[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 12 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S98-S106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CITIZENS UNITED ANNIVERSARY

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, representing a State that is coming up 
on our 350th anniversary, I am delighted to salute the great State of 
Michigan on its 175th anniversary.
  I rise to note the anniversary of an unfortunate event that is 
undermining the very core of our cherished democracy. This past 
Saturday marked the 2-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
disastrous 5-to-4 decision in a case called Citizens United v. the 
Federal Election Commission. With that feat of judicial activism, the 
conservative block of the Supreme Court gnawed a hole in the dike 
protecting our elections integrity, overturned the will of Congress and 
the American people, and allowed unlimited, anonymous corporate money 
to flood into our elections.
  Senator McCain recently called this ``one of the worst decisions in 
history.'' Senator Schumer said, at the time, ``One thing is clear; the 
conservative block of the Supreme Court has predetermined the outcome 
of the next election; the winners will be the corporations.''
  It is no secret around here that big corporate interests long have 
had oversized influence in the legislative and executive branches. But 
Citizens United supersizes that influence so it threatens to overrun 
our elections. Here is how my home State newspaper, the Providence 
Journal, explained it:

       The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending 
     economic interests will determine who gets elected. More 
     money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. 
     Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their 
     voices will count for even less than they do now. They will 
     simply be drowned out by the big money.

  This election year already confirms those fears. Senator McCain noted 
earlier this month--and I will quote him again:

       I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with 
     their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck 
     down [the McCain-Feingold finance] law, that there would be a 
     flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted 
     for, and this is exactly what is happening . . . and I 
     predict . . . that, in the future, there will be scandals 
     because there is too much money washing around political 
     campaigns now that nobody knows where it came from and nobody 
     knows where it's going.

  Senator McCain got it right. Look at Iowa, New Hampshire, and South 
Carolina. This election cycle has been the coming-out party for the 
super-PACs, the so-called ``evil twins'' of candidates' campaigns.
  Why evil twins? Because unlike candidates' campaigns, super-PACs can 
accept unlimited corporate cash. Unlike candidates' campaigns, super-
PACs can hide the identities of who is funding them until long after 
the voting is over. Unlike candidate's campaigns, super-PACs can run 
vicious and misleading advertisements without anyone being accountable 
to the voters.
  Super-PACs supposedly cannot coordinate their activities with the 
candidates' campaigns, but we all know this is pure fiction. In 
practice, they are run by close confederates of the candidates, fueled 
by the same donors and acting in perfect harmony with the campaigns and 
it is out of control. Through the date of the New Hampshire primary, 
super-PACs spent over $14 million, far more than the candidates' 
campaigns did themselves. Here is the problem: Corporations are not 
people. By refusing to acknowledge this, the Citizens United opinion 
has undermined the integrity of our democracy, allowing unlimited 
corporate money to drown out ordinary citizens' voices.
  This is not just some unfortunate side effect of a longstanding right 
enshrined in our Constitution. This is new and novel. The Founders 
certainly did not consider corporations to be citizens of our 
democracy. Corporations are not even mentioned in the 
Constitution once. Indeed, private business corporations were actually 
rare at our Nation's founding.

  As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Citizens United it is:

       Implausible that the Framers believed `the freedom of 
     speech' would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much 
     less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited 
     measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.

  So there is no case to support the Citizens United decision if one is 
an ``originalist.''

[[Page S99]]

  Federal laws have restricted corporate spending on campaigns since 
1907. The principle that an inanimate business corporation is not 
allowed to spend unlimited dollars to influence political campaigns is 
a long-established cornerstone of our political system from Teddy 
Roosevelt, a century ago, to Senators McCain and Feingold in our time, 
who won that bruising legislative battle for the 2002 bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act. Citizens United overturned not just all that 
legislation but also overturned a long line of judicial decisions 
upholding those restrictions on corporate cash and elections. So there 
is no case based on precedent either.
  Justice Stevens noted that ``the only relevant thing that has changed 
[since those prior precedents] . . . is the composition of this 
Court.''
  The conservatives got a majority of five and they ran with it--
judicial activism pure, plain, and simple. The activism appears pretty 
nakedly in the majority's finding of fact.
  For starters, a Supreme Court is not supposed to make findings of 
fact. Its role is to review the factual record presented to it and 
interpret the law. But the Supreme Court's conservative bloc 
nevertheless made findings of fact in Citizens United. Here is one:

       We now conclude that independent expenditures, including 
     those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or 
     the appearance of corruption.

