Mike Levin: “Of course the Senator knows they can run ads saying you ought to be defeated. They can run all of those ads they want.…”

“Of course the Senator knows they can run ads saying you ought to be defeated. They can run all of those ads they want. But under the law that we have passed, they must use contributions which comply with the limits which we have adopted. So they are free to run those kind of ads. But they must comply with law when they run those ads. The question is whether they should have unlimited, undisclosed funds to run ads which effectively say to defeat or elect somebody but do not comply with the limit. That is what we are facing. So, unless the Senator is suggesting that we repeal the existing law, which puts restrictions on contributions for ads which advocate the election or defeat of a candidate--that is the existing law--unless the Senator is proposing that, then it seems to me we should make that law effective and not put form over substance. And when you have two ads which are functionally the same and equivalent, treat one as though it is different from the other. That is the issue which we are now facing on the floor, as to whether we want to enforce existing law to eliminate what we call a loophole, which clearly is the avoidance of a magic word in an ad which functionally is the same and which any reasonable person would say unmistakably is calling for the defeat of Congressman Ganske, as an ad which uses the word ``defeat'' itself.”