[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8463-S8464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Begich):
  S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit 
corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the 
Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all 
elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to 
regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election 
contributions and expenditures; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to amend the 
U.S. Constitution. I do not do this lightly, nor have I ever done 
something such as this before. The U.S. Constitution is an 
extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200 
years and, in my view, it should not be amended often.
  But in light of the disastrous Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in the 
Citizens United case, I see no alternative but a constitutional 
amendment. I should add that a similar resolution has been offered in 
the House by Congressman Ted Deutch of Florida. This constitutional 
amendment is supported by such grassroots organizations as Public 
Citizen, People for the American Way, and the Center for Media and 
Democracy.
  Let me go on record as strongly as I can, and as clearly as I can, in 
stating that I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens 
United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, 
a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much 
money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. In my 
view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and 
spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy 
elections.
  I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be 
about. I do not believe that is what the bravest of the brave from our 
country, fighting for democracy, fought and died to preserve. Almost 2 
years ago, in its now infamous Citizens United decision, the United 
States Supreme Court upended over a century of precedent, taking a 
somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to 
radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of 
corporate spending on campaign ads that has just begun. Make no 
mistake, the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of 
our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and 
the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this 
country have never had it so good.
  In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court's Citizens 
United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme 
Court in the history of our country. While there is no way of knowing 
for sure, since there are no disclosure requirements in place to track 
what was spent, it is no secret that already in the 2010 midterm 
elections, corporations and some very wealthy individuals spent a huge 
and unprecedented amount of money to further their political goals. 
There is no question this is just the beginning of their efforts. At a 
time when corporations have over $2 trillion in cash in their bank 
accounts and are making recordbreaking profits, the American people 
should be concerned when the Supreme Court says these corporations have 
a constitutionally protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders' 
money to dominate an election as if they were real live persons. There 
will be no end to the impact corporate interests can have on our 
campaigns and our democracy if we do not end this Citizens United 
decision and its impact on our Nation.
  All of us in the Senate share one common characteristic. We all run 
for elections. We all live in the real political world. Let me speak 
for a moment what I think many of my colleagues in their heart of 
hearts know to be true; that is, that while the campaign finance system 
we had before Citizens United was, in my view, a disaster--there is no 
question it is a disastrous situation where candidates, Members of the 
Senate, spend huge amounts of time having to raise money, and I know 
that is distasteful not just for Democrats, it is distasteful to 
Republicans, it is distasteful for an Independent; that is what we do--
now, as a result of Citizens United, that bad situation has become much 
worse because

[[Page S8464]]

infinitely more money is going to come into the political process 
through nondisclosed donations suddenly appearing on TV screens in our 
States.
  According to an October 10, 2011, article in Politico:

       The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles 
     Koch plan to steer more than $200 million--potentially much 
     more--to conservative groups ahead of Election Day [2012].

  What do we think? Do we think American democracy is about a couple of 
wealthy billionaires putting hundreds of millions of dollars into 
campaigns without disclosure? Is that the democracy Americans fought 
and died for in war after war? I think not.
  It clearly is not just Republican operatives. There will be Democrats 
doing the same. So more and more money comes into the system. We do not 
know where it comes from, and in order to defend ourselves candidates 
are going to have to raise more money and become more and more 
dependent on big money interests. Does anybody believe that is what 
American democracy is supposed to be about?
  Let's talk about the practical impacts. What happens on the floor of 
the Senate? The six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to 
over 65 percent of our GDP, over $9 trillion--six banks. When an issue 
comes up that impacts Wall Street--some of us, for example, think it 
might be a good idea to break up these huge banks. Members walk to the 
desk up there and they have to decide am I going to vote for this, am I 
going to vote against it--with full knowledge that if they vote against 
the interests of Wall Street, 2 weeks later, there may be ads coming 
down into their State attacking them. Every Member of the Senate, every 
Member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking: Gee, 
if I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big money interests, am I 
going to be punished for that? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed 
in my State?
  Everybody here understands that is true. It is not just taking on 
Wall Street, maybe it is taking on the drug companies, maybe it is 
taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it is taking on the 
military-industrial complex. But whatever powerful and wealthy special 
interest we are prepared to take on, on behalf of the interest of the 
middle-class and working families of this country, when we walk to that 
desk and we cast that vote, we know in the back of our mind we may be 
unleashing a tsunami of money coming into our State, and we are going 
to think twice about how we cast that vote.

  I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to 
Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. I would like 
to acknowledge them very briefly. One is the Disclose Act, sponsored by 
Senator Schumer, which would force corporations spending money on 
campaign ads to disclose their identity, as candidates have to do. That 
is a good thing. I support it.
  Another is the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Senator Durbin, 
which would move us to publicly financed elections. I think that is a 
very good idea. I support that.
  The third piece of legislation is a recent resolution for a campaign 
finance constitutional amendment, introduced by Senator Tom Udall of 
New Mexico, that would make it clear that Congress and the States have 
the authority to write laws to regulate campaign spending across the 
country and make sure our State and Federal elections are about what is 
right for our democracy, and I support Senator Udall's resolution. But 
even these excellent pieces of legislation are not enough.
  The Constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200 
years. But when the Supreme Court says--for purposes of the first 
amendment--corporations are people, that writing checks from the 
company's bank account is constitutionally protected speech, and that 
even attempts by the Federal Government and States to impose reasonable 
restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, 
our democracy is in grave danger. Something more needs to be done. 
There needs to be something more fundamental and indisputable, 
something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court 
decision.
  We have to send a constitutional amendment to the States that says 
simply and straightforwardly what everyone--except five members of the 
U.S. Supreme Court--seems to understand; that is, corporations are not 
people. Bank of America is not a person. ExxonMobil is not a person.
  The resolution I am offering calls for an amendment to be sent to the 
States that would do that. It would make perfectly clear, No. 1, 
corporations are not persons with equal constitutional rights as real-
life, flesh-and-blood human beings; No. 2, corporations are subject to 
regulation by the people; No. 3, corporations may not make campaign 
contributions, which has been the law of the land for the last century; 
No. 4, Congress and States have the power to regulate campaign finance 
as Senator Udall's amendment would also say.
  This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Begich of Alaska, and I 
would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this amendment which, in 
fact, does what its title suggests, saves American democracy.

                          ____________________