  They just declared that to be true. So a company comes in, drops a 
couple million dollars to smear one candidate on behalf of the other in 
a closely contested race, and you don't think that other candidate is 
in the company's pocket? Please.
  Say a year later that company comes back and it sits down quietly 
with the Congressman and says: Remember that ad we ran smearing your 
opponent last year that helped you win the election? Well, here is one 
we are going to run against you through a different, phony shell 
organization unless you vote with us on this bill. No possibility of 
corruption or the appearance of corruption? Please. It is ludicrous. It 
is patently false.
  Here is another finding of fact by this bloc of judges:

       The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will 
     not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.

  If all we are doing is listening to the corporations, people are 
going to be fine with that. Please. Anyone in politics knows how phony 
that statement is. There are hundreds of thousands of pages to the 
contrary in the records of the previous Supreme Court decisions that 
were overturned and from legislative hearings.
  Here is what the Senate said 100 years ago, speaking about corporate 
money in elections:

       The evils of the use of [this] money in connection with 
     political elections are so generally recognized that the 
     committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor 
     of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest 
     of good government and calculated to promote purity in the 
     selection of public officials.

  This finding of the Senate was magically overturned by the Citizens 
United Five. Other courts are having trouble swallowing this phony 
factfinding.
  The Montana Supreme Court recently rejected this false premise that 
underlies Citizens United. Here is what they said:

       Clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates 
     a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably 
     minimizes the impact of individual citizens.

  Now, that is true. But the conservative justices comprising the 
Citizens United Five had to make these unsupported findings of fact. 
They are the analytical linchpin of the Citizens United decision. 
Without the pretense that corporate money could never corrupt or appear 
to corrupt elections, the rest of their analysis falls to pieces, and 
they would never have been able to open the floodgates for the big 
corporations.
  So they had to make these findings, even though the findings were 
contrary to precedent, contrary to common sense, contrary to fact.
  Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence of 
unlimited, anonymous corporate cash in our elections. Rhode Islander 
Charles--I will just use his first name--in Little Compton wrote to me:

       [i]t is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further, in 
     this instance solely because they have more money, should 
     drown out another person . . . [C]orporations have no 
     problems getting their views aired.

  Hope-Whitney in Bristol wrote to me:

       [j]ust the idea that a corporation is considered an 
     individual in regards to politics goes against everything 
     American to me . . . [T]hey have become the Emperors as they 
     have the financial ability to be heard everywhere . . . I'd 
     be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do 
     not agree with their political representation.

  Elizabeth in Wakefield, RI, wrote:

       Big business should not control our elections. It is bad 
     enough that they deeply influence our politicians through 
     lobbyists.

  Rhode Islanders, like Americans across the country, have had enough. 
In 2010, we came within one vote in this Chamber of passing the 
DISCLOSE Act, which would have at least kept the corporate cash from 
flooding our elections anonymously. This year, let's redouble our 
efforts to limit the damage done by Citizens United. We must if we are 
to preserve democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people 
from this tide of unlimited, unaccountable, and anonymous corporate 
money polluting the power of elections.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about one of the 
worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of the Court. Two years 
ago the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision Citizens 
United, and with it they gave corporations a blank check to utterly 
destroy our political system. I wish to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to tell my colleagues about the practical impact of this 
decision and how it threatens our democracy and why we need to do 
something about it.
  Let me start with the punch line. In Citizens United, the Supreme 
Court ruled for the first time that corporations are guaranteed the 
same free speech rights as real people to influence elections. I didn't 
say it was a funny punch line. The Court had previously held that money 
or campaign contributions are speech, so functionally that means the 
corporations are now able to spend as much money as they want, whenever 
they want, in any election in this country.
  Let me tell my colleagues how.
  My colleagues may have heard a lot about PACs. ``PAC'' is short for 
political action committee, and it is an entity that is separate from a 
campaign that can run political ads on issues or support or oppose a 
candidate. They can also give a limited amount of money directly to 
campaigns. The idea behind them is that if a number of citizens share 
views on issues, say, the environment, they can pool their resources, 
make their views known, and influence an election. They can run ads to 
call for the election of a candidate who supports those shared beliefs. 
But a PAC cannot coordinate with that candidate's campaign. It is not 
supposed to be an extension of that campaign.
  Prior to Citizens United, corporations could get involved in the 
political process, but there were special protections in place. They 
couldn't use their money to make a direct contribution to a campaign, 
and they couldn't buy political ads to directly influence elections. 
Instead, they had to give money to a PAC, and how much they could give 
was very tightly restricted. Corporations could only use their treasury 
funds to pay to set up and administer a PAC and could not use any money 
to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of any candidate. 
Their executives, like all other individuals, could only write checks 
of up to $5,000 to these PACs.
  Citizens United began the process of unraveling these protections 
when it was found that companies could give unlimited money to PACs for 
the purposes of running ads directly advocating for or against a 
candidate. This kind of activity is called ``independent 
expenditures.''
  There is one line from the Supreme Court's opinion that I think is 
worth sharing with my colleagues, as Senator Whitehouse did as well, 
because it highlights for me and for him just how absurd the thinking 
of the Court was on this case. It said:

