John Doolittle: “I am happy that we are considering this proposed amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment, without…”

“I am happy that we are considering this proposed amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment, without question, is where the debate ought to be on the government regulation of political speech which is under consideration. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri and my other liberal colleagues who have endorsed this approach. I do not endorse it, but I commend them, because it is honest. My liberal colleagues recognize that, in order to limit speech, it is necessary to amend the first amendment. They know that any attempt to abridge a citizen's first amendment rights by statute, such as most of the proposals before us do, in fact, is unconstitutional. So I commend them for their honest admission of this fact. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate which will clarify that the so-called campaign finance issue is really about limiting our right to engage in political speech and participate in free elections. In an effort to pave the way for big government regulations such as Shays-Meehan, this resolution would amend the Constitution to grant Congress and the States power to set spending and contribution limits and to define what a political expenditure is. The words of the Gephardt resolution are relatively few, but the ramifications are stunning. The amendment would give Congress a free hand to regulate, restrict or, indeed, even prohibit any activity which is perceived by the government to constitute the campaign expenditure.”