. But when a law 

is passed that says it is going to stop the soft money and people 

make statements like this that in fact say, can I go and raise soft 

money on behalf of an officeholder, well, if you give me a quote by 

a Republican, I will be glad to make the same statements I am 

making. 

Yield to Mr. Ehlers. 

37 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Many years ago I joined Common Cause. In fact, I am a charter 

member. I greatly admire John Gardner. I thought he had great 

ideas, was forming an excellent organization; and I have maintained that membership all these years because I believe it is important to have a citizen organization that is looking over our 

shoulder and trying to help us do the right thing. 

In spite of that membership, in spite of Common Cause’s strong 

support for the campaign finance reform bill that was before us, I 

voted against BCRA because I knew it would not accomplish what 

Common Cause wanted to do. It would not accomplish what the authors of the bill wanted to do. It simply wouldn’t do the job because 

there are loopholes in it. 

I voted for almost every alternative campaign finance reform bill 

that was presented to us in amendment form, and I was sorry that 

they did not win. I voted to completely ban soft money in the political process. I think, in agreement with Mr. Doolittle, that all 

money used in campaigns should be openly accounted for; and the 

public, the news media, everyone should have complete and open 

access to every detailed record of anyone who contributes to a campaign. And BCRA did not do that. 

It is true, as the Ranking Member has said, that 527s existed before BCRA. BCRA did not create them. BCRA did not create any 

laws about them, other than to regulate the participation of political leaders, elected leaders in these organizations. 

That is what was new about BCRA. The 527s were still there. 

However, they became the new loophole, the new soft money loophole that everyone turned to once they couldn’t give to political parties. 

I thought it was a big mistake to decimate political parties. 

These are responsible parties. The public can identify them. We 

should have continued to let them remain as the financing organizations for campaigns for their parties. But we should have eliminated the soft money and said everything you do is going to be 

hard money. We did that much, but we left the loopholes. 

Now this hearing has been labeled partisan both inside and outside this chamber. It is not. We have invited both Republicans and 

Democrats. The ones who made it partisan were the Democrats 

who chose not to show. I don’t know why. They should show. They 

are running legal organizations, they should have no reason to stay 

away, and they should be here telling us what their organizations 

do and how they do it. 

Another comment I wanted to make. The Ranking Member referred to these organizations, that they fully disclose to the IRS. 

They disclose to the IRS. They do not fully disclose to the IRS. Now 

they may be following the letter of the law, but, frankly, here is 

another loophole that I think should be closed. It is outside the jurisdiction of this committee to regulate these entities, Mr. Chairman, but the reports that they submit are far removed from the reports that are submitted to the Federal Elections Commission dealing with campaigns and campaign financing. 

I think that if 527s are going to serve as they are beginning to 

serve, as chief political fund-raising organizations for the parties 

and for individuals, they should have the same high reporting 

38 

standards that all of us do when we report to the FEC; and that 

is clearly something that we should change if this pattern of behavior continues, because we want detailed financial reports. Frankly, 

I would like campaign finance limitations placed on contributions. 

I don’t know if we can achieve that, but at least have the reporting 

totally open and above board so that everyone knows exactly who 

is giving, how much they are giving, when they give it, and also 

reporting as to what that money is to be used for, who gets it, 

where is it spent, by whom, and for whom. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think there is ample reason for a hearing. 

I am sorry that it has degenerated into a partisan battle here. It 

shouldn’t. We should just be sitting here doing fact finding, and I 

hope that we do get participation from representative groups of all 

527s who can come here and tell us what they are doing and why 

they are doing it. 

Mr. LARSON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. I would prefer not to yield at this point. I want to 

continue this thought. 

I hope that we—Mr. Chairman, that we will continue this not in 

the nature of a witch-hunt. I am the last one in this Congress who 

wants to be involved in a witch-hunt. First of all, I don’t think 

there are any witches in Congress, to begin with. But—my neighbor says there a couple. We will let him identify them. But my 

point is simply we want to get the facts, find out what is going on. 

Is this something that needs addressing? If it does, let us address 

it. If it doesn’t, fine. We will continue as it has. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you. Good morning to all. 

Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, and my fellow committee 

members, I want to commend our committee as a whole for the cooperative bipartisan spirit in which we have worked together since 

I have been on this committee. I have been impressed to date with 

the spirit of this committee, although there were times when we 

disagreed on different issues. 

