BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise to oppose the rule on this legislation, not necessarily because this is a bad bill--I do think it is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent problem--but I oppose the rule for another reason, and that is because I thought that since we were going to bring this bill to the floor anyway, even though it is unnecessary, even though Chairman Wheeler of the FCC has said that the FCC does not intend to regulate rates on broadband, I thought maybe I would at least try to accomplish something productive and offer an amendment to solve a real problem that the American people are seeing in front of them every day right now. That is the problem of television ads, political ads, that do not truly identify their source.
Under section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC requires broadcasters to put on the ad the true identity of the people running the ad. This makes a lot of sense. The idea is that when you see somebody trying to influence your vote or to influence your attitude about a particular public issue, that you should understand who is actually trying to influence you.
But because of dramatic changes in the way campaign laws are implemented and because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, what has happened is that we now have ads run by organizations like Americans for Kittens and Puppies, and that doesn't do the American voter, the American consumer, any good. They don't understand who is actually paying.
What my amendment would have done, had it been made in order by the Rules Committee, it would have basically restated the law that exists and say the FCC should regulate these ads by requiring the true identity. Right now they are relying on a 1979 staff interpretation of true identity. They are saying we need to put the sponsor of the ad on the ad, but the sponsor of the ad, again, is a nebulous, vague, title organization that nobody knows who they are.
What we would like to do is say you have to put on the ad who is really paying for it. So instead, for instance, if you had an ad in support of sugared soft drinks and it was being paid for by Coca-Cola, under this interpretation you could put the ad agency that actually put the ad on the air and nobody would know that Coca-Cola was actually paying for it.
The people, again, are seeing this every day on their television screens right now. These laws and interpretations have resulted in endless sums of anonymous money coming into the system trying to influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress intended. Despite having the authority to do it, the FCC has refused to take action to close this loophole.
My amendment would have restated the original Congressional intent and would send a message to the FCC that it is time to act. This amendment would have been germane, it would have been within the rules of the body, and, most importantly, it would have been supported by the vast majority of Americans: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who want us to reform our campaign finance system so that it is on the up and up, so people understand who is trying to influence them and also to end the influence of big money in politics.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. YARMUTH. I wish that the Rules Committee had made that amendment in order, but they didn't, so I will oppose the rule and urge my colleagues to do so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT