Mar 14, 2006 -- Reform Groups Urge Members to Oppose Any Rule that Does Not Allow the House to Vote on H.R. 4900

In a letter sent to all House members March 14, 2006, the Campaign Legal Center and other reform groups urged Representatives to vote against any rule that does not allow the House to vote on H.R. 4900 as a substitute for H.R. 1606.

The groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

The House is expected to consider H.R. 1606 on Thursday. In order for H.R. 4900 to be considered as an alternative to H.R. 1606, the House must adopt a rule that permits a vote on H.R. 4900.

Introduced by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charles Bass (R-NH), H.R. 4900 provides greater protections for bloggers and other individuals communicating on the Internet from the campaign finance laws than H.R. 1606 does, without opening huge soft money loopholes in the laws.

H.R. 1606, introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), 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.

Vote Against Any Rule That Does Not Make H.R. 4900 In
Order as a Substitute for H.R. 1606

March 14, 2006

Dear Representative,

Our organizations strongly support H.R. 4900, the ''Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006,'' bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charles Bass (R-NH). We also strongly oppose H.R. 1606, an alternative Internet bill sponsored by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).

We strongly urge you to vote against any rule that does not make H.R 4900 in order as a substitute for H.R.1606.

The groups include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

We believe it is an essential matter of basic fairness that H.R. 4900 be made in order as an alternative to H.R. 1606 when this legislation reaches the floor this week.

H.R. 4900, a bipartisan proposal with strong support in both parties, is being offered as a substitute for the Hensarling bill, legislation which would open gaping loopholes for corrupting soft money in the nation's campaign finance laws.

It would be a gross abuse of the process to schedule H.R. 1606 but not make H.R. 4900 in order as a substitute. This would deprive Members of the right to choose between the two principal proposals facing the House on the question of the Internet and campaign finance issues.

It would also mean that a debate and decision about free speech issues would be conducted under gag rule procedures, in which only the voices of one side of the debate would truly be allowed to be heard.

Last November, when H.R. 1606 was placed on the suspension calendar, Members were denied an opportunity to consider any alternative approach and the bill failed to pass. This unfair process must not be allowed to happen again.

We strongly urge you to vote against any rule that does not make H.R 4900 in order as a substitute for H.R. 1606.

Campaign Legal Center, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21, U.S. PIRG