Andrea Joy Campbell: “could we have a clearer admission of the loophole nature of the Doolittle amendment? I yielded to the gentleman to…”

“could we have a clearer admission of the loophole nature of the Doolittle amendment? I yielded to the gentleman to explain how he would handle this hypothetical and he does not handle this hypothetical. In other words, I can run ads, coordinated with my Republican Party, against a Democrat, a Democrat can run ads, coordinated with his or her Democratic Party, against a Republican that say, my opponent is a horrible person, my opponent is a terrible Congressman, Congresswoman, look at his or her record, it is awful, but so long as you do not say ``vote against,'' it is okay. I could not imagine a more clear example of a loophole, and that is the intention of the amendment by my colleague from northern California. As to the question of the Constitution, the test is essentiality. It is not whether an actual word ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' is used which is what is in the Doolittle amendment. It is what is the heart and soul of what you are doing. If you are actually, in effect, urging that one should vote for or against a candidate, well, then that should be subject to the same regulations as are applicable, under existing law, to hard dollar expenditures. Indeed, 10 years after Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court said, in the FEC versus Massachusetts case, the test was essentiality and not just the words. This was 10 years after Buckley versus Valeo. I conclude by observing that restrictions on speech are permissible so that others may speak.…”