Mar 10, 2006 -- Reform Groups Urge House Members to Support Internet Free Speech Without Opening Loopholes for Corrupting Soft Money

DO NOT VOTE TO GUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

SUPPORT INTERNET FREE SPEECH WITHOUT OPENING HUGE

LOOPHOLES FOR CORRUPTING SOFT MONEY

VOTE FOR H.R. 4900; VOTE AGAINST H.R. 1606

March 10, 2006

Dear Representative:

Our organizations strongly urge you to support H.R.4900, the "Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006," introduced by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charles Bass (R-NH), when this matter is considered by the full House on March 15.

This bipartisan legislation would ensure that bloggers and other individuals communicating on the Internet are exempt from campaign finance laws, without opening huge soft money loopholes in the laws.

We also strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1606, introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). The Hensarling legislation would open huge soft money loopholes in the campaign finance laws by allowing the use of corrupting soft money by federal candidates and political parties to pay for campaign ads on the Internet that attack and promote federal candidates.

The organizations signing this letter are the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

By voting for the bipartisan Allen-Bass bill and against the Hensarling bill you can vote to protect the free speech rights of bloggers and other individuals using the Internet without voting to open gaping soft money loopholes.

In striking down an FEC regulation with the exact same language as in the Hensarling bill, federal district court Judge Kollar-Kotelly starkly concluded that the proposal "would permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption or the appearance of corruption."

Senator John McCain, a principal sponsor of the soft money ban, and a supporter of exempting bloggers' Internet speech from the campaign finance laws, said last year in opposing the proposal now contained in the Hensarling bill:

I strongly support free speech on the Internet - but this is not free speech, this is paid speech, potentially paid for with unlimited corporate and union contributions to state political parties and that is a loophole that BCRA firmly closed and Congress should not rashly re-open.

Senator McCain also stated that the proposal contained in the Hensarling bill:

would not only allow state parties to spend unlimited soft dollars on Internet advertising to influence federal elections, but also would allow federal candidates to request and coordinate such advertising directly with corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.

Both H.R. 4900 and H.R 1606 address the question of how the campaign finance laws apply to communications on the Internet.

But the Allen-Bass bill provides greater protections for bloggers and other Internet users then the Hensarling bill does, without opening the soft money loopholes created by the Hensarling bill.

Based on a proposal developed by the highly-regarded Center for Democracy and Technology, in consultation with the Internet community, the Allen-Bass bill contains provisions to ensure that bloggers and other Internet users do not inadvertently run afoul of the campaign finance laws. The bill also provides Internet media with the same press protections that all other media receive under the campaign finance laws.

The Hensarling bill does not contain these protections.

At the same time, the Hensarling bill allows federal candidates and political parties to once again use corrupting soft money in federal campaigns, activities which have been illegal since the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

BCRA, for example, prohibits a state party from using soft money for any public communication that attacks or promotes a federal candidate.

The Hensarling bill would allow a state party to spend unlimited soft money to pay for campaign ads on the Internet that attack or promote federal candidates. The Allen-Bass bill, by contrast, would not allow this use of soft money by state parties.

The campaign finance laws prohibit corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals from spending soft money in coordination with federal candidates to pay for campaign ads on the Internet that promote or attack federal candidates.

The Hensarling bill would allow this use of soft money in federal elections. The Allen-Bass bill, by contrast, would not allow members of Congress and others to make use of soft money to support their federal campaigns.

Some have argued that other provisions of the campaign finance laws will continue to ban corporations and labor unions from spending soft money to pay for campaign ads on the Internet. This is plainly not the case.

Those other prohibitions do not apply to spending by corporations and labor unions on ads that attack or promote federal candidates, as long as the ads do not contain express advocacy.

Thus, under the Hensarling bill, federal candidates could control the soft money spending by corporations and labor unions to buy campaign ads on the Internet that attack their opponents or promote their candidacies, as long as the ads do not contain express advocacy.

The Allen-Bass bill strikes the right balance between protecting free speech rights on the Internet unencumbered by the campaign finance laws, while also ensuring that the campaign finance laws continue to protect against corruption and the appearance of corruption.

We strongly urge you to vote for the Allen-Bass bill and against the Hensarling bill.

Campaign Legal Center League of Women Voters Common Cause Public Citizen

Democracy 21 U.S. PIRG