Mr. Chairman, just this week we passed H.R. 3491 to create the 

National Museum of African American Art and Culture. Clearly we 

know how to put our political differences aside in favor of the common good and working for the greater good when we choose to do 

so. 

Today, however, I am disturbed that this great spirit of bipartisan cooperation has been cast aside in favor of holding a hearing 

under dubious pretenses. In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, how can 

we summon the leaders of organizations that operate well within 

the law before this committee to probe them about their activities 

and underlying political philosophy? It seems to me that this proceeding is unfair and smacks of partisan maneuvering. 

As a veteran of the civil rights movement, I recall very clearly 

the open-ended inquiries by seven State legislators into the activities of organizations advocating on behalf of equality for African 

Americans and other minorities in the South from the 1950s 

through the 1960s. 

As the committee charged with overseeing the internal workings 

of the House, we cannot conduct a witch-hunt designed to underVerDate May 04 2004 14:38 May 11, 2004 Jkt 092306 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A306.XXX A306
39 

mine the work of legally organized groups working in the public interest. I remember well when concerns were raised by my fellow 

Congressional Black Caucus members when campaign finance reform laws were revised, and I will not be a party to any proceedings that seek to dismantle the operations of any legitimate 

group. I value the work we have done together as a committee, and 

I sincerely hope that we can get beyond the questionable proceedings today and move on. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Ranking Member that the whole 

makeup of those whom you invited was imbalanced, six Democrats, 

three Republicans. 

My dear friend Mr. Ehlers talked about a fact finding. It is concerning to me that, prior to the Congress making changes in Section 527 last year, did this committee look into fact finding of the 

527 when at that time there was a lot of abuse on the side of the 

majority leadership? Did we go through fact finding at that point? 

Mr. Chairman, you are an honorable man, and yet it is so 

uncharacteristic of you to say that those who did not attend today 

were thumbing their noses and did not feel comfortable in talking. 

I disagree with that characterization. It would appear to me, Mr. 

Chairman, that to keep that honorable position you would have 

simply stated your case without characterizing those who did not 

attend. 

I suppose, being the only female on this panel, when you speak 

about Ms. Pelosi’s statement on the floor, given the time of campaign finance reform, I think that is totally unrelated to this hearing today, because what she said then is not what she is doing 

now. So to bring her out among all of the statements that were 

made on the floor seems to me as an affront to the females of this 

House, and I do take exception to that. 

I do hope that we will move again in a bipartisan fashion and 

not be hampered by the maneuverabilities of the political process 

as we move into an election year. It certainly seems to me that 

when the Chairman speaks of Members who have made overtures 

in favors, legislative favors or whatever—recently he quoted about 

Members making and being affiliated with certain groups. I bring 

up the House Members’ allegedly promised legislative favors in exchange for political donations from Kansas-based Westar Energy, 

Incorporated. When they sought exemptions from the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, they were granted until public scrutiny 

had that exemption removed from legislation. 

There are those on both sides of the aisle who we can point fingers to and say that they have been involved with organizations 

rather unscrupulously. But I would say, let us rise above the fray, 

Mr. Chairman. Let us continue to be the bipartisan committee that 

I have come to know, working in the spirit in which I have engaged 

in and appreciated, and hopefully that we can continue on that 

road. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before moving on, I would just note a couple 

comments. One, we are going to be bipartisan. We are going to continue that flavor. Two, on this question of I am imbalanced on the 

invite, I invited everybody, and I invited Republicans. You all could 

40 

have invited as many people as you wanted. You could have invited 

10 Republicans. 

Mr. LARSON. Would the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. I will yield. 

Mr. LARSON. I would have loved to have invited people, especially 

people that, when we gave them the call of the hearing, who were 

looked at and said this question is so open-ended, what is the purpose? What are we driving at here? If you look at what the committee has done before, there is—it was—this was open-ended 

questions in terms of having people come out that—and completely 

legal, independent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Reclaiming my time, because you wanted to respond why you didn’t invite people, but you haven’t done it. You 

didn’t invite people. You had ample opportunity, you had ample 

legal notice, your staff had ample legal notice to invite people. You 

chose—— 

Mr. LARSON. We were at a loss to tell them what it was specifically about, the committee hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Reclaiming my time—reclaiming my time, Mr. 

Larson. I would just note that we were here to discuss, simply discuss these issues. 

