Mr. Chairman, first of all, we keep talking about disclosure. As I said before, when the labor unions ran ads against me last time on television, every ad said ``Paid for by AFL-CIO.'' The Federal Communication Commission requires that on television that we know who pays for these ads. It is interesting the public campaign group is running these ads all over the country right now. We do not really know who pays for those ads either, but they have a right to do it. In closing, I would simply say the third expansion of express advocacy in this bill has already explicitly been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in FEC versus Maine Right To Life. The exact wording is in here, already been declared unconstitutional. I just think it is a shame that we spend this much time on a bill that most people that have reviewed it, that have taken cases to the Supreme Court, say will be declared unconstitutional. Also, I think it shows very clearly that this really is an incumbent protection act. I would ask for the adoption of my amendment.
Ed Whitfield: “Mr. Chairman, first of all, we keep talking about disclosure. As I said before, when the labor unions ran ads against me…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about campaign finance and the constitutionality of a proposed bill.
Share
More from Ed Whitfield
As I see it, the RFS was enacted largely for three reasons--to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and to strengthen rural economies.
These new technologies and life-saving medical treatments are critical to develop and deploy at a timely pace.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill, add the following new section: SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. No…
The third goal of the RFS is to boost rural economies, and here we can say that the program has delivered on its promise.





