[Senate Hearing 112-935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-935
THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT: A
COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS UNITED
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 12, 2011
__________
Serial No. J-112-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-623 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JON KYL, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Joseph Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Walt Kuhn, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois..... 1
prepared statement........................................... 30
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 33
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 29
Simpson, Hon. Alan, former U.S. Senator from the State of
Wyoming, Cody, Wyoming......................................... 4
prepared statement........................................... 35
Mitchell, Cleta, Partner, Foley & Lardner, Washington, DC........ 7
prepared statement........................................... 38
Youn, Monica, Senior Counsel, Democracy Program, Brennan Center
for Justice at New York University School of Law, New York, New
York........................................................... 9
prepared statement........................................... 50
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted by Senator Graham for Cleta Mitchell......... 73
ANSWERS
Responses of Cleta Mitchell to questions submitted by Senator
Graham......................................................... 74
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview,
Civic Leaders for Fair Elections............................... 75
Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview,
Government Leaders for Fair Elections.......................... 76
Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview,
Building the Movement for Reform............................... 77
American Constitution Society, Monica Youn, Washington, DC, June
2010, Brief.................................................... 78
Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform? Notes/Bibliography......... 99
Additional Document for the Record, Senator Lindsey Graham, April
12, 2011, Web Site link........................................ 107
Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, President, Washington, DC, April
11, 2011, letter............................................... 108
AFSCME, Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation, Washington,
DC, April 11, 2011, letter..................................... 109
American Sustainable Business Council, David Levine, Co-Founder,
Executive Director, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter...... 110
Lake Research Partners, Celinda Lake, President, Washington, DC,
April 18, 2011, letter......................................... 111
Boston Globe, ``The High Cost of Private Campaign Funding,'' by
Daniel Weeks, November 19, 2009, article....................... 113
Center for Competitive Politics, Sean Parnell, President,
Alexandria, Virginia, statement................................ 114
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI), Lawrence S.
Ottinger, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter.... 120
CREW, Melanie Sloan, Executive Director, Washington, DC,
September 21, 2010, letter..................................... 121
Democracy Matters, Joan Mandle, Executive Director, Hamilton, New
York, April 7, 2011, letter.................................... 123
Democracy for America, Jim Dean, Chair, South Burlington,
Vermont, letter................................................ 124
Demos, Miles Rapoport, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011,
letter......................................................... 125
Detroit News, May 8, 2010, article............................... 127
U.S. News, Noteworthy Facts and Figures Related to Money and
Politics, Fred Wertheimer, April 11, 2011, fact sheet.......... 128
Common Cause, Bob Edgar, President, and Sarah Dufendach, Vice
President for Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, April 11,
2011, letter................................................... 129
Members of Congress and Time Spent Fundraising, report........... 131
Main Street Alliance, Sam Blair, Network Director, Seattle,
Washington, April 8, 2011, letter.............................. 133
NAACP, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Senior Vice President for
Advocacy and Policy, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter..... 134
Public Advocate for the City of New York, December 2010, report.. 135
Progress Now, Aniello Alioto, National Political Director, St.
Paul, Minnesota, April 11, 2011, letter........................ 151
Lioz, Adam, Program Director and Counsel, Progressive Future,
Washington, DC, letter......................................... 152
Progressives United, Russell D. Feingold, former U.S. Senator,
Founder, Middleton, Wisconsin, April 11, 2011, letter.......... 153
Public Campaign, Nick Nyhart, President and CEO, Washington, DC,
April 12, 2011, letter......................................... 154
Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen's Congress
Watch Division and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist,
Washington, DC, April 6, 2011, letter.......................... 156
Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen's Congress
Watch Division and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2011, statement...................... 157
Rock the Vote, Thomas Bates, Vice President, Civic Engagement,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2011, letter.......................... 161
Roll Call, June 23, 2010, article................................ 162
Democracy21, Fred Wertheimer, President, Washington, DC, April
2011, fact sheet............................................... 163
Sierra Club, Michael Brune, Executive Director, Washington, DC,
April 11, 2011, letter......................................... 168
U.S. News and World Report, ``Taxpayer Checkoff Protects Against
Corruption,'' April 11, 2011, article.......................... 169
USA Today, ``Biggest Election Winner: Big Money,'' November 5,
2010, article.................................................. 171
US Action, Jeffrey Blum, Executive Director, Washington, DC,
April 5, 2011, letter.......................................... 172
The Washington Post, ``A Republican Tradition Goes Awry,''
February 5, 2010, article...................................... 173
The Washington Post, ``WHITMAN: Too Much Money in Politics,''
October 5, 2010, article....................................... 174
THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT: A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS UNITED
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Human Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Franken, and
Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights will come to
order, and we will examine today the impact of the Supreme
Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a landmark
ruling that by all indications has dramatically changed the
nature of financing in Congressional campaigns.
We will also discuss the Fair Elections Now Act, a
comprehensive proposal which I have introduced to fundamentally
reform the way that these Congressional campaigns are financed.
Senator Graham, unfortunately, is unable to be with us
today. He had to be back home in his State, but I want to thank
him in advance for his tremendous bipartisan cooperation on
these hearings.
I am going to make a few remarks, and then if a Ranking
Member is here from the Republican side, I will certainly give
them an opportunity to speak to this issue before the hearing
commences.
On November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln stood before 10,000
Americans to formally dedicate the Soldiers National Cemetery.
He was not the main speaker on that day. That honor belonged to
Edward Everett, the former Secretary of State, who spoke for
more than two hours. When President Lincoln was given a chance
to speak, he spoke for about two minutes. He delivered the
Gettysburg Address, which has become one of the most famous
speeches in American history.
He paid respect to the soldiers who died at Gettysburg. He
challenged their survivors to uphold the principle for which
they had died: a ``government of the people, by the people, and
for the people.''
My guess is that President Lincoln would be certainly
surprised, if not disappointed, to look at the expanded role of
special interests in Congress today.
Senators and Congressmen are forced to spend so much time
chasing campaign donations that Congress has become more
responsive to lobbyists and corporate donors than it is to
everyday Americans. It is personally troubling to me, if not
embarrassing, how much time we spend behind closed doors
talking about raising money for campaigns.
Some argue that our government of, by, and for the people
has morphed into one that is bought and paid for by special
interests.
Our fellow Americans see the corrosive impact that special
interest money has on our political system, and they do not
like it one bit. Recent surveys confirm that Americans are
losing faith in Congress: Eight out of 10 Americans surveyed in
February believe that Members of Congress are ``controlled'' by
the people who fund their campaigns; seven out of 10 Americans
believe that ``most Members of Congress [are] willing to sell
their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution.''
Let me be clear: The overwhelming majority of people
serving in American politics in both political parties are
good, honest, hard-working people who are guided by the best of
intentions.
The problem is that even the best of us are caught in a
terrible, corrupting system. This system creates the perception
among average Americans that politicians are beholden to big
money interests.
The situation has been made worse by the Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United. In that decision, which ignored
decades of Court precedent, a divided Supreme Court held that
corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to
influence Congressional elections.
That is exactly what happened after the Citizens United
decision in the election of 2010.
Last year, a record $4 billion was spent on federal
elections by outside organizations, political parties, and
Congressional campaigns.
Outside groups spent 500 percent more on Congressional
campaigns than they did just four years earlier.
The amount of money these lobbyists and corporations are
willing to spend is going to continue to increase dramatically,
and more and more of it will be done in secret. We will not
know the sources of the money that is being spent in these
campaigns.
Big money donors, corporations, and lobbyists are spending
tens of millions of dollars to elect candidates. It is not just
simply because of their love for our system of government. So
no one should be surprised, as you go out here in the corridors
of this building, to see who is walking the halls, hoping to
cash in on their investments.
This flood of campaign spending from big corporations and
special interest lobbyists is drowning out the voice of
everyday Americans and crippling Congress' ability to solve
problems.
The Supreme Court may strike another blow in favor of
special interests this term when it takes up the Arizona
campaign finance law, enacted by the people of Arizona.
Clearly, it is time for Congress to step in.
Transparency is critical. We need to know which special
interests are donating to candidates and how much they are
giving. But our system is in desperate need of even more
comprehensive reform. That is why I introduced the Fair
Elections Now Act, with 12 of my Senate colleagues. Our bill
will allow candidates to get out of the fundraising business
and focus on being Senators and Congressmen.
The voluntary system created by the Fair Elections Now Act
will allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without
raising a dime, not a penny, from special interest lobbyists or
corporations.