Now having this hearing has nothing to do with the Help America Vote Act, security of the Capitol, running the institution, protecting the staff. It has zero to do with it. We will continue to do 

that. It simply has to do with the fact of a lot of statements made, 

of the fact that people weren’t supposed to be out utilizing their 

names for soft money. 

I am going to move on, but—— 

Mr. LARSON. Which totally smacks of a partisan agenda. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson, if you would like time, please ask for 

it. That is uncharacteristic of you. 

I will move on. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. 

You know, I think this committee is one of the most important 

in Congress. Because not only—and particularly on the House side. 

Because we have the responsibility for administration over the 

House of Representatives. But we also have one of the other most 

important charters of any committee, and that is to ensure the integrity of the election process and election reforms that go through 

this committee. 

Now let me say at the outset that I did oppose the McCain-Feingold when it came through Congress. I opposed it not because I 

didn’t want reform. There is no one who has cried out louder for 

election reform than me because I think that is an important 

charge. But I favored—I have looked at all the mouse traps that 

we built to conduct elections, and it is very difficult to catch all the 

rats. The only thing that I have seen that really gives the public 

the right to know what is going on is what Mr. Doolittle proposed, 

and that is full disclosure by everyone who participates in this. 

Now some of you are very well intended on the other side, and 

I think you voted with good intentions to reform this system. But, 

my colleagues, we are facing right now the greatest assault I believe on the integrity of the Federal elections process we have ever 

seen; and what is really at stake is also the credibility of the ConVerDate May 04 2004 14:38 May 11, 2004 Jkt 092306 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A306.XXX A306
41 

gress and our elections process. Right now, we have got Americans 

dying thousands of miles from here, and for what purpose are they 

dying? It is because this country represents a true democratic process where people get to participate, where their vote is counted. 

And now we are seeing what some of you put your faith in, in reform being prostituted, and we are seeing the beginning of it in an 

unprecedented fashion. 

I have been involved in politics. I have brothers who are on the 

Democrat side. One served in Congress. I have never seen an assault on the system like we are seeing here, and what it is going 

to do is destroy people’s faith and belief in this system if we let this 

persist. So this isn’t a partisan issue. 

Mr. LARSON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MICA. No, let me finish. I didn’t interrupt anyone. 

Now it is true we had 527s before, but you have never seen—we 

have never seen an assault like this. Just look at these 527s that 

have been created. The 527s are being turned into a conduit to 

really destroy the election system that we have. You wanted soft 

money banned, and here we see now a filtering of soft money in 

an unprecedented fashion to these organizations. Now it doesn’t 

take Sherlock Holmes to look at these newly created organizations. 

And then the cost of representation. I don’t know who this Cecile 

Richards is, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Mrs. Pelosi. She is 

president of America Votes, created July 15th, 2003. Another new 

organization, America Coming Together. Here is Mr. Soros reported 

giving $10 million to one of these 527s and $20 million to another 

one, Center for American Progress. Look at the cross-representation and service on these new boards. 

Again, new organizations created. Let us just go down a few of 

these: Fair and Balanced Pact, August 26, 2003; Grassroot Democrats, May 22nd, 2003; Voices for Working America, August 8, 

2003; Center for American Progress, 2003, President, John Podesta. Look at again the cross-participation of these individuals. 

So there is a loophole here that you can drive a Mack truck 

through that could destroy the system that, again, people are fighting and dying to preserve the integrity of. There are other electoral 

systems around the world, but ours people look at with some hope 

that the process can be honest, and here we see a subversion. So 

I demand that we subpoena those who haven’t been here. I demand 

that the Internal Revenue Service, I demand that the Federal Elections Committee look at this, and I also demand action by this committee of Congress which has this important charge to take action 

before this is destroyed. 

Finally, if you look at the amounts that they plan to raise, this 

is just the estimates that have been made public so far. You are 

looking at half a billion dollars plus with these new organizations. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time has expired. 

Mr. MICA. That is not right in anyone’s book. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is Mr. Brady’s time. If you would like to yield, 

Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I will yield to my Ranking Member. 

Mr. LARSON. I think the distinguished gentleman from Florida 

has raised—and would the Chair entertain, in the interest, and 

42 

since I share the deep and abiding concerns that the committee has 

about making sure that the integrity of the process be restored, 

that we join with the House Government Reform Committee and 

do a thorough joint investigation of this issue, including such 

things as the Westar example that I believe needs to be examined—because when you talk about integrity and you talk about a 

need for us to look into these things and the influence of money 

on election and corruption, I think all of these things have to be 

pursued. Why would you single out 527s out of all of them? 

