Date: 2011-02-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the evenhanded approach that was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in their decision in Citizens United. In that case. the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment protections that you have for free speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say it not with a single voice but you join with others. Every response that weve heard from the other side has said. Well. we dont like what the court did. so what were going to do is put certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same requirements on those who are unions representing those who are employees of the Federal Government. And there is as much a conflict of interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have contracts with the Federal Government. So. once again. theyre trying to talk about how this action by the Supreme Court was unfair. it somehow requires that there is an unfairness involved. that our elections were taken over by corporations. Every study has shown that there were far more expressions of political thought in paid advertising by those on the left than those on the right in the last election. but we dont hear about that. If they would bring forward something that would have equal treatment. maybe then we could take a look at it. But the fact of the matter is we have seen effort after effort. We can recall last year when they brought it to the floor. one of the things they wanted to do is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and unions. but they were engaged in an auctioning off of First Amendment rights according to whether you were a favored or disfavored group. We saw organizations that were given special exemptions. The National Rifle Association was one of them. And there were those on the left. And if you had enough political sway. you got exempted from the disclosure requirements. And that really is the definition of "Capitol cronyism." where the government decides who is favored and who is disfavored. and that the essence of the decision by the Supreme Court was the acknowledgment that the First Amendment has its most essential protection in speech. which is political speech. And if that be the case. we should tread very lightly where we require disparate treatment between different groups. those favored and those which are disfavored. If theres one thing the First Amendment stands for. it is that we treat everybody the same. And this again is in keeping with what we saw last year. Some people are more favored than the others. and when youre talking about First Amendment rights and expressions of political thought. we should be very wary of it. And. by the way. nothing with the Supreme Court decision changed the prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations. That has been. that continues to be. and will be a felony. And if people on the other side have evidence of that happening. they ought to give that information to the Justice Department and have people prosecuted. So lets at least talk about what the facts are and lets remember the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle.