Date: 2010-06-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I believe the gentleman said at the very end of his comments that his amendment was necessary if the shares owned by foreign nationals added up to over 20 percent. I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of the bill as it stands and not that it would have to be an individual organization that had 20 percent. Mr. Chairman. once again. you can see the selective nature of the amendments that are allowed. We offered to present a number of amendments which would even the playing field between unions and corporations. and it was rejected outright both in the committee and before the Rules Committee. They said it would be too hard for unions to be able to determine who their membership is. that is. the nationality of their members. so they wouldnt be able to determine whether over 20 percent of the union were individuals who were not American citizens. that is. foreign nationals. And its just again. Mr. Chairman. a continued example of how this bill is not evenhanded. There are at least five provisions under this bill which treat unions differently than corporations and. again I say. not just forprofit corporations. Were talking about corporations. Many advocacy groups have a corporate structure. and so they are treated differently than unions. This has been recognized by any number of individuals. Ive already read into the RECORD the serious disability with this bill. and this amendment continues that disability as expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Another letter dated May 19. 2010. signed by eight former members of the FEC going back to the beginning of that commissions existence. talks about how the act abandons the historical matching treatment of unions and corporations. and they say that this will in itself cause a substantial portion of the public to doubt the laws fairness and impartiality. So once again. Mr. Chairman. we have an example of where we have disparate treatment depending on whether you happen to be members of a favored class or otherwise. I offered amendments in the full committee to try and really define very well what we meant by foreign interests. In fact. we actually replicated current law. making it sure. making it absolutely sure that if you were a corporate structure that was dominated by foreign interests. you could not participate in this way to make decisions. If you were a U.S. whollyowned subsidiary of a foreign corporation. only moneys that were made in the United States and decisions made by American nationals would allow for any kind of participation in the political process as viewed and anticipated by this law and by the decision by the Supreme Court. So once again. Mr. Chairman. I just say and somewhatI dont knowI lament. I guess. the fact that we while were talking about free speech and were talking about influence. undue or otherwise. we have another example on this floor of a denial of Members consideration of amendments that would make this a fair. balanced. evenhanded bill. I would hope that when were dealing with the First Amendment at least there the majority would grant us the ability of fair treatment. at least there the majority might say we have enough time in this body to discuss things because. you know. the Constitutions pretty important and so is the First Amendment. But Ive heard criticism after criticism on this floor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision which doesnt match what was in the Court decision. and all I can say is either Members on the other side havent read the decision or they seek not to repeat whats actually in the decision because Ive heard on this floor talk about how that decision allowed foreign countries and foreigndominated companies to now be directly involved in political processes. Thats just not true. They didnt change the other underlying law. So Mr. PASCRELLS amendment continues in that same direction. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.