I understand the list there, and the Chairman has said before 

that, geez, he doesn’t know why people didn’t come, why people 

didn’t feel comfortable to come to a fishing expedition. Well, certainly as this hearing goes on I can appreciate more deeply why 

they wouldn’t. 

Mr. Brady, thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Larson. 

I just have a problem with what is happening here today. I don’t 

have a problem investigating. I don’t have a problem with questioning anybody about what they are doing or how they are spending money or how they are raising money. My problem is the theater here today. 

I would like to talk about nonpartisan, but I am partisan. I don’t 

like to talk about anybody’s name that is not in the same party 

that I am in when they are not here. You can go on and on, and 

there is a lot of documentation here about Members of the other 

party that are doing the same thing. But if we are trying to get 

to the bottom where we are trying to get some explanations, we are 

not doing it in the right way. 

I thank the Chairman for adjourning this hearing because I 

knew this hearing was a farce and a sham, and I thank you for 

not having this theater today. And it is a theater. We knew and 

you had letters that said that these people are not going to show 

up, and yet there is an empty chair, there is a nameplate in front 

of them, there is press here. They can see it all; and that bothers 

me, because I thought that we were in a nonpartisan situation or 

a nonpartisan committee. 

But I am kind of glad that we are in a partisan committee, because that is when I feel like I can do best. I don’t mind fighting 

an opposition, I don’t mind fighting an enemy, I don’t mind fighting 

someone who is coming at me straight up. I can understand that 

and get behind the wolves’ clothing and sheep’s clothing and go 

head to head. 

But my problem is simple. We had an election in the City of 

Philadelphia. These 527s entered into it. I have had labor unions 

in the City of Philadelphia that were against my candidate, that 

were for the Republican candidate, and all we did was beat them. 

We didn’t complain, we didn’t cry, we didn’t find out why or how 

they got their money. We just went out and did our job and won 

an election, just like you have to win an election, like I have to win 

an election. 

But my problem again—and I thank Mr. McEntee for not being 

here today, for recognizing the farce that this committee was. It 

just looks to me again that this committee is an attack on the men 

and working people in the United States of America and the unions 

43 

they represent. They have a right to allow money to be taken out 

of their hourly pay to go toward their political committees and have 

their leader decide who they think is best to serve them. 

So I just think that, you know, if we are going to be partisan or 

nonpartisan, let us be what we are going to be. But let us be it 

amongst ourselves in the committee and not have such a farce out 

here; and, again, I thank Mr. McEntee for not having me to explain 

to him why I would have gotten up and walked out before this 

hearing was over. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. BRADY. Certainly. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Mica, you stated that it has become such an abusive environment that we are living in. Did you 

not see that before the campaign finance reform, the reason that 

came to be? Did you not see that in the 527s, the reason Congress 

altered the 527s last year? Did this not come before that committee 

then because of the abuse that we were seeing in that environment? 

When you speak of chiefs of staff, please let us not ignore the 

chiefs of staff who have gone from this House on the majority side 

to form committees outside as well as former Members of Congress. 

Let us be fair, people. When you are going to talk about something, 

let us talk about it from both sides, not from one side. 

Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. And, again, I thank the Chairman for not 

having this farce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate the comments. 

Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, is this a great country or what? 

I mean, your grandfather was a wise man, Mr. Larson. I agree 

with that. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This cold water you are pouring on my head with 

this abomination of the McCain-Feingold, and we are supposed to 

believe we have gotten rid of the influence of soft money and everything, you know, that is the rain that you are asking me to believe. 

I mean, look, I know right now it is the Democrats, because you 

have perfected this better than we have. But what is funny about 

this is, I guarantee you, if this is legal, we are going to be doing 

this, too. I mean, that is just, you know, whatever the rules of the 

game are. So I mean you are not doing anything that we are not 

going to do if this is legal. I just find it amazing, though—you 

know, this is a great quote; and I am not picking on you, Mr. 

Larson, because I think it typifies sort of the rhetoric that was 

used. But in 1999 and in the Congressional Record you have got 

a quote: Campaign finance reforms would reduce the impact of obscure, faceless groups and their money on our elections. We need 

to bring campaigns back to the basics so that big money influences 

are put in check and unregulated soft money is taken out of politics. 

