Russ Feingold: “I do want to emphasize that there is no constitutional problem with this bill. First, there is no constitutional right…”

“I do want to emphasize that there is no constitutional problem with this bill. First, there is no constitutional right to a tax exemption, the Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear. This amendment simply requires disclosure as a condition of receiving a tax exemption. If a group doesn't want to make these disclosures, it can simply pay taxes on its income like any other business in the United States. Second, we don't have a problem of vagueness or line drawing here that might implicate first amendment rights. The disclosure requirements are not triggered by any particular action or communication that a group might make. It is triggered by its decision to claim a tax exemption under section 527. Thus, as I said before, these groups self-identify. They make the decision whether they are 527 and if they do, they have to disclose. There is a simple principle at stake here. It is a question of disclosure versus secrecy. I say to all my colleagues who have argued here on the floor that we do not need reform, we do not need a soft money ban, that all we need is disclosure: Now is the time to put your money where your mouth is. If you vote against this amendment--if you vote against this amendment for disclosure, you will never again be able to argue with any credibility that you support full disclosure. The time has come to put an end to secret money funding secret organizations.”