David Thomas: “although I appreciate the argument of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the idea that a portion…”

“although I appreciate the argument of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the idea that a portion of a significant campaign reform bill ought to be allowed to stand, notwithstanding the fact that other provisions are declared unconstitutional, is exactly why we are where we are today because back in the 1970s they attempted to use the model, and we have heard this phrase repeatedly on the floor, that we want to stop corruption or the appearance of corruption. The court, I think quite properly, looked at contribution limits and said if we limit the amount that someone was given it certainly could be plausible that the limit was there to stop corruption or the appearance of corruption but in no way should it extend to the expenditure of money. How does spending money corrupt? The court then took that same logic and applied it to individuals who spent their own money and a key portion of Shays-Meehan that we have been concerned about is those individuals who make independent expenditures exercising their First Amendment freedom.”