Barney Frank: “Mr. Chairman, we have just seen a demonstration that while proximity may breed contempt, it can also breed familiarity…”

“Mr. Chairman, we have just seen a demonstration that while proximity may breed contempt, it can also breed familiarity because my ally on this issue, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), anticipated the argument we just heard and refuted it before it was made; a very impressive feat. As he pointed out, this is not at all analogous to the 1974 act because it is not meant to be interlocking, and that is why this is a sham amendment. The gentleman says well, if we think it is all constitutional what are we worried about? Well, I do not know what the Supreme Court will do and no one else does. It is entirely possible they will find some parts constitutional. It is clear that other parts will not be found constitutional. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who just spoke, said they have different standards for contribution limits and expenditure limits. When we are talking about soft money, we are talking about contributions and that would clearly be constitutional. This is an effort to try to kill the whole thing, if any part of it fails, by people who are against it. By the way, if we adopted this principle that we do not have severability clauses, guess what we would not have? The Telecommunications Act of 1996. We passed the Telecommunications Act. Maybe some people who voted for it wish we did not have it, but we have it. Part of it was found unconstitutional, the Communications Decency Act.”