       [I]ndependent expenditures, including those made by 
     corporations, do not give rise

[[Page S100]]

     to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

  I added the emphasis.
  This one line that is so flawed and so out of touch with reality is 
what has spawned the complete unraveling of our campaign finance 
system, and it has opened the floodgates for political spending.
  A subsequent case, FreeSpeechNow.org v. FEC, continued what Citizens 
United started by finding the contribution caps--the limits on what 
corporations and wealthy individuals can give to PACs--to be 
unconstitutional.
  The combination of these two court cases is what gave rise to what is 
now known as a super PAC, and as a result many regular PACs have now 
given way to these super PACs. What does this mean in practice? It 
means that corporations can now give an unlimited amount of funds 
directly from their general treasuries to PACs and that those funds can 
be used to run ads supporting a candidate or running attack ads against 
their opponents. And because the cap on contributions to PACs was 
eliminated for individuals as well, now CEOs and other superwealthy 
individuals can write multimillion-dollar checks to influence 
elections. This entirely undermines the restrictions that were put in 
place on how much an individual or corporation can give to a candidate 
running for office. A person just gives however much they want to the 
candidate's super PAC, and they buy ads that support the candidate's 
election or, as we have seen a lot of lately, they run negative ads 
that smear another candidate.
  A super PAC is not a new legal entity; it is just a PAC that started 
to bundle together these unlimited corporate donations with unlimited 
donations from super-rich individuals with the goal of supporting or 
defeating certain candidates. Let's be clear. These super PACs aren't 
about issues, they are about campaigning for candidates--even though 
they ostensibly can't coordinate with the official campaign and legally 
a candidate can't even force them to stop.
  As so many people have noted, in this new political reality it would 
be unilateral disarmament--and ultimately electoral defeat--for elected 
officials to run away from super PACs. That is why the system needs to 
be changed.
  But it gets even worse. In a post-Citizens United world, one often 
cannot even find out where the money is coming from. PACs and super 
PACs have to disclose several times a year where they get their money 
from, but companies often don't want us to know they are giving lots of 
money to elect or defeat someone, so they do something that looks like 
money laundering, except that it is legal. They might create and give 
money to a shell corporation which in turn donates to a super PAC. When 
you look at the records of the super PAC, which are published only 
about quarterly, you will see the shell corporation but not the 
original source of the money. A company might give money to one shell 
corporation which, in turn, could give money to another PAC, and so on, 
until it finally reaches the ultimate super PAC. With records published 
so infrequently, it is nearly impossible to trace back to the original 
corporation.