Qualified candidates will receive grants, matching funds,
and television vouchers to help them run their campaigns.
In return, the candidates voluntarily agree to only accept
campaign donations of $100 or less from citizens in their own
State.
Fair Elections candidates will be able to stand up and
publicly say, ``I did not take a dime from special interest
groups. I am beholden to no one but you as a voter, and I will
represent your interests if I am elected.''
Now, they will be able to say that. Those who do not engage
in the system will not. Those who do not engage in the system
probably will have more money to spend. But I am betting on the
American people when it comes down to this. If you have people
who stand up and honestly say, ``I am here because of small
donations and I did not get the money from special interest
groups. My opponent went the other way and spent a lot more
money. You are going to see that person on TV and hear him on
radio a lot more. Take your pick.'' I think that is a fair
match.
Not one penny of taxpayer money will be used to fund this
system. We would pay for it by asking the businesses and
corporations who earn more than $10 million a year in federal
contracts to pay a fee of one-half of one percent, up to
$500,000 per year.
Incidentally, these same corporations are now usually the
owners of big political action committees which spend
dramatically more money than that on campaigns. So this is not
a new hardship or burden to these major corporations and
businesses.
This Fair Elections Now Act will amplify the voice of
everyday Americans and, I hope, will break some of the gridlock
in Washington.
You might wonder why it is so hard to cut a defense program
from the Pentagon or why Congress cannot get rid of tax
benefits for certain corporations and special interests. The
answer, I am afraid, is very clear.
For every program, tax break, or government contract, there
is usually a lobbyist on deck ready to pounce when their
client's pet project is threatened. There is nothing wrong with
that. That is part of our constitutional process, petitioning
Congress.
Members of Congress thinking about cutting the program,
though, often have to look into the eyes of the same lobbyist
who is writing a check that evening or the previous day to
their campaigns. It is a vicious cycle in a corrupting system.
It needs to end.
Lobbyists and special interest donors will not have that
kind of influence over candidates who participate in the Fair
Elections system. Restoring a government of, by, and for the
people requires reforming the way we finance Congressional
campaigns. The Fair Elections Now Act is the vehicle, I hope,
that will start that conversation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a
submission for the record.]
I am going to start with the panel here, and as I said, if
a minority Member of the Committee appears, I will give them an
opportunity for an opening statement.
We welcome this panel of three. Each witness will have five
minutes for an opening statement, and as is the custom of this
Committee, I begin by swearing the witnesses in, so if you
would all please stand and raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give
before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Simpson. I do.
Ms. Youn. I do.
Ms. Mitchell. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Let the record reflect that all three of
the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Now, the first witness is no stranger to these halls. His
name is Alan Simpson. Alan Simpson, the former Republican
Senator from Wyoming, is co-chair of Americans for Campaign
Reform, a nonpartisan organization he co-chairs with Senators
Bradley, Bob Kerrey, and Warren Rudman. He was also--and I know
very well--the co-chair of President Obama's Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Al Simpson was a member of the Wyoming State Legislature
for 13 years, served in the Senate for three terms, and for 10
of those years he had the same job I have--Assistant Majority
Leader. After leaving the Senate, Senator Simpson was a
visiting lecturer and director of the Institute of Politics at
Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
I did not know that Harvard was a recognized institution in
Wyoming, but now that you have bridged that, I----
Mr. Simpson. It is a beautiful thing.
Chairman Durbin. It is a beautiful thing.
In 2000, he returned to his alma mater, real alma mater,
University of Wyoming, to teach. He is a partner in the Wyoming
law firm of Burg Simpson and a consultant in the Washington,
DC, firm Tongour-Simpson Group.
Senator Simpson, I thank you for joining us today. It is an
honor, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN SIMPSON, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING, CODY, WYOMING
Mr. Simpson. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Lindsey, wherever he
is, let me just say a word. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify. The last part about Tongour-Simpson is one arrest, I
am not involved with them at all. I never have been a lobbyist.
That would have prevented me from going on the floor and seeing
my chums from both sides of the aisle.
I want to say a word about this Chairman. We served
together on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility
and Reform. This is a splendid person who took heat and voted
for the final report, and I remember his last remarks. When he
finished voting, he said his son called and said, ``Thanks,
Dad.'' And that is what this is about, what we do over there.
We are doing it for 15 reasons. Erskine and I, he has got nine
grandchildren and I have six. Well, enough of that.
But my father was in World War I. He was a veteran. He had
a phrase that fits Senator Durbin: ``He has got more guts than
a government mule.'' I will leave it at that for you to discern
how deeply that goes.
And then to see Cleta over here, whom I have not seen for
years, and to meet with Monica, what a pleasure.
Well, I see the button, and I know that you are very
difficult when it goes over five minutes. You have covered who
is on this group Americans for Campaign Reform, John Rauh and
Dan Weeks--amazing people--but we have to do something here.
This is really an extension of what you and I did on the
Commission. The reason the gridlock is there, is when we
discovered $1,100,000,000,000 in tax expenditures, which is
just spending by another name, or earmarks, it is because of
the power of the lobbyists and the power of the vested
interests.
So, anyway, growing older has a way of focusing on things
you leave behind, and when I take stock of the country that my
children and grandchildren will have, I shudder because the
causes of concern are many. I will not pretend to offer them
all.
There is an old guy in Wyoming--he died--very wealthy, and
they said, ``How much did he leave? '' And an old cowboy said,
``All of it.'' Which is about what it is. And we are going to
leave nothing for these young people, and part of it is because
of this twisted system.
Well, we will never get things right, and I did serve, as
you did, as assistant Majority and Minority Leader under Bob
Dole. I cannot tell you the times that we would be in the midst
of debate at night, and Bob would say, ``We are going to have a
vote at about 10 o'clock.'' And they would say, ``I have to be
in Detroit at 10 o'clock,'' or ``I have to be in L.A. at 10
o'clock because I have a fundraiser.''
So Bob and I would finally say, ``Well, it might be a great
idea to recall that you came here to legislate and could you
that? Wouldn't that be wonderful? You could come here and do
what you get paid to do? '' And that is called legislate, not
go to the cubicle and raise money with a Rolodex and spend half
your day in there for your next campaign.
Absolutely absurd, and you have seen it, and I have seen
it. The system does not work. You do not have time to visit
with colleagues. You do not have time to speak with each other.
You do not have time to commingle in social events. You are
stuck--stuck in a trough of raising bucks.
And then, of course, the Supreme Court decision is a
hammer. I do not get it. I do not understand how you can have
``corporate personhood.'' That is really from Oz. But so it is,
and it will clog the system in ways that you and I will never
know--and already is. So few people give of the private sector
because the others crowd it out.
Well, I see I have one minute, this yellow light. I have
this beautiful testimony. I scribbled all over it on your
behalf. I came here on my own expense. What in the world am I
doing here?
No, I did not mean that. I can leave that out. This is
going to go into the record, anyway.
Ah, yes, why is it that the same Congress that authorizes
the VA to negotiate discounts on pharmaceuticals has made it
illegal for the government to negotiate such discounts for
millions more of our elderly and disabled?
Why is it that Congress continues to approve the multi-
billion-dollar contracts when the Pentagon does not even want
the equipment? Why do public employee pensions often exceed the
private sector equivalents?
Why is it that all of these issues and more, which together
account for hundreds of billions in tax expenditures, have not
factored more strongly into our current budget debate? It is
absolutely--we all know what is happening, all of us. All of us
were here.
So I think this is a very good bill, and I think the
financing of it is a very good measure. I think that is good.
If you figure out what they have spent with PACs, what they
would be putting in to fund this effort would be certainly
nothing excessive.
But in our final report, which you signed on to, Erskine
and I observed, as you did, ``In the weeks and months to come,
countless advocacy groups and special interests will try
mightily and savagely and heavily to exempt themselves from
shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not
special interests, must prevail.''
So, in the future of our country, I think if it is going to
continue as great Nation, you have got to get a handle on this,
which is directly responsible for the gridlock we see every day
in the news.
I thank you very much, and go forth and multiply.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. I will have some questions.
Cleta Mitchell is a partner at Foley & Lardner and a member
of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on
Election Law. We are honored that she has joined us today.
Ms. Mitchell serves on the Board of Directors of the
National Rifle Association. She is the Chairman of the American
Conservative Union Foundation and President of Republican
National Lawyers Association. She has served as legal counsel
to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the
National Republican Congressional Committee.
