Jack Reed: “again, the vote before us is a vote on my amendment which would restrict the deduction of advertising expenses for…”

“again, the vote before us is a vote on my amendment which would restrict the deduction of advertising expenses for tobacco companies which do not choose to follow FDA rules and regulations. There are many reasons why this is appropriate. The most compelling reason is simply the record of tobacco itself. It is a record that has shown over many, many decades a consistent attempt to market to children. There have been some objectives with respect to the first amendment. Let me suggest, first, that commercial speech under the doctrine of the Supreme Court is not afforded the same level of protection as pure political speech. This is clearly a case of commercial speech. Second, the test of the leading case, Central Hudson, clearly states that if there is a substantial governmental interest, if the proposed legislation addresses directly that interest, and if it is done by means that are narrowly focused and no more than is necessary, that it would pass the test. I submit that this legislation does that. There can be no more compelling national interest than curbing teenage smoking. Under the record of the FDA, they have demonstrated that if we take effective advertising restrictions and put them in place, we could on an annual basis save 250,000 children from addiction to nicotine. That is a direct, material, significant correlation between the substantial national interest and this legislation. Finally, this legislation is narrowly focused.”