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

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman. I find it instructive that one of the Members on the other side of the aisle. when she got down here to talk about the Constitution. said. I have this version of the Constitution. As far as I know theres only one version of the Constitution. except if you happen to be on the majority side dealing with this bill. Why do I say that? Because the Constitution very clearly in the First Amendment says. "Congress shall make no law"-no law-"abridging free speech." What is it about "no" that you dont understandI would say rhetorically because I cant address the majority on this floor. But I would say. if I could. what is it about "no" that you dont understand? It says no law. Now. if some would say. well. wait a second. the courts do allow some laws in the area of campaign finance and disclosure and so forth. yes. they do. But what are they predicated on? They say the countervailing principle or concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. Thats the only basis upon which you can create these laws. And they. therefore. say you can not distinguish between two sets of groups where that same analysis would come forward. In other words. you cant say were going to favor unions but disfavor corporations who stand essentially in the same shoes in the area of potential corruption. They say if you have a government contract over $10 millionand they started at $5 million. now theyre up to $10 million to include certain groups. were not sure exactly who they are. but there have been some whispers as to who they arebut the whole argument is that there is a potential corruption between those who have government contracts and those who might have influence in giving those contracts. So we said. okay. what about unions that represent the workers for those companies whose pay comes from the taxpayers by virtue of these contracts? Its the same argument. And they said. oh. no. we cant do that. that would be unfair to unions. And we said. what about the fact where you have union bargaining agreements with government entities. wouldnt that be the same? Oh. no. no. thats different than corporations. Whats the basis? There is no basis. And what they do. by the terms of the bill. is render this bill unconstitutional because the courts say you cant distinguish among different groups unless you use the same basis. And they use the highest level of scrutiny. strict scrutiny. Why? Because it involves an essential right protected under the Constitution. Thats what is so disturbing here today. not because we disagree on the legislation because we do that often. but the fact of the matter is that we are so cavalierly dealing with the First Amendment. We are so cavalierly dealing with free speech. We are so cavalierly dealing with essential political free speech. particularly when its involved in elections. Thats when its most important. And yet we have seen a bidding war here. an auctionnot on the floor because it took place behind closed doorsand yet were toldjust look at the title. look at the title. You know. if you put the name Cadillac on a Yugo. it would still be a Yugo. If it cant drive. putting another name on it is not going to make it better. And to say this is the DISCLOSE Act when you refuse to disclose the parts of it to us until 2 hours before the Rules Committee yesterday undercuts everything you argue that this bill is about. This is not sunlight. This is putting some in the cellar where there is no light and others get the light. This is allowing some to be involved in the debate and others not. Our Founding Fathers did not think the antidote to bad speech was to prohibit speech. It was to encourage robust debate and give others the opportunity. We can agree on disclosure. but not when you bring it in this form because it isnt disclosure that is fairly imposed on all parties. And I am sure of this. this will be declared unconstitutional. But the dirty little secret in this is you have put in here the appellate process so it wont be decided until after this election. so that those who should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights will be afraid to exercise them for fear they might make a mistake. What a tragedy. What a travesty. We should do better on this floor. We owe it to ourselves. And if we dont think were worthy. maybe the Constitution is worthy. Maybe our constituents are worthy. To hide behind the words "disclosure" and "disclose" when in fact thats not what youre doing is the ultimate in insult to the Constitution.