Ms. Mitchell is a former member of the Oklahoma House of
Representatives. She served as director and general counsel of
the Term Limits Legal Institute. She has litigated cases in
State and federal courts nationwide, served as co-counsel in
U.S. Supreme Court cases on Congressional term limits and the
2002 federal campaign finance law. She received her Bachelor's
degree and Juris Doctorate degrees from the University of
Oklahoma.
Ms. Mitchell, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL, PARTNER, FOLEY & LARDNER,
WASHINGTON, D.C., AND PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for
me to be with you this morning. My written testimony, of
course, will be made part of the record. I want to just touch
on a few highlights.
First, this hearing is entitled ``Fair Elections Now Act: A
Reasoned Response to Citizens United.'' I want to talk about
Citizens United because I think there has been much that has
been said about it which is not based on fact.
Citizens United was actually a return to the jurisprudence
of the Supreme Court prior to two aberrant decisions, and in
the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court cited 22 cases
going back 60 years of Supreme Court precedent which
establishes that corporations have First Amendment rights.
There is a very real body of law going back more than a
century which established that corporations under American law
have personhood or citizenship rights. So to say that Citizens
United is somehow a departure is not correct.
What Citizens United did was restore the precedent that
existed prior to 1990 when the Supreme Court in the decision
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce departed from its
historic ruling that corporations--that entities, whether it is
corporations or political parties or individuals, have a right
to make independent expenditures.
Citizens United is not about contributions. In fact, the
Supreme Court specifically said in that decision that all of
the body of law related to contributions to federal candidates
were undisturbed. What Citizens United said and what it stands
for is the proposition that corporations do have First
Amendment rights, as had been the Court's decision since the
early 1950s, and that the government and Congress have no
constitutional authority to deny speech rights to any source
simply because of the form of that source or the speaker. That
is what the Court said, is that Congress was essentially
putting itself in a position of granting speech licenses and
that that does not meet the First Amendment test.
I want to turn specifically to the bill before the
Subcommittee, Senate bill 749, and I want to call to everyone's
attention that this Friday there will be a national referendum
on this legislation. Millions of Americans will go to the polls
and will cast their ballots on whether or not they believe in
public funding for federal candidates. When they file their tax
returns this Friday at their local post offices, they will vote
overwhelmingly that their answer is no.
The only public funding mechanism we have today for federal
candidates is the Presidential financing system, and fewer and
fewer and fewer Americans participate in that system. Ever
since Congress tripled the amount of money that people could
check off on their income tax to give to that system, the total
amount of the funding provided by the American people has gone
down. The last year for which there are any statistics, which
is 2007, only 8.5 percent of the American people participated.
So I think that to say that this is something the American
people want is to not look at the facts. They vote on it every
year.
Now, specifically with regard to this bill, this bill was
first introduced in 2007 in much the same form, and that is why
it is a little odd to me to say that this is a response to
Citizens United because this is the third Congress in which
this bill has been introduced. But it was before the 2008 and
the 2010 cycles, and I want to quickly share some statistics
with you about Senate campaigns in 2010. I am not even going to
talk about the 2008 cycle where President Obama opted out of
the public financing system and raised and spent substantially
more, $750 million to John McCain's $84 million in the general
election, that he got from the government. Anyone who is
running for President now who would seek to participate in the
Presidential financing system probably is not qualified to be
President.
But I want to call to your attention what happened in 2010.
When you say that you need to have some kind of government
program so people can have a chance to run, I want to call to
your attention just some Senate races last year.
Let us start with Harry Reid. He raised and spent $26
million in his Committee for re-election. Sharron Angle, his
Republican opponent, raised and spent $27 million. Her third
quarter report--I represented her, and so I had to make
arrangements to file the report because Senate candidates do
not file electronically. When we delivered her third quarter
report, it was 9,112 pages; it filled three banker's boxes, was
three feet high, four feet long, and weighed 103 pounds. She
raised $14.4 million in the third quarter alone from 194,000
donors, with an average contribution of $73. The average
contribution to her entire campaign was $92. And that is but
just one example.
Senator Specter was a co-author of this bill in prior
Congresses. He raised and spent $15 million to lose his primary
campaign to Joe Sestak, who raised and spent $6 million. And I
could go on and on.
The fact is the bill is not needed. It is an anachronism.
It is an idea whose time has come and gone. And I would urge
the Committee not to move forward with the bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell.
Our next witness is Monica Youn. Did I pronounce that
correctly?
Ms. Youn. That is right.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Monica Youn directs the Brennan
Center Campaign Finance Reform Project. She was previously in
private practice and served as a law clerk to Judge John T.
Noonan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She
received her J.D. degree from Yale Law School, her Master's in
philosophy from Oxford, where she was a Rhodes scholar, and her
B.A. from Princeton. She has litigated campaign finance and
election law issues in State and Federal courts. Ms. Youn was
co-lead counsel for intervenor defendants in McComish v.
Bennett, the Arizona public financing case currently pending
before the Supreme Court. She is the editor of the forthcoming
``Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens
United.''
Ms. Youn, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MONICA YOUN, SENIOR COUNSEL, DEMOCRACY PROGRAM,
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Youn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
In the Citizens United decision last year, five Justices of
the Supreme Court took a look at our federal elections and
decided that the real problem is that corporations just do not
have enough influence over our politics.
Now, whatever you may think of this diagnosis, we are now
starting to feel the results of the Supreme Court's
prescription. For the first time in 100 years, we have
unlimited spending out of corporate treasuries in federal
elections.
So let us look at what happened in 2010. The first thing
that we saw there was we saw a massive rise in outside
spending, the type of spending enabled by Citizens United out
of corporate treasuries. We saw $280 million in independent
spending, which is a doubling of the figure from 2006, and that
figure is widely expected to double again in 2012. We are
seeing an escalating arms race of fundraising.
The second phenomenon we saw was an increase in the
darkness of our politics. More than a third of the independent
spending in the past election was dark. We have no idea who
funded these campaign advertisements or what their agendas
might be. I mean, we have some glimpses that are provided by
independent investigations.
For example, the New York Times determined that the
American Future Fund, which spent $10 million running ads
about, for example, the Ground Zero mosque, was, in fact,
funded almost entirely by the ethanol industry, and the true
target of that ad campaign was to target Committee members
sitting on agriculture policy and energy policy committees.
We also saw in the last election the rise of what are
called super PACs, which are PACs that are able to accept
unlimited contributions from corporate treasuries and from
individuals. Not that they can accept corporate contributions,
we can't know if the PAC contribution is coming from corporate
or its innocuous conduit
Now, you can think of these super PACS and similar groups
as sort of the Godiva chocolates of fundraising. They are very
rich; they are very dark; and you have no way of knowing what
is inside them.
These super PACs poured tens of millions of dollars into
the midterm elections, and in 2012 they have pledged to make
that hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now, why is this all a problem? Why is this escalation of
especially independent spending a problem for our democracy?
Corporate independent spending poses a major risk of
corruption because it is functioning as the new soft money.
Corporations view it as an investment, a quid pro quo to buy
favorable treatment from elected officials.
For example, my testimony details the example of an Indian
tribe in Kansas who went to a legislator and said, ``Look, we
will run an ad campaign supporting you if you will vote in
favor of our casino.''
We also detail a North Carolina example where a farmers
lobby went to a legislator, ran him a series of smear campaign
ads, and said, ``You had better switch your vote about the farm
subsidies, or we will run this smear campaign against you.'' Of
course, the smear campaign had nothing to do with the farm
subsidies. It was simply character assassination.
It is no wonder that, as Senator Durbin outlined so
dramatically, the American public is experiencing a crisis of
accountability. So let us talk about how Fair Elections can
help.
Fair Elections allows candidates to make a choice. Who are
they going to be accountable to? Are they going to be
accountable to the big money backers, the middlemen? Or are
they going to be accountable to the electorate at large?
Fair Elections also incentivizes political participation.
The point is not to get money out of politics. The point is to
expand the field of those who have a stake in our political
campaigns.
Ms. Mitchell gave you some examples of a couple of
instances where there was some grass-roots fundraising, but I
have to tell you, that is not the norm. Currently, only one out
of 400 voters contributes to Congressional elections. In the
past cycle alone, lobbyists and other DC-based contributors
provided almost $300 million of Congressional campaign
spending. That is more than the total contribution of 32 States
combined.
So if only one out of 400 is currently contributing to
political campaigns, Fair Elections is about the other 399.
Other jurisdictions who have adopted public financing have seen
huge increases in the numbers of small donors who now feel that
they have something at stake in our political campaigns.