  To make matters even worse, many super PACs have been able to get 
permission from the Federal Election Commission to delay their 
disclosure statements, rendering all of these supposed disclosures 
completely useless.
  So back to the punch line. Corporations can now spend an unlimited 
sum of money to buy elections, and the American people generally won't 
even know about it. Corporations and superwealthy individuals no longer 
have to play by any sensible rules when it comes to the checks they 
write for campaigns. Citizens United ushered in the wild, wild west of 
political spending. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at some 
of the numbers.
  In the 2010 election, outside groups spent over $280 million on 
political ads and other campaign expenses. This is more than double the 
amount spent by outside groups in 2008 before the decision, and it is 
more than five times the amount spent by these groups in 2006. The 
chamber of commerce alone spent more than $32 million on campaigns in 
2010, which is more than any other single outside group, and it is 
nearly double the amount it spent in 2008. Outside groups spent more on 
political advertising in 2010 than the official Democratic and 
Republican Party committees.
  But that was 2010, when corporations and the superwealthy were just 
beginning to understand the utility of this amazingly misguided 
decision. The last several months have given us example after example 
of what big money can do to control the political process.
  Now, I may not agree with the views of all of the Republican primary 
candidates--or any of them, for that matter; some of them individually, 
maybe, but not as a whole--but I do believe that everyone deserves a 
fair shake when they run for office. And a fair election is just not 
possible when corporations and wealthy individuals can swoop in and 
drown out the voices of hundreds of thousands of Americans with a 
single fat check.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich pulled off a surprise win 
in South Carolina. But I would venture to guess it wouldn't have 
happened if Mr. Gingrich's super PAC hadn't received a $5 million check 
from one guy, a multibillionaire from Las Vegas. This super PAC, also 
known as the group Winning Our Future, used the money to pay for attack 
ads against former Governor Mitt Romney. Just a few days ago, it was 
announced that the wife of this same billionaire wrote another $5 
million check to Mr. Gingrich's super PAC to help him out in Florida. 
Now, I wish I could offer an example of a company writing a similar 
check, but as I mentioned before, there is just no way of knowing if 
they did or didn't because they don't have to disclose it and they can 
take steps to hide it. But this example of two $5 million checks from 
one couple who just happened to be willing to talk about their 
donations should show just how big we are talking about. This is very, 
very big money, and it is happening now.
  To be fair, Mr. Romney has his own super PAC called Restore Our 
Future, and it is currently outspending every other PAC in Florida by 
20 to 1. I wish I could tell my colleagues how this is possible, but 
the first disclosure statement for this campaign season won't be out 
until the end of this month, and even then it will be hard to trace it 
back to individual companies or people through all the shell 
corporations and other PACs.
  This is only the beginning. Hold on to your hats. Over the next 10 
months, I predict we will not just see a flood, but we will see a tidal 
wave of political spending by corporations and the wealthiest of the 
wealthiest Americans, the vast majority of whom are also running these 
corporations. And what will this mean? It means it will be hard for $25 
individual contributions to make any impact when compared to a single 
$5 million check from a superwealthy and super-self-interested 
individual. Your voice and the voice of millions of Americans like you 
will be overwhelmed by the voice of a corporation or ``uber'' wealthy 
individual who can write multimillion-dollar checks without blinking an 
eye. All of this is going to happen under a shroud of secrecy.
  We may not know who is bankrolling these groups, but we do know who 
is hurt by them, and it is all of us--Democrats and Republicans alike. 
No matter where one's ideology falls or with what political party one 
associates, I think people will agree with me that this process isn't 
fair. It isn't right, and it is something we need to change.
  Congress tried to do something about this a little over a year ago 
when we took up Chuck Schumer's DISCLOSE Act. Despite overwhelming 
public support for disclosure laws, this tremendous piece of 
legislation did not pass. It failed in the Senate by one vote. I am sad 
to say that every Democrat voted for it and every Republican voted 
against it. That is a very disappointing outcome because this is an 
issue that affects candidates of both parties. It is one we should all 
be able to get behind.

  We are all hurt by corporations that can write enormous checks to 
their favorite politician, and we are all hurt when wealthy individuals 
can shield their contributions from the public by donating to shell 
groups and phony organizations that do nothing but pass

[[Page S101]]

those dollars on to help the candidate of their choice. This is a 
matter of transparency and accountability and fairness which should cut 
across the entire political spectrum.
  Although we may not agree on everything, I do think we can all agree 
we need to do more to bring greater transparency to the election 
process. A number of my Republican colleagues agree with me--and had 
agreed for years before the Supreme Court further unraveled 
restrictions on corporate spending.
  I will read one of the quotes. A good friend of mine, Senator Jeff 
Sessions, said:

       I don't like it when a large source of money is out there 
     funding ads and is unaccountable. . . . To the extent we can, 
     I tend to favor disclosure.

