[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S404-S405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I leave the Chamber, I will be headed 
to the Senate Rules Committee on which I serve for a hearing to discuss 
the Supreme Court case that was decided a few days back that is going 
to make a dramatic difference in the way political campaigns are waged.
  For 100 years, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, we have agreed to 
keep major businesses, big corporations out of our American political 
scene. They get involved, make no mistake. We saw that on health care 
reform. The major forces for and against it in the private sector 
bought ads. But when it comes to candidates, actual people running for 
Federal office, we have said: No corporate contributions to these 
candidates; individuals, yes, who work for the corporations, but not 
the corporations themselves that have millions of dollars they can 
funnel into campaigns. That was the law for 100 years.
  Then the Supreme Court took up this case and, as a result, it is all 
going to change. When I saw the final decision, I noticed that Chief 
Justice Roberts and Justice Alito had joined with Justice Kennedy and 
Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia for the five-vote majority on the 
Court. I couldn't help but remember not that long ago when Chief 
Justice Roberts appeared before the Judiciary Committee. I was there. 
He was asked: What is your role on the Supreme Court going to be as 
Chief Justice? He said: I am just there to call the balls and strikes. 
That is it. I am not there to make up the rules of the game. That is 
for somebody else.
  For 100 years, it was pretty clear that when major corporations 
wanted to participate in supporting directly the candidacies of Federal 
candidates, the ball went right down the middle, and it was clearly a 
strike. We said: You are out. But not this Supreme Court, not under 
this Chief Justice. This is clear judicial activism.
  I challenge any of Chief Justice Roberts' supporters on the other 
side of the aisle who preach to us over and over again about their 
loathing for judicial activism to explain what happened in this case, 
when this Supreme Court overturned that prohibition against 
corporations being directly involved in candidates' campaigns.
  Most people who haven't been in this world are probably scratching 
their heads and asking: What difference does it make? You folks spend 
millions of dollars anyway. What is a couple million more going to do?
  What it basically means is that when corporation X comes to the 
office of a

[[Page S405]]

Senator and says: We have an important tax matter coming up here and 
for our corporation; we would appreciate if you would vote against this 
new tax on our business. Now Senators can take a look at it and say: 
Well, I may vote for it; I may vote against it. I know perhaps the 
officers at the corporation, maybe its employees, may be upset if I 
vote for the tax. I have to make up my mind.
  Now there is a new element. Because of this Supreme Court decision, 
corporation X can say: We would appreciate if you would vote against 
that tax. And you will know in the back of your mind they can literally 
spend $1 million to defeat you in the next election, thanks to the 
Supreme Court.
  How do we fix this? This morning the Rules Committee will talk about 
disclosure, making sure that corporations are well known when they buy 
these ads so at least the American people know who is paying for them, 
and some other aspects to regulate the Supreme Court decision within 
the bounds of what the Supreme Court said we can do. But I think it 
goes to a larger question.
  Some of my colleagues in the Senate have said all along that what I 
am about to describe is too far in the future, not within our grasp. I 
think it is time for us to seriously consider public financing of 
campaigns. I think we ought to start drawing a bright line between 
those who will accept public financing and limited contributions from 
individuals and those who are ready to go out into this wild west of 
corporate politics, special-interest politics, big-money politics.
  I introduced a bill a few years back, the Fair Elections Now Act. As 
a matter of fact, the current President, when he was then Senator 
Obama, was a cosponsor. What we are basically trying to do is to follow 
the lead of major States that have voted for campaign finance reform. 
When States such as Arizona took this issue to the voters of their 
State and asked: Do you want to clean up elections; do you want to have 
fair elections, public-financed elections, the voters said: Yes. Get 
the lobbyists and special interests out of this mess. Let's try to make 
this directly candidates to the voters and take the special interest 
groups out.
  This bill would do that. What it basically says is that to qualify 
for public financing, you go out and raise small contributions, $100 
maximum contributions, and put those together in a sufficient amount to 
show you are a viable candidate, and then you qualify for public 
financing--in the primary, then again in the general--based on the 
population of your State. Will you have as much money as a big 
corporation? No. But here is my theory. My theory is, if a candidate 
goes for public financing, they will have enough money to get out their 
message, introduce themselves to the voters, make the issues, and 
clarify if some major corporation is going to come in and try to 
steamroll them. That is the best we can hope for, but it may be all we 
need.
  My State of Illinois is, with one possible exception, notoriously 
suspect of big-money candidates who come in and spend millions to get 
elected. They waste a lot of their personal wealth and they don't win, 
with one possible exception. I think there is a skepticism to big 
money.
  Public financing is a way to clean up our political campaigns, to 
have candidates in the constituent business rather than the campaign 
financing business. If you could sit down with Members of the Senate 
and say a few words to them, they will know instantly what you are 
talking about: Power hour, dialing for dollars, weekends on the road. 
We all know what it is about. It is about the incessant money chase 
that is necessary to raise money to finance campaigns under the current 
system.
  It is time away from our States, away from our families. It is time 
away from meeting voters who don't happen to be rich, who deserve 
representation and a voice in the process. That is unfortunate. It 
should change. What we are trying to do now is to bring in public 
financing with the Fair Elections Now Act.
  How would we pay for it? We would impose a tax on corporations doing 
business with the Federal Government. It wouldn't be onerous, but it 
would be enough to fund public financing of all campaigns for the House 
and the Senate. I don't think that is unreasonable.
  We would also provide discounts on time that candidates would buy on 
television and radio so they wouldn't have to pay as much as the most 
expensive time that is sold.
  What do people think of this idea? It turns out it is one of the few 
things people agree with on a bipartisan basis: 69 percent of 
Democrats, 72 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents 
support this proposal when we describe to it them. It is supported by a 
lot of government groups, many former Members of Congress, some 
business leaders, and even some lobbyists. Recently a letter was sent 
to the Senate, a general letter from major corporations across America 
saying: Please, leave us alone. We are sick and tired of being asked to 
find excuses to give you money. Do it some other way. Clean up this 
mess in Washington.
  The Fair Elections Now bill I have introduced will do that. I 
encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and to try to imagine a 
world where we didn't have to go scrambling looking for money. Imagine 
a world where you walked down the streets of your hometown and when you 
are in an election cycle, people don't rush to the other side of the 
street for fear you will ask for another check. Think about what life 
would be like if we were talking about small contributions creating the 
base of grassroots support for candidates, both challengers and 
incumbents. That is a reality of our future, if we have the courage to 
step up and do it.
  This decision by the Supreme Court should be the reason, should be 
the catalyst for making this reform decision now. I urge my colleagues 
to consider cosponsorship of Fair Elections Now. We are anxious to get 
as many Senators on board as possible. We hope it can be moved in this 
session of the Senate.
  How much time remains on this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 9 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
I be allowed to speak for as much time as I may consume in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized to speak as in morning business.

                          ____________________