I wanted to end with a story. It is the story of an
insurgent candidate who used public financing to challenge a
well-known incumbent. This candidate had broad-based popular
support at the grass roots, but lacked the support of the money
men of the party. During the crucial primary month of January,
this candidate was down to $44,000 cash in hand. Only the
infusion of $1 million in primary matching funds that was
enabled by the widespread donations this candidate had received
from small donors across the country enabled this candidate to
save his campaign. This candidate's name was Ronald Reagan, and
he was the single largest beneficiary of Presidential public
financing funds in our Nation's history.
Fair Elections translates popular support into winning
campaign without requiring candidates to sell out to big money
backers. That is why we urge the Committee to support this
bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Youn appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Simpson, the Fair Elections Now law is voluntary.
Should I volunteer to be part of the system. I really hold
myself to a pretty high standard. By my calculation I have to
find about 2,500 folks in Illinois who are willing to make
contributions of $100 or less for me to get into the system. So
there is some pretty active grass-roots campaigning. It is a
big State, but that is still pretty active grass-roots
campaigning to get involved in the system. And then I limit
myself to how much I can receive, the amount I raise, plus the
matching funds and the like. So it's totally voluntary.
There is another side of the equation that Ms. Mitchell
alludes to and that the Supreme Court talked about, and that is
the larger issue--the larger issue of free speech in America
and whether or not corporations should have First Amendment
rights to free speech. In other words, should we in any way
limit the role of corporations in the election process? That
does not relate at all to my bill, because the bill still
allows them under existing law to continue whatever they are
going to do under Citizens United or any other auspices. But if
you would for a moment, could you address from your
perspective, the flinty-eyed views of a cowboy Republican
Senator, this issue of free speech and whether or not there's
an inhibition of free speech if we limited the role of
corporations?
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, you described me, and then I
should describe you, as a tough old prosecutor from Illinois,
but we both share the same views on this one.
First of all, if you had to do that and get 2,500, that
shows support. You cannot just come in and wade into this bill
and say, ``I want to run for the U.S. Senate or Congress, and I
have two people who love me.'' You have to show that people
care and they are going to put up the bucks. I think that is
very critical.
I remember the days in my ancient time when there was a
thing called COPE. It meant Committee on Political Education.
It was solely union-backed, and then the corporations went
goofy thinking how do these guys get away with this. So they
formed PACs. So that was the corporate way of getting in to
kill off COPE. But now they have both in it, and now they are
both playing in this pool big time, unions--I think Republicans
who are thrilled with this present system think that it is just
going to enrich them. Wait until the unions gear up on this
baby, and then there will be real competition for the bucks to
pour into the system.
And you get back to the real issue. We were elected to
legislate. You cannot legislate when you are raising money day
and night. And you finish one cycle. Forget figures, forget--
and both of these presentations were excellent. But forget the
numbers. The American people think we are on the take. They
think that these guys out here are on the take, and if they
were not, they would get something done. Why don't they do
something? And the issue is they cannot because in wanders Old
Slick, who maxed out on you 15 times in your 20 years here, he
has taken you to dinner, he has had your staff plastered for 10
years with the finest wine they could ever get hold of they
have never seen back in Bug Hollow, and there they are. And
they say, ``Hey, Eddie, you want to help us.'' ``Yeah, I do.''
And they do. And that--it may be right, but it stinks. It
smells bad. And that is what this is, as I see it.
Chairman Durbin. So let me, before I go to questions, say--
--
Mr. Simpson. I did not answer your question, but I got a
lot off my chest there.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. You got real close to it. And my staff
wasted no time correcting me. It turns out I need 11,500 donors
in Illinois to qualify. That is dramatically more than four
times what I originally thought.
Ms. Mitchell, I have read your full testimony in advance
here, and it was well written, as I expected it to be.
Ms. Mitchell. Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. And it turns out to be a very strong
defense for the current system. I do not know if you are in
favor of reform or not, but I want you to address Ms. Youn's
one element of what is going on in campaigns in America. In her
testimony, she says Citizens United has actually accelerated
``a sharp decline in disclosure of political expenditures.''
``Among groups making `electioneering communications'
(campaign advertisements that mention a candidate), disclosure
of donors has dropped from 96.8 percent in 2006, to 49.3
percent in 2008, to a scant 34 percent in 2010.''
``Among groups making independent expenditures, disclosure
of donors dropped from 96.7 percent in 2006, to 83.3 percent in
2008, to 70 percent in 2010.''
Back to her Godiva chocolate analogy, do you think it is in
the best interest of our country for the donors to political
campaigns to be invisible? Do you think secrecy in this process
makes a democracy stronger?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of
responses.
First of all, let me correct something that Ms. Youn said
which is incorrect when she made reference to super PACs as
being the Godiva chocolates. Every contribution to a super PAC
of over $200 and every disbursement of over $200 to a super PAC
is disclosed publicly to the Federal Election Commission, so I
am not sure where it gets to be Godiva chocolate because it is
pretty transparent.
With respect to the examples of the Native American tribe
and the farmer, the farm subsidies in North Carolina, frankly,
if that indeed happened, that is illegal under current law.
Citizens United only applies to independent spending, and there
are very strict regulations regarding what constitutes
independence and what constitutes coordinated expenditures.
And----
Chairman Durbin. What about these numbers that I mentioned?
Ms. Mitchell. These numbers, I am getting to that. The
numbers that you refer to, let me just say this: The Federal
Election Commission at the instigation of the labor unions--not
corporations, but at the instigation of the labor unions--got
the FEC to change the regulations on disclosure after 2006.
There was a requirement that if an organization was to make
independent expenditures or electioneering communications,
those had to be made prior to 2006 and during the 2006 cycle
from a separate account.
Chairman Durbin. I need to really bring you back to my----
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I am getting to that. I am trying to
help you understand the----
Chairman Durbin. You need to answer the question because I
am out of time, please.
Ms. Mitchell. Well, because the system changed at the FEC.
Chairman Durbin. Is it changing for the better? Do you
believe transparency or secrecy is better when it comes to
political donations?
Ms. Mitchell. I do not think that is the right question. I
would be----
Chairman Durbin. That is my question, so I am asking you.
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I frankly think that when the NRA makes
an expenditure, you know where that is coming from. And anyone
who makes a contribution to an organization in order for that
organization to be able to make an expenditure related to
politics, it is required under current law to be disclosed.
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask Ms. Youn to respond before I
turn to Senator Blumenthal.
Ms. Youn. Sure. The only way in which someone who
contributes to an organization that is going to make an
independent expenditure is required to disclose it is if that
funder specifically earmarks that fund only to be used for
these kinds of electioneering communications. If the funder
does not earmark the fund, which pretty much none of the
sophisticated funders do, then they have no such requirement.
The money goes into a general dark slush fund out of which the
entity can fund electioneering communications or not.
You know, the real problem here is one of transparency.
What Citizens United did is it set up categories of corporate
treasury funding that do not have robust disclosure. There is
no regime in place. Such corporations are not required to
disclose such spending even to their shareholders or to their
boards of directors under federal law. You know, there is no
simple way to track when a corporation is funneling money
through a conduit organization that then goes into another
organization--you have this series of covers.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank Senator Durbin for his very
important and really significant proposal addressing a problem
that I think all of us agree is an issue most Americans feel is
a problem in today's democracy, and I want to thank Senator
Durbin for advancing this debate and for a proposal that I
think addresses many of the weaknesses and needs in the present
system. And it is a difficult area legally and substantively,
and I think none of us in the Senate or in this room, certainly
none of our witnesses today, have minimized that problem. But
it is one that people feel is an inherent issue in our present
democracy because it leads to so many of the abuses that have
been outlined by a number of you. And I think that one of the
areas that perhaps the proposal does not address is a
triggering provision or a provision that somehow enables a
candidate who may still be outspent dramatically even with the
system that has been proposed here.
So I wonder if perhaps, Senator Simpson or Ms. Youn or Ms.
Mitchell, you could address the issue relating to triggering
both from a legal and from a substantive point of view.
Mr. Simpson. I might say, as Senator Durbin well knows,
that in our work, the Chairman and Co-Chairman of the
Commission, Erskine Bowles, was the numbers guy and I was the
color guy, and I would like to hear these two delightful
attorneys rattle around on that question. It would please me
greatly, and I would learn greatly. Please.
Ms. Youn. If I may, the current Fair Elections bill was
drafted specifically with the sort of legal challenges at issue
in the Arizona trigger case in mind. I mean, we knew at the
time we were working on the bill that those were coming up
through the courts, and we thought that the prudent choice was
to avoid such challenges.
