Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 21, 2009

The vote was 100 in favor, 8 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 295 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Rep. McMillin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted ‘No’ because this bill exempts large special-interest PACs - stacking the deck against candidates.”

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I believe it violates the first amendment.”

Rep. Genetski, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I respectfully oppose HB 4985 because this bill claims to be campaign and election reform, however, even should this bill become law, phone calls from ‘issues campaigns’ would not be covered. We should treat all elections related phone calls equally under the law.”

Rep. Amash, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.”

 

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of House Bill No. 4985, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

No Vote Explanation

HB 4985 (Robo calls)

I opposed HB 4985 because a key measure that would have actually uncovered who is behind mysterious smear campaigns and regulated all politically-related automated telephone calls was ignored by the House Democrats using their majority status to refuse to even allow debate on an amendment offered that would do so.

Under the legislation that was approved by the House, candidates running for office would be required to contain identification and disclaimer statements when using pre-recorded messages (‘robo-calls’) or e-mail to reach out to voters. However, the it would only apply to those trying to expressly elect or defeat a candidate, but shadowy interest groups funded by unknown sources would still be allowed to use the medium to launch so-called ‘issue advocacy ads’ which are often little more than smear campaigns.

If this legislation is enacted as currently written, the citizens of Michigan will still be subject to the smear campaign calls they have been subjected to over recent years without knowing who is responsible.

This is the latest example of extreme partisanship where House Democrats are refusing to allow open debate on measures and amendments. The House Democrats went to great lengths, using procedural gimmicks to keep Republican lawmakers from even talking about legislation that comes to the House floor. Democrats are literally stifling the voices of nearly half of Michigan’s residents, along with the public’s desire for bipartisan cooperation.

For these reasons I cannot support this bill at this time.”