Then this article from the Washington Post that our Chairman 

quoted from, which is May 7th, 2003, there is a lot of great stuff 

in here. But, you know, the explanation of how it works: These 

44 

groups have hard money fund-raisers. And you get the Democrat 

leaders showing up. And then, after that, then the key operatives 

go and solicit Microsoft, which was, you know, the specific example 

in here, and make clear—— 

Well, let me just quote from the article: In 3 weeks, can I go to 

Microsoft and say Daschle, Reed, and other Senators are to committed to this organization and ask the company for soft money, 

said Farinella. Yes, I can have a conversation like that. Their presence makes clear that they think this is an important organization 

that will ultimately make a difference to help Democrats regain the 

Senate. 

I mean, is this a great country or what? That is just amazing, 

isn’t it? So much for the diminution and influence of special interest groups and soft money and all of this. What is sad to me, 

though, is we are going to do this, too. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We have to. These are the rules. You know. And 

what I find offensive—and this is not a partisan statement, because I think we all ought to think about this— why is this preferable to what we had? At least political parties have a—people understand what they are. They have a point of view. 

I mean, it is easier. You see, it is more accountable. This is what 

a lot of us said. I have no partisan axe to grind here, because I 

know—the law has been abused by both sides, mostly by the Democrats just because they were in power, by the way. But it has become a point of—it has been a club that both sides have tried to 

use against each other to get an advantage over, one of the other. 

And what I have been trying to say is this is wrong. The law 

should not be used in this fashion. We should deregulate this area. 

This is what has caused all of this problem is the regulation. 

We should have the disclosure and the accountability, and then 

we go at it and we fight each other in the partisan arena. That is 

what this Republic is about. That is how we determine our government. There is nothing wrong with that. What bothers me is that 

we pretend that we have reformed this system. 

We just passed this monstrous law, which unfortunately some 

Republicans cooperated in, and now we find out—I mean, in that 

great hearing we had the other day, we found out that if different 

candidates have the same political consultant, mail vendor or 

something, you may be in violation of the coordination rules. 

I mean, this is going to tie us up all in knots. So let me say this, 

Mr. Chairman. I think it is good that you are having this hearing. 

I would love the world to see how this is supposed to operate. The 

Democrats have perfected this, and we will take a page out of their 

book, and we will ramp up our organizations, and this is how it is 

going to go. So it is not that we are pure and you are not, you are 

just better; you were more clever about this in figuring out earlier 

how to do it, and we will do that, too. 

But, see, it doesn’t advance the interest of free speech or the interest of Republic. We should deregulate. I will invite all of you to 

cosponsor my bill. I just reintroduced it yesterday, H.R. 3525, basically the same thing. We deregulate. 

George Soros doesn’t have to give $10 million to the ACT, or I 

think that is what the group is called; he can just give it directly 

to any candidate he wants. He can give it to Dean or Gephardt or 

45 

whoever the Democrat nominee is, $10 million; just report it. 

Barbra Streisand can send in her money, and Jane Fonda can send 

in her $7 million. They don’t have to go through this subterfuge. 

Let us just get it out, be honest and have the fight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, on cue. We are out of time. I would note, 

just for fairness purposes, Mr. Soros is also free to contribute to 

Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, may we please refrain from calling names? We can talk about the Majority/Minority, 

but, you know, you are throwing out the name of Daschle, you are 

throwing out the name of Pelosi. Let us not do that. I can throw 

out names of DeLay and others, but I refuse to do that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. With all due respect now, I am quoting the 

Washington Post. 

The CHAIRMAN. Reclaiming my time. By the way, as a male, I am 

very insulted you have attacked a male on this committee. 

There are a lot of questions of why we had this hearing, and 

some of the rationale of why we had it, or what was stated, now, 

there has been a lot of smoke around here today, more than a cigarette factory on fire at times. 

So having said that, the Chair lays before the committee a committee resolution authorizing the chairman of the Committee on 

House Administration to issue subpoenas to testify and subpoenas 

duces tecum to any and all persons, organizations with respect to 

matters involved in, relating to, or arising from the committee’s investigation of 527 organizations. 

This resolution is offered pursuant to rule 11, clause 1(b)(1) and 

clause 2(m)(1) and (3), of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representative, and rule 6 of the Committee on House Administration. Is 

there any discussion? 

