[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 50 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2262-S2263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last year, the Supreme Court issued a 
decision in a case named Citizens United v. FEC. In this sweeping 
decision that ignored decades of precedent, the Supreme Court held that 
corporations and unions could spend as much money as they want to 
influence congressional elections.
  At the time the Court issued this decision, I and others warned that 
Citizen United would have a negative impact on our democracy and open 
the floodgates to undisclosed private money in Federal elections.
  The results of the first congressional elections after Citizens 
United have been analyzed. Those of us who sounded the alarm about this 
unfortunate decision were right.
  In 2010, for the first time ever, spending on House and Senate races 
exceeded $1.6 billion.
  Outside groups, now freed from spending limits by Citizens United, 
spent 335 percent more on congressional campaigns than they did just 4 
years earlier.
  The amount of money that big corporations and special interest 
lobbyists are willing to spend to shape policy is expected to increase 
even more in 2012.
  This dramatic increase in spending tells us that big business is not 
going to be shy about using its new power to say to Members of 
Congress: ``If you vote against our business interests, we'll spend 
millions to make sure you never get the chance to vote against us 
again.''
  That is a terrible reality for Members of Congress evaluating policy 
options and it is an even worse statement about our democracy.
  As bad as Citizens United was, the Supreme Court may very well be at 
it again. Last week, the Court heard oral arguments in the McComish v. 
Bennett case.
  An adverse decision in the McComish case would hamstring 
jurisdictions that have implemented campaign finance measures in 
response to corruption and scandal.
  Citizens United and its corrosive impact remind us of the urgent need 
to fundamentally reform the way we finance congressional elections.
  It is time we had a system that allows candidates to focus on 
constituents instead of fundraising.
  That is why I introduced the Fair Elections Now Act. The Fair 
Elections Now Act will dramatically change the way campaigns are 
funded.
  This bill lets candidates focus on the people they represent, 
regardless of whether those people have the wealth to attend a big 
money fundraiser or donate thousands of dollars.
  Fair Elections candidates would be in the policy business, regardless 
of what policies are preferred by big business and wealthy special 
interests.
  The Fair Elections Now Act will help restore public confidence in the 
congressional election process by providing qualified candidates for 
Congress with grants, matching funds, and vouchers from the Fair 
Elections Fund to replace campaign fundraising that largely relies on 
lobbyists and other special interests.
  In return, participating candidates would agree to limit their 
campaign spending to amounts raised from small-dollar donors plus the 
amounts provided from the Fair Elections Fund.
  Fair Elections would have three stages for Senate candidates.
  To participate, candidates would first need to prove their viability 
by raising a minimum number and amount of small-dollar qualifying 
contributions from in-state donors. Once a candidate qualifies, that 
candidate must limit

[[Page S2263]]

the amount raised from each donor to $100 per election.
  For the primary, participants would receive a base grant that would 
vary in amount based on the population of the state that the candidate 
seeks to represent. Participants would also receive a 5-to-1 match for 
small-dollar donations up to a defined matching cap. The candidate 
could raise an unlimited amount of $100 contributions if needed to 
compete against high-spending opponents.
  For the general election, qualified candidates would receive an 
additional grant, further small-dollar matching, and vouchers for 
purchasing television advertising. The candidate could continue to 
raise an unlimited amount of $100 contributions if needed.
  The Fair Elections approach frees candidates to spend more time with 
constituents and in policy debates and less time with wealthy donors 
and special interest lobbyists.
  Our country faces major challenges.
  Everyone knows that we need to reduce the deficit, modernize our 
energy policy, and reform the Tax Code--among other things.
  What many people may not know is that, at every turn, there are high-
powered, special interest lobbyists ready to fight every proposal.
  It is mighty hard for Members of Congress not to pay attention to the 
concerns of big money lobbyists and donors when Members of Congress may 
need to raise money from these same people during their next campaign.
  This bill would dramatically reduce the influence of these lobbyists 
and corporations, because Fair Elections candidates would not need 
their money to run campaigns.
  Let me be clear: I honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of 
the people serving in American politics are good, honest people, and I 
believe that Senators and Congressmen are guided by the best of 
intentions.
  But we are nonetheless stuck in a terrible, corrupting system.
  The perception is that politicians are corrupted by the big money 
interests . . . and whether that is true or not, that perception and 
the loss of trust that goes with it makes it incredibly difficult for 
the Senate to take on tough challenges and have the American public 
believe that what we are doing is right.
  This problem--the perception of pervasive corruption--is fundamental 
to our democracy, and we must address it.
  Fair Elections is not some farfetched idea.
  Fair Election systems are already at work in cities and states around 
the country.
  Similar programs exist and are working well in more than 12 
jurisdictions, including Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, and Vermont.
  These programs are bringing new faces and new ideas into politics, 
making more races more competitive, and dramatically reducing the 
influence of special interests.
  The vast majority of Americans agree that it is time to fundamentally 
change our system of financing campaigns.
  Recent polling shows that 75 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of 
independents, and 55 percent of Republicans support Fair Elections-
style reform.
  The Fair Elections Now Act is supported by several good government 
groups, former Members of Congress from both parties, prominent 
business leaders, and even . . . lobbyists.
  Special interests lobbyists and big corporations are entitled to a 
seat at the table, but they shouldn't be able to buy every seat.
  The Fair Elections Now Act will reform our campaign finance system so 
that Members of Congress can focus on implementing policies that 
benefit the people that sent them to Washington.

                          ____________________