Senator Blumenthal. And as you know, the Connecticut system
was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ms. Youn. Exactly, and, you know, we litigated that case as
well. And so we are as aware as anyone of the current legal
status of the trigger provisions.
Fair Elections contains no such triggers, and even in the
Supreme Court's recent oral argument in McComish v. Bennett,
the Court and the petitioning attorneys made it absolutely
clear. The constitutionality of public financing is not in
doubt. The Court may have taken issue with a particular
provision, this trigger provision, and they may vote to uphold
it or they may vote to strike that down. But that has nothing
to do with the constitutionality of public financing.
If I might address very quickly the practicality of public
financing without trigger provisions, I think that your own
home State of Connecticut provides a great example there. You
had Dan Malloy, the current Connecticut Governor, who was a
publicly financed candidate, who fought off much more well-
financed private candidates--Ned Lamont and Tom Foley--in both
the primary and the general elections, and prevailed using
public funds, using exactly the message that Senator Durbin put
forward: ``I am here. I am not taking special interest money. I
am accountable not to special interests but to the
constituents.''
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman and Senator Blumenthal, I think
that the thing that I would ask the Senators to do is to step
back and look at what has happened in the last two cycles. I
think we have reached a point in our country where individuals
can participate in the system through the Internet. When our
campaign finance regulatory scheme was created in 1974, there
were three networks, no Internet, no cable, no satellite, no
talk radio.
And people now can participate directly in supporting
candidates that they want to support without a government
program. And I only had time to mention in my oral testimony a
couple of examples, but if you look at the 2010 cycle and look
at 2008 with President Obama, I think we have reached a point
where these government programs are no longer necessary for
people to be able to run and be successful in raising money and
to be competitive with small donations. And I would just urge
you to take a step back and look at the system that has been
created quite outside the government.
And one last point. This bill does not ask federal
contractors to support the system. It mandates federal
contractors to fund this proposed system. Under current law, it
is illegal for a federal contractor to make a voluntary
contribution to a candidate that he or she supports. But this
bill would mandate that a federal contractor must support a
system which can end up funding a candidate with whom they
thoroughly disagree. I do not know how that possibly passes
constitutional muster.
Senator Blumenthal. Even with those potential sources of
money, however, isn't there a reality here that the imbalances
of funding can be so disparate and the appearances are so
corrosive to trust and confidence in the democratic system?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, every time anyone comes with a campaign
finance proposal, with a lobbying reform proposal, it is
always, ``This is going to restore the faith of the American
people in the system.'' I happen to believe very strongly that
it is my right as an American citizen not to like Congress. I
am entitled to that. And there is no law that you can pass to
make me like Congress. And I think the most important thing to
do in analyzing these proposals is to apply First Amendment
principles.
What the Citizens United Court said was that just because
people organize themselves into a corporate form does not
render them unable to speak. And what we saw was exactly what I
thought would happen. I represent a lot of conservative issue
groups. You know, I always say my practice is I am the
consigliere to the vast right-wing conspiracy. And what we saw
was that they did not raise money from corporations. These are
not-for-profit corporations that raised money from individuals
and were able to spend it out of their corporate treasuries.
That was the impact of Citizens United.
Senator Blumenthal. And I do not view this proposal as an
attack on corporations or corporate contributions, nor do I
view it as an effort to make people like Congress, but perhaps
trust Congress a little bit more.
My time has expired, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Yes, I am sorry I was not here for the
testimony--hi, Alan--but I did read it last night.
Ms. Mitchell, I was struck by a number of things that you
found amusing, and in my old business, anybody who found
anything amusing was good.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Mitchell. Thank you.
Senator Franken. And you are easily amused.
This thing about the public would be upset--Myth Number 3:
The public would be upset to know how much time Senators have
to spend raising money. And you say there is nothing wrong with
Senators having to go out and mix among the people. There is a
little difference, you know, mixing among the people, going to
town meetings, going to floods like I did this week, talking to
different community groups, and doing fundraising. You know
that, right?
Ms. Mitchell. Well----
Senator Franken. You do not?
Ms. Mitchell. I mean----
Senator Franken. I find that amusing.
Ms. Mitchell. Those are two different kinds of events, but
I also believe very strongly that the last link that requires
Senators to do something that they do not want to do is to have
to go out and ask people for money and to say, ``This is my
job. I hope you like the job I am doing. I hope you will help
me stay here.'' I do not think there is anything wrong with
that. I think it is un-American to suggest otherwise.
Senator Franken. I am sorry. God, I did not think I was un-
American. And I did not think Alan Simpson was either.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, but you and I know too much about each
other.
Senator Franken. Yes.
You say that you have to go out--you compared yourself to a
Senator in this. You say, ``If I am to be able to have a
paycheck to support my family, I have to not only be able to do
my job as an attorney--knowing the substance of the law, doing
my work, taking care of my clients' needs . . . but I also have
to market my services, ask people to hire me, get paying
clients . . . and then I have to keep track of my time, prepare
and send invoices, collect receivable and generally run my
business.''
Do you think that Senators should find people to pay us? Do
you think that we really should not be paid by the government
but that we should really do that----
Ms. Mitchell. No.
Senator Franken. No?
Ms. Mitchell. No.
Senator Franken. Well, that seems to be--see, I find that
amusing, because in your testimony you seem to suggest that.
Senator Simpson, did you find what Ms. Mitchell said
convincing about going out to ask people to give you money,
doing fundraisers, calling people on the phone is the same as
just going out and meeting your constituents?
Mr. Simpson. No. But I think the people should know,
Senator, that you and I did a few shticks together, both
members of the Screen Actors Guild, and I do not know why I
ever appeared on your program, ``LateLine.'' It was the
goofiest thing I ever enjoyed. But I just thought I would throw
that in so they knew. And then I invited you to Harvard. You
remember that. You set them on fire there.
Now, the question is: All I know about me, I felt used when
I had to go raise money. I was embarrassed. I thought it was
ugly. I thought it was demeaning. My staff kept saying, ``You
got to go do it.'' I said, ``I do not like it.'' And then they
would say, ``The Republican Eagles are coming to town, and you
are going to make a call. And then Presidents night is coming
up, and you get a Rolodex and you get to go outside the
building for a whole day and dial numbers of jerks you have
never heard of in your whole life to get money out of them.''
I said, ``I will not do that.'' They said, ``Well, you have
to. It is for the party.'' I said, ``When they come to town, I
will go speak to them at lunch, not to raise money, just, you
know, if they wanted to see me or talk, that was great.'' But I
tell you, if you talk to the gut of any guy who is in public
life who tells you he just loves to go beg for money,
especially after he has just finished one election cycle, you
are talking to a delusional person.
Senator Franken. Okay. Let us get into--Ms. Youn, in your
testimony you said there are only--not only are third-party
groups spending more on elections, they are disclosing less
about who is bankrolling spending. Now, Ms. Mitchell writes,
``Other than members of labor unions whose dues are mandatory
and who are not allowed to withhold amounts that might be spent
by their labor unions for political purposes, generally
speaking in America, campaigns are funded from the voluntary
after-tax contributions of the citizens.''
If I am giving to--if I own stock in a corporation that is
giving money to this third party and I do not know it, they do
not disclose it, aren't I contributing?
Ms. Youn. Yes, you are contributing, and I think that the
best example of that that people know about is maybe from your
home State of Minnesota with the Target example, where Target
spent $150,000 of its shareholder money in support of a
candidate whose views many of the shareholders of Target simply
did not agree with.
Now, the ironic thing about the Target example----
Senator Franken. And that was only because Minnesota had a
disclosure law, and we in the U.S. do not have a disclosure
law, even though Republicans have said this, who then
subsequently voted against disclosure: ``Clearly the American
public has a right to know who is paying for ads and who is
attempting to influence elections. Sunshine is what the
political system needs. We can try to''--these are different
Republicans who are around. This is what they said during
McCain-Feingold. ``We can try to regulate ethical behavior by
politicians, but the surest way to cleanse the system is let
the sun shine in.''
I do not like it when a large source of money is out there
funding ads and it is unaccountable. Why don't you continue,
Ms. Youn? I am sorry to interrupt you. But I just want to--
there is a lot of hypocrisy here about just disclosure.
Ms. Youn. Exactly, because at the same time these
statements are being made in favor of disclosure, new
organizations, new strategies are being set up, you know,
particularly to avoid disclosure. The super PACs that we
discussed earlier set up their own arms that are nonprofits
that do not have to disclose their donors. And we have found
this just escalating, and more and more money is going dark.
