Mike Levin: “No; I find it very clear in the fourth and first circuits. But I also find in the ninth circuit, a very clear opinion…”

“No; I find it very clear in the fourth and first circuits. But I also find in the ninth circuit, a very clear opinion which reads, in part, as follows: We begin with the proposition that ``express advocacy'' is not strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases. The short list of words included in the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. A test requiring the magic words ``elect,'' ``support,'' et cetera or their nearly perfect synonyms for a finding of express advocacy, would preserve the first amendment right of unfettered expression only at the expense of eviscerating the Federal Election Campaign Act. I find those words to be very clear as well, to answer my friend from Kentucky, but the Supreme Court did not accept cert in that case either. So we have the Supreme Court not accepting appeals from circuits which have reached different conclusions. The answer to the question of my friend is I find the words of the fourth circuit clear, I find the words of the first circuit clear, and I find the words of the ninth circuit clear. Very clear. What could be clearer than a finding of the circuit court in the ninth circuit that says, ``The short list of words included in the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate''? It is a very clear statement.…”