Ed Whitfield: “I oppose it primarily because it changes the definition of ``express advocacy''. The Supreme Court has made it very…”

“I oppose it primarily because it changes the definition of ``express advocacy''. The Supreme Court has made it very clear repeatedly that there is a bright line test. If an ad does not expressly advocate the defeat of the election of a candidate, it is not express advocacy. They change it to say that any ad run within 60 days of an election is express advocacy, by definition. Now, when I ran in 1998, labor unions came into my district and they spent about $600,000 or $700,000 running issue advocacy ads about my voting record. They did not expressly advocate my defeat or my election, but it was clear that they did not support my position. I did not like that, and it was done within 60 days of the election, but I do believe that they have the right to do that. That is what this debate really is all about. That is their first amendment right.”