Senator Franken. And now in 2010, only 34 percent of these
groups made these disclosures. Is that right?
Ms. Youn. About a third, yes, exactly, of the groups
specifically engaging in campaign ads.
Senator Franken. So it would be really inaccurate to say
other than members of labor unions.
Ms. Youn. Yes. I do not know where that----
Senator Franken. Wouldn't that be just inaccurate?
Ms. Youn. That seems inaccurate to me. What we know and
what everyone knows is there is a lot of money out there that
is paid for by Americans Who Love Children and Puppies, and we
have no idea that Americans Who Love Children and Puppies is
actually some corporate-backed interest or some special
interest.
Senator Franken. I think there was a corporation that makes
its money crushing puppies that was behind that.
Well, I have run out of time, and I am needed back at the
Energy markup, so thank you very much.
Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, could I just correct one thing
that was referenced with regard to my testimony? That reference
that you made from my testimony had to do with contributions,
not expenditures, and as in reference to S. 749, which is a
contributions bill. It not an expenditures bill. It has to do
with contributions. And what I said was our system today is
funded----
Senator Franken. Excuse me, but how does----
Ms. Mitchell [continuing]. With voluntary----
Senator Franken. How does it expend money that is not
contributed?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, Citizens United dealt only with
expenditures. It did not deal with contributions.
Senator Franken. How does a corporation expend money
without you having money to spend? And doesn't the people who
are contributing to that effort include the stockholders?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, the Supreme Court rejected the----
Senator Franken. Please answer my question.
Ms. Mitchell. Well, the corporation, the publicly held
corporation you are referring to that makes contributions to a
not-for-profit corporation--is that what you are referring to?
The not-for-profit corporations are the ones that have made
expenditures in 2010.
Senator Franken. I am saying--yes, yes. I am saying that if
a corporation gives to a party that makes expenditures, the
corporation is contributing to the third party that is making
the expenditure. They are contributing, and the people that are
contributing include the stockholders. And since they are not
disclosing that they are making this contribution, then they
fall in the category of someone who is unknowingly contributing
to something and has no choice because they do not know.
Ms. Mitchell. And that would be similar to the labor
unions, correct?
Senator Franken. So am I confused then?
Ms. Mitchell. Yes.
Senator Franken. How am I confused?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, because my testimony was referring to
the system that we have of funding campaigns, which is
voluntary after-tax contributions to PACs and to candidates,
which is the only source, and all of this talk about the
corporate--I am really interested to hear this solicitation of
corporate contributions is a problem for Senators because
actually that is illegal.
Senator Franken. The present systems includes, though,
where--you do not say just candidates. You say causes. So isn't
this a cause? Wouldn't you call it a cause, these third
parties? Aren't they causes?
Ms. Mitchell. They are, and I----
Senator Franken. So then I think you are confused,
actually, about your own testimony.
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I think that we should have a confuse-
off.
Senator Franken. I think we did, and I think I won. Thank
you.
Ms. Mitchell. I do not.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Well, that is good. Now let us----
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Franken and Ms.
Mitchell.
If I could clarify, a lot of your testimony, Ms. Mitchell,
relates to the Presidential campaign financing system?
Ms. Mitchell. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. And you say only 8.4 or 8.5 percent of
taxpayers contribute to it. I would say it is largely a
confusing system. When I read your testimony, I called the
accountant who did my tax returns this year and said, ``Now,
you did check the box where I am giving the money to
Presidential''--he said, ``I never do.'' I said, ``I want it
checked.'' So some of these things are not necessarily
conscious decisions by taxpayers. Some of it is just pure
confusion about who is paying for what. But 70 percent of the
American people say they do support Presidential campaign
financing. And in terms of whether or not there is popular
support--you talk about the April 15th referendum. For the
record, both Maine, a purple State, and Arizona, a red State,
the voters in those States voted for a public financing system
paid for by taxes. So they made a conscious decision they would
rather clean up the mess in their States and pay a little bit
more in taxes than continue what they thought was a corrupting
system. I think that is a matter of record.
Ms. Youn, can you comment on whether or not the Fair
Elections Now Act, what we are talking about, a voluntary
system of individual candidates who will decide to only take
small donor contributions and be matched and receive some
discounts for media, how that stacks up against the Citizens
United case, whether or not you believe that it addresses any
of the elements that have been raised by that decision?
Ms. Youn. Well, Ms. Mitchell is right to say that Fair
Elections does not directly address the Citizens United
decision. The Citizens United decision is the Supreme Court. It
is the law of the land.
What the Fair Elections Act does, however, is it enables
candidates to translate popular support into viable campaigns--
campaigns that can survive even in the face of independent
expenditure attacks. We have seen, for example, Arizona
Governor Janet Napolitano, who was a publicly financed
candidate, successfully withstand a $400,000 independent
expenditure campaign launched against her. We have seen the
State of Maine, which has been the target of massive
independent funding by the National Organization for marriage,
among other groups, also have its publicly financed candidates
who constitute the vast majority of both parties of its
legislature withstand those attacks.
So what we are saying is that, you know, if you are willing
to say, ``I am accountable to the people and not to special
interests,'' then as long as you have viable funding, you are
able to stand up even against the tide of special interest
money of recent elections.
Chairman Durbin. So I would get back to this point, Ms.
Mitchell. I would think--I would stake my reputation on this.
If I went to the people of my State, whom I know a little
better than some other places, and said, ``Okay, here is what I
am going to offer you: shorter campaigns, more direct contact
between candidates and voters, more disclosure and transparency
about where my money is coming from that is being spent on my
campaign,'' I would ask them, ``Do you prefer that over the
current system? '' And my guess is overwhelmingly yes.
Overwhelmingly yes.
The trend in America is exactly the opposite. The campaigns
go on forever. They inundate the airwaves with organizations we
have never heard of before or since. Less likely to be the
Democrat or Republican Party than some other Committee for--
fill in the blank--and fewer and fewer disclosures about where
the money is coming from.
It seems to me that what you are defending is not exactly
what the American people are looking for at this point. Do you
disagree?
Ms. Mitchell. I do disagree, Mr. Chairman. I think that,
first of all, every contribution to your campaign over $200 is
already disclosed.
Chairman Durbin. To my campaign.
Ms. Mitchell. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. That is not the problem. The problem----
Ms. Mitchell. Well, I thought you said you would go and
offer them about your campaign.
Chairman Durbin. The point I am getting to is people want
disclosure. They want to know, ``Durbin, who is it that is
supporting you? '' And they are going to ask the hard
questions. ``Now, you voted on such and such a day, and you
received this contribution. Was there a linkage? '' They assume
there is, incidentally. That is a fair question. They know that
they can raise the question because I have disclosed.
Now, if the Committee for the Improvement of America comes
in and decides to campaign against me and they do not even know
where the money is coming from, doesn't that put the voter at a
disadvantage?
Ms. Mitchell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I actually have some
proposed reforms that would address most of these problems.
No. 1, if you think that it is going to make for shorter
campaigns to raise money in $100 increments, I would beg to
differ. And it would seem to me that the way to avoid the
constant money chase is to raise the limits or remove the
limits and make every contribution, starting with dollar one,
disclosed.
Chairman Durbin. Does money equal time in campaigns? Yes.
Ms. Mitchell. Yes.
Chairman Durbin. And now you have just taken the lid off
and said spend as much as you want, raise as much as you want.
Ms. Mitchell. Raise as much as you want.
Chairman Durbin. And I would say to you at that point it
raises a serious question if, instead of a limitation of--what
is it, $4,800, $5,200? I have forgotten what the number is.
Ms. Mitchell. It is $5,000: $2,500 primary, $2,500 general,
this cycle.
Chairman Durbin. Okay. So now you say now you can take
$50,000.
Ms. Mitchell. Yes, and tell me who it is from and tell me
that before the election.
Chairman Durbin. See, if I really thought that you were
committed to transparency, I would wonder how you could defend
the system now which each year is less and less transparent,
less and less disclosure, more secrecy in terms of where the
money is coming from. On the one hand, you are all for
disclosure, but the current system is moving in exactly the
opposite direction.
Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason for that.
Because of the limits----
Chairman Durbin. Citizens United.
Ms. Mitchell. No, no. Because of the limits on
contributions to candidates and political parties, it drives
money outside the campaign system. If you remove----
Chairman Durbin. Secret.
Ms. Mitchell. Exactly.
Chairman Durbin. Secret.
Ms. Mitchell. If you remove the limits----
Chairman Durbin. That is the current system.
