Rick Allen: “Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the subject of amendment 132, proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)…”

“Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the subject of amendment 132, proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and deal with that, and then come to some of the allegations that have floated through this Chamber again about how we are impinging on free speech. The chairman was right when he referred back to Buckley v. Valeo and how it was handled by the United States Supreme Court. Because in Buckley v. Valeo, the court made a distinction between contributions and expenditures, and we wound up with half of what the Congress had passed. So there is always a risk when an amendment is brought before this body when we seek to pass legislation, there is always a risk that a portion of that legislation may be held unconstitutional. But in trying to avoid the problem created by Buckley v. Valeo, we are really undermining our chances of campaign finance reform. What we are trying to do here is to pass a soft money ban. I disagree with the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup). We can read all the reports we want. We know who gives money to the national parties. If we can just look at the reports of the Republican Party, we will see $6 million or $7 million in money from the tobacco companies coming to the Republican Party, and that is soft money because it comes from corporations.”