[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7007-S7009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
        Begich, and Mrs. Shaheen):
  S.J. Res. 29. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and 
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an 
amendment to the United States Constitution to address our country's 
broken campaign finance system. Joining me in this effort are my 
colleagues Senators Bennet, Harkin, Durbin, Schumer, Merkley, 
Whitehouse, Begich, and Shaheen.
  As we head into another election year, we are about to see 
unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the 
outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the 
sensible regulations Congress has passed, I believe the only way to 
address the root cause of this problem is by first amending the 
Constitution.
  Such an amendment is not a new idea. Constitutional amendments to

[[Page S7008]]

grant Congress broad authority to regulate the campaign finance system 
have been introduced many times in the past, and most had bipartisan 
support. But last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. 
FEC places a new emphasis on the need for Congress to act.
  Citizens United was a victory for special interests at the expense of 
the average American. It held that corporations deserve the same free 
speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend 
freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. It also 
gave rise to so-called Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited 
funds to campaign for or against candidates.
  We saw in the last election the initial impact of the Citizens United 
decision, but it is about to get much worse. A New York Times editorial 
on September 18 summed it up pretty well.
  That piece, entitled ``How the Big Money Finds a Way In,'' stated 
that:

       Companies, unions, and other interest groups poured about 
     $300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional 
     elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision 
     open the sluices to unlimited spending by independent groups. 
     That will look like a trickle compared with the gusher coming 
     in 2012.

  While the Citizens United decision sparked a renewed focus on the 
need for campaign finance reform, the Court laid the groundwork for a 
broken system many years ago. In 1976, when the Court held in Buckley 
v. Valeo that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates 
the First Amendment right to free speech, it established the flawed 
precedent that money and speech are the same thing. Since then, our 
Nation's policymakers are all too often elected based on their ability 
to raise money or the size of their personal fortunes, rather than the 
quality of their ideas or dedication to public service.
  These decisions, among others, demonstrate the Court's willingness to 
rule broadly and ignore longstanding precedent to declare our campaign 
finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe that the only 
way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the Constitution to 
grant Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.
  Our proposed amendment is similar to bipartisan proposals in previous 
Congresses. It would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and 
spending of money for federal political campaigns, including 
independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at 
their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations. 
Instead, it would allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform 
legislation that withstands constitutional challenges.
  I understand how difficult amending the constitution can be, but also 
believe that momentum is growing to reign in the out of control 
campaign spending. Just because getting a constitutional amendment 
through Congress and ratified by the States is extremely difficult, it 
doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We know our Founders did not intend for 
elections to be bought and paid for by undisclosed donors operating 
through secretive organizations--that is the antithesis of democracy 
and we must do everything possible to address the problem.
  The only way to restore the democratic nature of our election system 
is to fundamentally change it. That can only be done after the 
Constitution is amended to allow such changes. Many of my predecessors 
understood this and spent years championing the cause. Senator Fritz 
Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to the 
one we introduce today in every Congress from the 99th to the 108th. 
Senators Schumer and Cochran introduced one in the 109th Congress.
  Those were all before the Citizens United decision, but Senator 
Hollings has continued to call for an amendment since his retirement. 
Just last October, he wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled 
``Money is a Cancer in Politics.'' In that article he wrote:

       Like a dog chasing its tail, Congress has tried for thirty-
     five years to control spending in federal elections, only to 
     be thwarted by the Supreme Court intent on equating speech 
     with money. To return to Madison's freedom of speech, 
     Congress needs to pass a Joint Resolution amending the 
     Constitution to authorize Congress to limit or control 
     spending in federal elections.

  Our constituents' faith in the election system has been fundamentally 
corrupted by big money from outside interest groups. It is time for 
Congress to take back control of the campaign finance system by passing 
a constitutional amendment that will allow real reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution and an article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 29

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years after the date of its submission by 
     the Congress:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the 
     raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with 
     respect to Federal elections, including through setting 
     limits on--
       ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
     nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal 
     office; and
       ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
     support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
       ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the 
     raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with 
     respect to State elections, including through setting limits 
     on--
       ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
     nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; 
     and
       ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
     support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
       ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and 
     enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 17, 2011]

                    How the Big Money Finds a Way In

                          (By Eduardo Porter)

       Companies, unions and other interest groups poured about 
     $300 million into campaign ads in the 2010 Congressional 
     elections after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision 
     opened the sluices to unlimited spending by independent 
     groups. That will look like a trickle compared with the 
     gusher coming in 2012.
       Gov. Rick Perry's supporters have created a group called 
     Make Us Great Again, which plans to spend up to $55 million 
     to help him win the Republican presidential nomination. 
     Unions and other supporters of Democrats, too, are starting 
     to funnel money into independent groups like Priorities USA 
     Action, which has raised $3.2 million for the presidential 
     race and plans to raise much more.
       These groups, which are not supposed to coordinate with 
     candidates' campaigns or the political parties, are called 
     Super PACs, but the label doesn't much matter. The point is 
     that in the past several years outside groups--using various 
     types of financing vehicles--have accounted for a growing 
     share of the money spent in federal elections.
       The first chart shows the steady rise in total spending in 
     federal elections in both presidential and nonpresidential 
     years over the last decade. Over that time, money spent by 
     outside groups jumped to 8 percent of the total from less 
     than 1 percent, while party spending declined as a share.
       The second chart shows how spending by independent groups 
     has morphed with each new campaign finance law and judicial 
     ruling. What's constant is the ability of fund-raisers to put 
     more cash into elections. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law put an 
     end to the unlimited ``soft money'' donations by 
     corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to party 
     committees, which used it to pay for ``issue'' ads that often 
     attacked or supported candidates. When soft money went away, 
     donors simply channeled money for such ads to other vehicles, 
     including 527 committees, like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
       In 2007, the Supreme Court blew aside spending restrictions 
     (weak as they were) by ruling that corporations, unions and 
     other groups could spend unlimited amounts up to Election Day 
     on ``issue'' ads that mentioned a candidate's name, as long 
     as they did not explicitly urge a ``vote for'' or ``vote 
     against'' a candidate. Soon after that, 501(c) groups (like 
     trade associations, unions and social welfare advocacy 
     groups) became the vehicle of choice; unlike other types of 
     groups, they are allowed to collect unlimited anonymous 
     donations.
       The Citizens United decision eliminated the biggest 
     remaining restriction by allowing independent groups to pay 
     for campaign ads that explicitly endorsed or opposed a 
     candidate. Big donors responded in the 2010 election by 
     launching Super PACs like American Crossroads, which raised 
     $26.6 million to help Republicans, and America's Families 
     First Action Fund, which raised $7.1 million to help 
     Democrats. And they created 501(c) ``social advocacy'' groups 
     like Crossroads GPS to offer secrecy to campaign donors.

[[Page S7009]]

       The legal changes of the last decade have contributed to 
     the flood of money in the political process. Corporate 
     campaign donations through 5o1(c)s and Super PACs hit around 
     $140 million in 2010 from zero in 2006, according to 
     estimates by the Center for Responsive Politics. For interest 
     groups and wealthy individuals, the shifts have meant more 
     direct influence in elections. For American democracy, the 
     effect may well be disastrous.

                          ____________________