mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to house bill 1606 . 
this legislation , under the guise of protecting bloggers , actually undercuts the progress made by the bipartisan campaign reform act and reopens the floodgates of corrupting soft money in federal elections . 
i also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the suspension calendar when it is so clearly a controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup for members to offer amendments and , under the rules , we can not offer amendments here today . 
the debate today is about what is the best way to approach coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the internet . 
we all understand that the internet is a wonderful tool for political activity . 
its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic . 
i belong to moveon.org . 
i read my e-mails every time they are up . 
but , by the same token , its increased usage by candidates and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about attempts to exempt all internet activity from federal campaign finance laws . 
let me say a couple of words about bloggers , because bloggers have generated and received a lot of attention here . 
no one wants to regulate bloggers , not the campaign finance reformers , not the democrats , not the republicans , not the federal election commission . 
that is clear . 
the question is whether to exempt individual speech , as i have proposed , or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions at the behest of candidates , on behalf of candidates , and at the direction of candidates . 
that is why the new york times editorialized yesterday in opposition to h.r. 1606 , and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a fig leaf . 
the issue here is not individual speech . 
the issue is corrupting soft money . 
the primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates or officeholders . 
creating a new way for members of congress or the cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned . 
we are talking about legislators . 
for example , let us say we had a prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry . 
this congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night , and then members of congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to appear on the internet . 
but let me give another example . 
what could happen is you could have an energy bill , provisions of which were written by the oil and gas industry . 
let us say a company like exxon , as a result of it , had the highest profits they have ever had , record profits because of gasoline prices going out of control . 
the same people who advocated for that energy bill that exxon supported could go to exxon and say , could you use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online campaign ad buy . 
this is no minor affair . 
this is a major unraveling of the law . 
as senators mccain and feingold have made clear , this is not free speech , this is paid speech , politically paid for with unlimited corporate and union contributions . 
it is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses the exact same language that the fec tried and that a federal court struck down . 
the judge in that case , colleen kollar-kottelly , wrote that the provisions would `` permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption. '' she went on to say that the provision would `` severely undermine '' the campaign finance law . 
her rulings have gone before the d.c . 
court of appeals twice , and they have been upheld . 
just days ago , a cnn poll found that the american people believe that corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this nation after the economy . 
the american people are tired of the scandals . 
we are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and new scandals . 
the bill that we are considering will also allow political parties to use soft money to pay for internet ads bashing candidates . 
experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find ways to exploit any perceived loopholes . 
for example , the national party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle . 
corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for internet-related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties , and the public will not have a clue where this money comes from , because virtually all they will see is the internet advertising designed and created by candidates . 
that is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by common cause , opposed by public citizen , opposed by u.s. pirg , opposed by democracy 21 , and opposed by the league of women voters . 
that is why the washington post editorialized this week that this would be carving a huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban . 
that is why the new york times said yesterday , `` make no mistake about it . 
this bill is to protect political bagmen , not bloggers. '' in protecting bloggers , we need to approach this the right way , and this bill is the wrong way . 
i have introduced a bill with the gentleman from connecticut ( mr. shays ) xz4003700 called the internet anti-corruption and free speech protection act of 2005 . 
under this legislation , communications over the internet by individuals on their own web sites would be treated the same as they are in h.r. 1606 . 
but our substitute , which we can not allow today , we are not allowed to present , would not blow open the same gaping loophole for paid advertising . 
unfortunately , because the leadership has chosen to bring this up under a suspension of the rules , we are unable to offer our substitute . 
the suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other noncontroversial matters . 
it is not a place to create new loopholes in the campaign finance laws . 
limiting the democratic process and stifling the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter of public policy . 
it is wrong to do so . 
it is unfair . 
it is an abuse of power . 
so why are we rushing through this suspension ? 
i urge my colleagues to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full debate , including consideration of the shays-meehan alternative bill to protect bloggers , without creating new avenues for corruption . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
