[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 12 (Thursday, January 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S332-S333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CITIZENS UNITED CASE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last night, the President spoke about 
many things. I would like to focus for a moment on one of them: his 
comments related to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens 
United vs. Federal Election Commission. This is an issue to which I 
have devoted a great deal of time over the years, so I think it is 
important to set the record straight as to what the court did and did 
not do in this very important, and in my view, correct ruling.
  Here's what the President said:

       Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to 
     open the floodgates for special interests--including foreign 
     corporations--to spend without limit in our elections.

  That is what the President said last night.
  Here is why he is wrong.
  According to title 2 of U.S.C. Section 441e:
  Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign 
corporations, are prohibited from ``directly or indirectly'' making ``a 
contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make 
an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in 
connection with a Federal, State or local election.''
  The statute goes on to prohibit foreign corporations from making any 
contribution or donation to any committee of any political party. 
Foreign corporations are also prohibited from making any ``expenditure, 
independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering 
communication.''
  None of these prohibitions were at issue in the Citizens United case.
  In other words, foreign corporations were prohibited from 
participating in U.S. elections before the Citizens United decisions 
and they still are--unambiguously.
  Let me make that perfectly clear: Citizens United did not change one 
thing in current law regarding the prohibition on foreign corporations 
engaging in U.S. elections. That law remains unchanged.
  Further, the Federal Election Commission whom has been very clear in 
defining this what this prohibition means.
  Here's what the FEC's regulation states:

       A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or 
     directly or indirectly participate in the decision making 
     process of any person, such as a corporation, labor 
     organization, political committee, or political organization 
     with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-
     related activities, such as decisions concerning the making 
     of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements 
     in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local 
     office or decisions concerning the administration of a 
     political committee.

  So the law on this matter is crystal clear. Contrary to what the 
President, and some of his surrogates in Congress say, foreign persons, 
corporations, partnerships, associations, organizations or other 
combination of persons are strictly prohibited from any participation 
in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before the Supreme 
Court's Citizens United decision.
  I have explained what the ruling did not do. Now let me explain what 
the ruling did do.
  The Court ruled unconstitutional sections of Federal law that barred 
corporations and unions from spending their own money to express their 
views about issues and candidates.
  This was the right decision because democracy depends upon free 
speech, not just for some but for all. As Justice Kennedy, writing for 
the majority, concluded:

       Under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than 
     fiction for our Government to make political speech a crime.

  In Citizens United the Court ended the suppression of corporate and 
union speech.
  Another way to look at it is prior to Citizens United, if you were a 
corporation that owned a media company you could say anything you 
wanted to 365

[[Page S333]]

days a year without government interference. But if you were a 
corporation or union that did not own a media company, you couldn't. 
All this decision did was to level the playing field and strike an 
important blow for the first amendment and for free speech in our 
country, a decision that should be applauded by all, but at the very 
least not misinterpreted.
  (Mr. BURRIS assumed the Chair.)

                          ____________________