Ms. Mitchell. I am saying remove the limits on what you can
give to campaigns. At least remove the aggregate limits.
Chairman Durbin. I have yet to have anybody in my State
ever come up to me and say, ``You know what the problem is? You
are not spending enough money on your campaign. We want to see
you more on television.'' No. They say, ``When are you going to
get those darn ads off so we can get back to normal life? ''
That is really what most people say in my State and I think in
most other States.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. And I would agree. Whether
you favor reform or not, most folks would rather see less of us
on TV rather than more.
But I want to ask you, Senator Simpson, if you could pick
just two or three critical things to change about this current
finance system, as a member of this body for many years and
someone who has been a veteran campaigner and knows a lot more
about it than I do, what would you change?
Mr. Simpson. I think the biggest thing--and this is heresy
perhaps--is that whatever amount you give, you have to disclose
who you are and what you own and what shares you have in
something. And if you are the big donor, I do not care how big
you get--and, actually, there should be some limits, obviously.
But if there are none, I have always believed--and I tried it
in the Wyoming Legislature--in total disclosure. Never got to
first base because they said, ``We are a small State and
everybody knows what we are doing.'' They did not know that one
family is in railroads, trucking, oil, gas, trona, you name it.
No one with any knowledge of all the things they were involved
in. And I say if you are going to have anything, it has got to
be totally, totally transparent from top to bottom, no hiding,
certainly no anonymous--I mean, if you think that--the American
people just almost barfed when they heard that people could put
in money in this last campaign and not tell anybody who they
were, and then you get the right--you get the extremists on
both sides, you get the right and the left, you get the nut
cases on both sides to gather up the money, and there was an
ad--one of our fine Republicans who I think some of you served
with, Craig Thomas, he finally had to call the Republican Party
and say, ``Get these people out of the State. I am not saying
this stuff.'' They said, ``Well, they are on your side.'' He
said, ``You would never know it by looking at it.'' He said,
``Get them out of here.''
And so to me the singular thing is the absolute total
transparency, who are you, what are you into, what is your
octopus, how far do your arms reach in this great country of
ours, so that you can go back to doing what you are supposed to
do, which is to campaign, to have caucuses, to have hearings,
to have markups, to have floor debate--almost unheard of now--
to have conference committees and craft legislation that is
understood by the governed. That is the purpose of our craft.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Mitchell, do you disagree?
Ms. Mitchell. I do disagree, because I think that it
ignores the situation that could be remedied if the Congress
would do a couple of things.
If I am a wealthy person and I say, ``All right, I am just
going to support candidates. I am not going to give to outside
groups. I just want to support candidates,'' do you know how
many candidates I can max out to in a given cycle? Eight. Now,
there is something wrong, and the reason for that is the
aggregate limits.
Take off the aggregate limits. Let people give to the
political----
Senator Blumenthal. But do you disagree with the point
about disclosure?
Ms. Mitchell. If you do it through the candidates and the
political parties, you will drive money back into the system to
support candidates and political parties. Let political
parties--right now--the example that Senator Simpson used about
the outside spending. Senator Thomas calls the Republican Party
and says, ``Get those ads off the air.'' Do you realize that
right now most of the money that the RNC, DNC, DCCC, DSCC, the
two Senate committees, do you realize that the bulk of the
money that they raise, which is all disclosed, it has to be
handed over at some point during the cycle to some consultants
who go and make the decisions about the expenditures because of
the prohibition, the limits on the coordinated expenditures
that party committees can make on behalf of their nominees.
That is a preposterous system.
Remove those coordinated limits. Let parties coordinate
with their candidates. Let the parties raise the money. Remove
the aggregate limits so that donors do not have to choose
between the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC. Look, I do this for a
living, and I know----
Senator Blumenthal. But I take it you do not disagree with
the disclosure mandates, regardless of how the aggregates and
the coordination is done.
Ms. Mitchell. I do not disagree with the disclosure
mandates, but we have disclosure today.
Senator Blumenthal. Even if there are corporate----
Ms. Mitchell. We do not allow corporate contributions to
candidates or political parties.
Senator Blumenthal. But if there are independent
expenditures, as happens under Citizens United, do you think
there should be no disclosure?
Ms. Mitchell. We have disclosure. We have--someone made the
comment that there is no disclosure required under federal law.
That is simply not true. There are disclosures required. The
change in the disclosure laws was brought about because the
unions did not want to have to disclose all their members'
contributions to electioneering communications. So that was
changed.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Youn, do you have any comment?
Ms. Youn. There are some disclosure requirements that are
easily evaded by sophisticated players. That is why the decline
in disclosure for electioneering communications and independent
expenditures that I have detailed in my testimony has occurred
in the past few cycles.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Well, I thank all of you for
your participation, and I have learned something, and, again,
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Before I recognize Senator Whitehouse, I find it
interesting that we think it is corrupting for a corporation to
give me money which I then use to buy ads, but not corrupting
for the same corporation to buy its own ads through Citizens
United. I do not understand that double standard.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
I think that the effect of Citizens United on our electoral
process is very pronounced and very degrading, frankly. The
first thing that it does is it encourages the true party in
interest, like an oil company or the insurance association, to
disguise itself and to set up some kind of phoney-baloney
entity with a name like Americans for Mom and Apple Pie, and
then when you see the ad on TV that slams, you know, Senator
Snooks for being the worst thing since who knows what, it is
done on behalf of Americans for Mom and Apple Pie, and there is
no timely way to get behind Americans for Mom and Apple Pie and
find out actually that was Exxon.
So that is a real problem, I think, in addition to the sort
of phoney-baloney--as if there is not enough phoney-baloney in
politics, we now have to add an inducement to set up these
phoney-baloney organizations. And then, effectively, we are
encouraging people who have a lot of money and corporations
that have a lot of money to basically money launder through the
phoney-baloney organization and to hide their actual role in
it. And none of that can be prevented unless we pass a statute
that requires better disclosure and timely disclosure, more to
the point, because everybody knows that it gets close before
the election, and if somebody drops a million bucks' worth of
advertising in Rhode Island in the last week before an election
and nobody sees it coming, you do not know that your client--
your opponent has, you know, a million dollars left in their
account. You know that they are going to spend it. You can sort
of guess what is going to come. But if it comes in out of the
clear blue sky, you have no idea, and the election could be
over by the time the reporting is done as to who was the real
party in interest.
So it just helps make all of this so seamy and so sordid,
and when the previous finding of the United States Supreme
Court was that unchecked corporate spending in elections is, in
fact, a form of corruption, and then this Supreme Court, or at
least the five conservative members of it reversed that on no
legislative record--because they did not have one. They
actually sculpted the trajectory of the case so they would not
have any legislative finding or record and they could operate
with impunity. And then they make a finding of fact, which is
what Supreme Courts are not supposed to do. They are supposed
to leave fact finding to the lower courts. And the finding of
fact is that this cannot have an effect, there is just no
possibility that corporate spending in an election could lead
to or create a reasonable inference of corruption, which, as
anybody knows who has ever been through an election, is just
flat false. Not only is it an improper finding of fact, it is a
complete falsity. It is just nonsense.
So it is really a spooky thing that has happened in terms
of the effect it had on the Supreme Court, in terms of the
effect that it is going to have on our elections, and I would
add that the scariest part of it is not going to be the
advertisement that gets run against a Senator or a
Representative or a Governor under the guise of Americans for
Mom and Apple Pie. The scariest part of it is the big corporate
coming into that Senator's office and sitting down with them
privately and playing the ad, saying, ``Here is what you are
going to see. We are going to put five million bucks behind
this ad, and this is what it says.'' And then on comes the
horrifying negative attack ad. And then they say, ``But we do
not have to run that. You just vote right with us. You just
vote right when the Wall Street bill comes up. You just vote
right when the gulf clean-up bill comes up.'' And away they go,
and enormous damage is done by that threat, and nobody will
ever even see that. You do not even know that there is a
phoney-baloney Americans for Mom and Apple Pie that you can at
least start looking into and later find out was really a big
corporate.
And so I just think that the Citizens United decision, in
addition to reversing all the precedent and standing the facts
on their heads, has really created enormous opportunities for
mischief, particularly on behalf of the people with money. And
for the life of me, I do not see why in a country in which we
try to give one person one vote and we try to equalize as much
as we can, we allow one particular privileged class, which is
the chief executive officer of a corporation, to have a
thousand, a million times the weight of anybody else by being
able to direct corporate funding into a race in his official
capacity and have an influence on politics that he or she could
never have in their individual capacity.