Mr. LARSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that there has certainly been more heat and little light that has been shed with regard to this hearing today. And I would again reiterate, since this 

is a very serious thing that we are about to enter into, I would ask 

that the Chair join with me, and if we are going to tackle these 

problems, let us tackle them. And if we are going to tackle the 

problem with 527s, as well as all of the issues that pervade this 

great House and this institution, then so be it. 

I am asking and calling directly for us to join with the Committee on Government Reform and to look directly at not only 527s, 

which are perfectly legal, but those activities that carry with them 

the hint of impropriety, donations from Kansas-based Westar Energy, Inc.; contributions made, enormous contributions made, by 

pharmaceutical companies prior to votes. And I suggest that we 

enter into a joint committee hearing. 

I know that we have—on the Government Reform Committee, we 

have been trying for some time to look into this specific area, and 

now is the time for us to do that. And I appreciate the earnestness 

in which members of this committee wanted to look at and make 

sure that we restore integrity. 

46 

So let us let all of the poison caught up in the mud hatch out. 

Let us take a look at all of these circumstances. I think it gives 

credence to what Mr. Doolittle is attempting to do. 

And on the other side of that coin, with those who want true 

campaign finance reform, the public financing of these campaigns 

one is well, and perhaps therein lies the true debate. But if we are 

after the truth, and not a partisan hunt narrowly after 527s, then 

if we are going to look at subpoenaing people, then let us bring 

them all in. Let us open this up and let us conduct a thorough investigation in the true manner in which you conducted HAVA. 

That is what I am going to suggest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what we are were trying to start 

today. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee resolution authorizing the chairman of the Committee on House Administration to issue subpoenas related to the investigation of 527 organizations be adopted. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. Those in favor of 

the motion, say aye. 

Those opposed will say no. 

Mr. LARSON. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Linder. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Reynolds. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Millender-McDonald. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ney. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. Four to three, the motion is agreed to, and 

the committee resolution is adopted. 

Finally, for the record, I would like to notice potential witnesses 

and their organizations that pursuant to the Rules of the U.S. 

House of Representatives and the rules of this committee, and I 

want to be clear on this, subpoenas compel both testimony and the 

production of documents and material related to any and all persons or organizations with respect to matters involved in, relating 

to, or arising from the committee’s investigation of 527 organizations; therefore, potential witnesses and the organizations related 

thereto are not, absolutely not, to engage in the destruction of any 

such documentation or material that would be subject to subpoena 

and related to the committee’s investigation of this matter. 

47 

I ask unanimous consent that Members have 7 legislative days 

for statements to be entered in the appropriate place in the record. 

Without objection, the statements will be entered. 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Will we 

have the ability to subpoena witnesses as well? 

The CHAIRMAN. We will discuss the legal—this authorizes me to 

issue it. It doesn’t mean that we are doing it today, just authorizing it. 

Mr. LARSON. Will we have the right? The question I am asking 

is will we have the right to subpoena witnesses of our calling? 

The CHAIRMAN. It authorizes me to subpoena. 

Mr. LARSON. So you are saying that we won’t have the right? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not saying that today. You didn’t even exercise your right to a witness today at all. But I will be glad to talk 

to you about this. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, this is far different. This is subpoenaing people. And not only are you subpoenaing them in here, you are also 

saying any and all persons or organizations with respect to matters 

involved in, relating to, or arising from the committee’s investigation of 527 organizations. 

I think that if we are going to go forward with this, if you are 

telling us that you have the exclusive authority—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to sit with you if you want to consider some witnesses, just as we offered you witnesses today. I will 

be happy to sit with you on that. 

Mr. LARSON. And also with respect to sitting with the House 

Government Reform Committee as well? 

The CHAIRMAN. At this point in time I haven’t made a decision 

on that. We couldn’t even get them here today to House Administration. So I will be glad to talk with you about that. 

Mr. LARSON. I think, given the direction in which we are heading, we would be more than happy to accommodate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know we are running out of time. We actually 

didn’t have to head in this direction if people would simply have 

come here and talked to the U.S. Congress instead of thumbing 

their nose at the Congress and trying to create a smokescreen for 

something that today would have been very, very easy. 

If there is no objection, Members have 7 legislative days for 

statements to be entered into the appropriate place in the record. 

Without objection, statements will be entered. 

I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes in all matters considered by the committee at today’s meeting. Without objection, so ordered. 

Having completed our business, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