David Thomas: “I asked to offer this amendment. As I said during general debate, this will be offered to any major substitute that has…”

“I asked to offer this amendment. As I said during general debate, this will be offered to any major substitute that has a severability clause. I talked earlier about the fact that when the first Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, Congress took a comprehensive approach to campaign reform. When the Court reviewed it, they struck as unconstitutional portions of the plan. There really is no constitutional basis for the Court having the ability to impose its will on any other branch. They are supposed to be coequal branches. Our oath to the Constitution is not inferior to the Supreme Court's. Notwithstanding that historical relationship, 25 years later, the portions that were struck down by the Court are simply null and void. We have before us the first example of a number of comprehensive bills which contain a number of provisions that desire to go after certain behavior. The Court has been on record in some areas, especially where political parties operate as an independent expenditure rather than as a party. If it is soft money the Court has said, and the most recent court example would be Colorado v. The Republican Party in which the Court upheld the right of the party to follow this model. And this particular legislation tries to correct that. Issue advocacy is now a strong point, and there is an attempt to change the relationship that the Court has advocated in issue advocacy.”