So I do not know. That is more of an expression of shock
and pain and horror at what this opens up than it is a
question, but particularly is there anything we can do to focus
on the behind-the-scenes influence, the threat of here is our
five million, here is our ad, do what you are told or this is
coming at you?
Mr. Simpson. Well, Senator, I have watched you and have
enjoyed visiting with you during the Commission activities. I
respectfully say you should have added unions to the same
scenario that you just gave, and that is what is going to
happen. It will be the union guys, too, who will walk in with
the ad and say, ``Here you are, Buster, and this is what we are
going to do to you.''
Senator Whitehouse. They do not have anything like the
money. Not even close.
Mr. Simpson. What?
Senator Whitehouse. They do not have anything like the
money. It is not even close.
Mr. Simpson. Well, they have got some, just little tidbits
laying around perhaps. But, anyway, I would just say if we are
going to go this way, then I am probably the only living
Republican right now trying to help get this thing done. I
always get in these marvelous causes. But the Republicans
believe just as you have suggested, but let me tell you, on the
other side of that coin is the union people sitting right in
front of that guy saying, ``We may not have what the big shots
have, but we got a little kitty here and we are going to blow
it on you, and here is the ad.''
I mean, to leave out all aspects--the only way to get
anything done here is a balance, and if we cannot get a balance
in what we do here or what we did here, I think it is a
mistake.
Senator Whitehouse. I would be happy to have it apply to
both. I think the danger is less because the money is less.
Mr. Simpson. I do not hear well. I do not hear well. What
was that?
Senator Whitehouse. I am sorry, sir. I said I would be
happy to have it apply across the board. I used the corporate
example because I think the danger is worse.
Mr. Simpson. Oh, good. I hear that. And I would just throw
out the other example as a thought.
Senator Whitehouse. You take Exxon-Mobil's last profits,
and if I recall correctly, with five percent of their annual
profits they could outspend both Presidential Candidate McCain
and Presidential Candidate Obama, who collectively spent $1
billion in the last race. And for a really big issue that is
going to affect their corporate bottom line, that is not a very
big spend. So it creates these deafening voices in the public
arena that no individual can compete with, no union even can
compete with.
Mr. Simpson. Well, we know that we will not make any
progress if it comes down to the usual battering of all those
things, the big versus the small, the class warfare and all
that stuff. We will never get through where we are.
Ms. Youn. And that is, I think, why the simple removal of
limits that Ms. Mitchell advocates is not sufficient. I mean,
you can say to me, ``Oh, you are free as a voter to make your
voice heard. All you have to do is outspend the corporate
treasury of ExxonMobil.'' That is not freedom for me. You know,
I am an American citizen, I am a voter. The elections are
supposed to be about me. Elections are not supposed to be about
these proxy fights between the moneyed middlemen.
Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to ask
the--you have made reference to the Arizona law and the law
enacted by the voters of Arizona voluntarily. In 2001, I did a
study called ``Who Is Buying Campaign Finance Reform? '' to
trace the sources of funding of the campaign finance reform
movement, and the amount of money that was spent promoting
campaign finance reform vastly outweighs the other side. And
one of the chapters of that study included a study and an
analysis of the funding of the Arizona Clean Elections Act,
which was actually funded by George Soros. And what I would
like to ask is leave to add that to the official record of this
hearing, that study.
And I am fascinated, Mr. Chairman, that the hue and cry has
come after the 2010 election. If one goes to the Center for
Responsive Politics, a very strong supporter of campaign
finance reform and probably supportive of this proposal, and
just looks at the data for the last decade, one will find that
in every cycle until 2010 the outside spending by the left, by
liberal groups--and I beg to differ with Senator Whitehouse,
but the unions have far outspent conservatives and corporations
in terms of independent spending for candidates and the
political parties. And the left far outspent the conservatives
in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008. And only in 2010, when
conservative groups actually competed with the liberal groups,
is there this hue and cry. There was no outcry about the
secrecy of the Democracy Alliance created by George Soros after
the 2004 cycle, which does not report any of its contributions
and funds a number of groups. The SEIU has spent over $400
million that we know of since 2004.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, there are 26 States that allow
corporate contributions to candidates: Missouri, Virginia,
Oregon, to name a few. So I do think that the idea that somehow
corporations can make independent expenditures but they cannot
give contributions, I do think that is worth looking at,
because half the States allow it.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Mitchell, as your testimony noted, I
introduced this bill several years ago. This did not come in
after the 2010 election. I have been in favor of public
financing, and I still am. And I understand the value of
incumbency. Most incumbents do not support reform--we do not
have a single Republican Senator who cosponsors this
legislation--because most incumbents believe we have an
advantage when it comes to fundraising. And we do. We have got
a stable of friends and contributors who can come to our side.
But maybe I am off in some idealistic land here, but I would
step away from that advantage and be willing to take on an
opponent with a lot less money, flat out debate them as often
as necessary, and let the voters decide. And I think at the end
of the day we would have a healthier democracy.
I do not believe that running these numbers up in the
millions and millions, billions of dollars in campaign spending
really informs voters that much. I am afraid voters are misled.
And let me say in response to Senator Simpson, any rules
that I would be for--and I think Senator Whitehouse would
agree--apply to both across the board, right and left. So if it
is corporations, it is unions, too. Same standard, same rules,
no exceptions. And I think that is the way it should be.
We also got another question of, you know, whether or not
there would be a disclosure. One of the proposals we have on
Citizens United is legislation that requires some disclosure at
the end of a corporate-sponsored campaign ad as to who paid for
it. Perhaps the CEO of the corporation will proudly stand up
and say, ``This oil company paid for it,'' or ``This bank paid
for it.'' So be it. I think the voters are entitled to know
that. You know, we are not stopping the expenditure. We are
just saying disclose, which, as I understand here, everybody is
for. We could not get support for that reform when we offered
it.
So I thank you for coming. I enjoyed the conversation.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, may I just add one note?
Chairman Durbin. Of course.
Mr. Simpson. You remember my friend Al Cranston. I think
Senator Whitehouse would like to hear this. Al Cranston was a
great friend of mine, and we chaired the Veterans Affair
Committee alternately, and I was minority or I was Chairman. He
left here in a cloud because of what happened, and he had no
knowledge of it, and it left him tarnished, and it was a shame.
His scheduler forgot to check every day what the
fundraising arm of Cranston for Senate was doing, and the media
went into the stack and said, ``We see that so-and-so gave 10
grand in May, and then they came to see you in June.'' And he
was eaten alive by that thing he knew nothing of. He said, ``I
did not know that the scheduler did not know what the
fundraising campaign was doing.'' And it appeared that if you
gave the money, you saw Al within a week, and it brought him
down. A very sad situation.
It was a perception. Everything we do here is perception.
There is no reality to what any of us do here. It is all
perception.
Chairman Durbin. And I would say, Senator Simpson, I did
not know Senator Cranston as well as you did, but this tangled
web that we live in elected officials raising money, across the
street, literally across the street from this building, is the
Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. Why is it across the
street from this building? Because we cross that street
regularly to go over there and raise money for our campaigns
and for our causes.
I think America would be a better Nation if both political
parties declared a truce on this fundraising run-up, this
escalation, and said shorter campaigns, cheaper campaigns, more
direct contact between candidates, let the voters decide, and
transparency about where the money is coming from. I think we
would be stronger, and that is what my bill is trying to
achieve.
Thank you for being here. The Subcommittee received written
statements from more than 25 national organizations that
support Fair Elections Now, including AFSCME, Alliance for
Justice, Americans for Campaign Reform, American Sustainable
Business Council, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause,
Demos, Democracy Matters, NAACP, Public Campaign, Public
Citizen, SEIU, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and U.S.
Action.
Additionally, there are more than 120 former elected
officials, civic leaders, and business leaders from major
corporations that have endorsed this bill. They include
Democrats like Senators Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, of course,
permanent Republican line Alan Simpson, Warren Rudman, EPA
Director Christie Todd Whitman; and business leaders like Bill
Gates, Paul Volcker, Frank Carlucci, Lee Iacocca.
[The statements appear as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. We will keep the record open for a week if
there are additional materials from interested individuals, and
questions may be directed to witnesses, which I ask them to
respond to as quickly as possible.
Thank you. The hearing stands adjourned.
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Dick Durbin
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alan K. Simpson
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Monica Youn
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions submitted by Senator Graham for Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses of Cleta Mitchell to questions submitted by Senator Graham
At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain
responses to the written questions, the Committee had not
received any communication from Cleta Mitchell.
Miscellaneous Submissions for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]