This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a campaign finance reform bill that would have banned political “robocalls” (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Under the expedited judicial review process required by the motion to recommit, a three-judge court convened in Washington, D.C would review a constitutional challenge immediately. That challenge could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Under the normal judicial review process, bills would first be challenged in the federal district court. Following the judgment of the district court, cases can be appealed the case to a federal circuit court. Only after the circuit court’s has ruling has been handed down can a case be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) urged support for the motion to recommit: “We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices [Congress routinely passes bills naming post office buildings]; can't we spend a little bit of time protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?...We're talking about political speech, the essence of the First Amendment, and for us not to allow that consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner, as we have every other time, is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents, and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold.”

Rep. Brady (D-PA) urged members to oppose the motion to recommit: “Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a needless distraction from the core mission of the underlying legislation. All the legislation says basically is, who is saying it, who is paying it? We have a right to know who's talking about us; we have a right to know who's talking for us.” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the author of the underlying bills, accused the Republicans of having “injected a total spurious and unrelated provision with respect to D.C. voting rights.”

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 208-217. 171 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted “yea.” 216 Democrats – including a majority of progressives – and 1 Republican voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a campaign finance bill that would have banned political “robocalls” unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)