Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S6051-S6052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
H.R. 4617
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, later today, I
understand the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 4617. This is
the latest installment in Speaker Pelosi's campaign to expand
government's control over America's political speech.
It is a transparent attack on the First Amendment that has united an
[[Page S6052]]
unlikely band of opponents across the political spectrum. Everybody
from hardcore conservatives to the ACLU is speaking out against this
effort to erode Americans' constitutional rights.
The proposal would give the Federal Election Commission unprecedented
license to track and regulate Americans' political speech on the
internet and decide what speech qualifies as political in the first
place.
If it were not bad enough on principle to fill more Washington, DC,
filing cabinets with which citizens hold what beliefs, their bill would
also deputize media companies into this effort. They would force
publications to keep excessive records for any advertisement they
accept not only for political campaigns but on any issue of national
importance.
When this regulatory burden has been tried on a smaller scale, it has
frightened media platforms into rejecting political ads altogether. It
is a textbook example of policy designed to reduce the amount of free
speech in our country. Press organizations such as the Washington Post
and the Baltimore Sun have already sued over similar regulations on
First Amendment grounds and won in court.
House Democrats want to violate the First Amendment and harm
journalists in order to give more control to the FEC. That would be the
same FEC that Democrats have recently tried to shift from a bipartisan
body to a partisan body for the first time in its history.
A different part of the House bill refers to ``legitimate
journalistic activities.'' I look forward to hearing what Orwellian
commission or process House Democrats may have in mind for determining
whether Washington, DC, deems a particular journalist legitimate.
These are just a few examples. Even the ACLU--widely viewed as a
left-leaning organization that is not known for siding with
Republicans--is publicly opposing the Democrats' bill. Here is what the
ACLU said:
``The SHIELD Act . . . strikes the wrong balance, sweeping
too broadly and encompassing more speech than necessary. . .
. The SHIELD Act goes too far . . . to the detriment of the
public and the First Amendment.''
That is the ACLU.
Congress has real business to attend to. House Democrats need to stop
blocking the USMCA. Senate Democrats need to stop blocking defense
funding. Yet, rather than working on these issues, we instead see
Democrats continue to fixate--fixate--on chipping away at the First
Amendment. It is a pet project they return to time and again. It is
disturbing, especially in light of recent blatant attempts to
intimidate Americans into silence.
Just a few months ago, a sitting House Democrat earned national
criticism when he publicly tweeted out a list of his own constituents
in San Antonio, TX, who had donated to President Trump's campaign. He
listed these private citizens' names along with their employers or
businesses. In this era of political harassment and online mobs, the
implication was clear as day.
From Twitter posts to partisan messaging bills, House Democrats'
mission is the same: Chill the exercise of free speech. Send a message
to Americans with inconvenient views that speaking up is more trouble
than it is worth.
This proposal will not do anything to stop maligned foreign actors--
something that every Member of this body cares deeply about. As three
former FEC Chairmen recently pointed out, foreign adversaries like
Russia are not going to stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC
fine. Let me say that again. Adversaries like Russia are not going to
stop their malign operations for fear of an FEC fine.
``Campaign-finance law isn't the tool to prevent foreign meddling. .
. . Adversaries won't be scared off by civil penalties. . . . This is a
job for diplomatic, national security, and counterintelligence
agencies. [This legislation] is a needless sacrifice to First Amendment
rights, not a serious effort to secure elections.''
That is three former Chairmen of the Federal Election Commission. I
certainly agree. It was focusing on defense and counterintelligence,
not attacking the First Amendment, that made the 2018 elections go more
smoothly than the 2016 elections. That is why the hundreds of millions
of dollars Congress has set aside for State grants have made a big
difference. That needs to remain our focus as we continue our efforts
to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016.
House Democrats have achieved something remarkable here. They have
drafted legislation that is so anti-First Amendment that it has united
everybody from former FEC Commissioners, to the ACLU, to yours truly in
opposition.
I am sorry that Speaker Pelosi deems go-nowhere messaging bills a
better use of the House's time than the USMCA and the 176,000 new
American jobs that experts tell us it would create. The American people
deserve a House of Representatives that works with the Senate and the
President to actually make law and make progress for the families we
represent.
____________________