  I could go for minute upon minute upon minute reading these quotes. I 
will not in the interest of time.
  So this is a problem we all need to recognize, we all need to deal 
with. Republican Presidential candidates are dealing with it now, but 
soon it will be the Democrats' turn. So I have teamed up with a number 
of my colleagues, many of whom will be speaking today, to see that 
Congress can take up legislation where we disclose, where we have 
greater transparency for this out-of-control spending. We are going to 
work hard to bring our Republican colleagues to the table and get their 
agreement on a path forward. Disclosure will not fix all the evils of 
Citizens United, but it certainly will be a step forward. I hope my 
colleagues will join with us in this effort, and I hope to be back on 
the floor many times on this issue.
  Madam President, I thank you for your indulgence because I have run 
out of time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. As 
he was eloquently telling us, last Saturday was the 2-year anniversary 
of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that caused our democracy 
to take a giant step back from the values we hold dear in this country. 
It was a ruling that overturned decades of campaign finance law and 
policy, allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend 
unlimited amounts of their money influencing our democracy, and blew 
the door wide open for foreign corporations to spend their money on 
elections right here in the United States.
  That disastrous decision opened loopholes in our campaign finance 
laws big enough for the biggest corporations and wealthiest Americans 
to drive truckloads of anonymous money right through, and as we have 
seen over the last 2 years, that is exactly what they have done. Tens 
of millions of dollars have flooded our electoral process, with no 
transparency, no accountability, no way for the American people to know 
where it is coming from or who would benefit from the policies being 
advocated. This is wrong. It is not the way elections in America are 
supposed to work.
  We are a country that believes very strongly that every voice 
deserves to be heard. If you have a good idea, you can go out and talk 
about it. If your fellow citizens agree with you, they can stand with 
you. They can tell their friends and their neighbors and vote for you 
or in support of the issue. That is one of the foundations of our great 
democracy. Today it is being subverted. The Citizens United ruling has 
given special interest groups and the wealthiest Americans a giant 
megaphone to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens across America--
to spend unlimited money and do it with no transparency, no 
accountability.
  This is a personal issue for me. When I first ran for the Senate back 
in 1992, I was a long-shot candidate with some ideas and a group of 
amazing and passionate volunteers by my side. Those volunteers cared 
deeply about making sure the voices of average Washington State 
families were being represented. They made phone calls. They went door 
to door. They talked to families across my State who wanted more from 
their government. Well, we ended up winning that grassroots campaign 
because the people's voices were heard loudly and clearly. But to be 
honest, I do not think it would have been possible if corporations and 
special interests had been able to drown out their voices with a 
barrage of anonymous negative ads.
  My story is not unique. In every election across the country, 
ordinary citizens make the decision to get involved in the political 
process. They lace up their shoes, hit the streets, and make their case 
to their fellow citizens. They ask their friends and their neighbors 
for financial support to help them spread their ideas. And they 
publicly--publicly--release the names and contributions of everyone who 
supports their campaign.
  These men and women come from all different walks of life, and they 
each have their own reasons for running, but for most of our Nation's 
history, they had a shot. They could compete. Ordinary Americans who 
wanted to get involved in public service to improve their community or 
their State or their Nation could do that because their voice could be 
heard. But if Citizens United is allowed to stand, these Americans are 
going to be drowned out and beaten down by the onslaught of unlimited 
and anonymous money special interests can throw into races to support 
the candidates who agree with them, the candidates who will be good for 
their own bottom line and who will not threaten the loopholes and 
subsidies or tax breaks from which their financial backers profit. This 
is wrong. It needs to end.
  Last session, I was proud to support legislation--the DISCLOSE Act--
that would shine a bright spotlight on this process and force special 
interest groups and CEOs to take responsibility for the ads they put on 
the airwaves--the same way candidates do. That bill would have 
strengthened overall disclosure requirements for groups that are 
attempting to sway our elections. It would have banned foreign 
corporations and special interest groups from spending in U.S. 
elections, made sure corporations are not hiding their election 
spending from their shareholders, limited election spending by 
government contractors to make sure taxpayer funding is never used to 
influence an election, and would have banned coordination between 
candidates and outside groups on advertising so corporations and 
special interest groups can never sponsor a candidate.
  That bill was blocked on the Senate floor last session, but we cannot 
give up. We need to overturn Citizens United and hand democracy back to 
our citizens. Anyone who believes special interest groups and big 
corporations should not be able to spend unlimited money influencing 
our elections without any accountability or any transparency should 
support this effort. Anyone who believes foreign entities should have 
no right to influence U.S. elections should stand by our side. And 
anyone who agrees with Justice Brandeis that ``sunlight is the best 
disinfectant'' should drop their opposition to this and work with us to 
get this done.
  Throughout the history of our great Nation, ordinary citizens have 
had a strong voice in our electoral process. The Citizens United 
decision is a threat to that critical foundation of or democracy, and 2 
years later, it is clearer than ever that we cannot allow it the stand. 
So I thank all of our colleagues who are speaking out here on this 
floor and vow to continue to work with them to right this wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to follow the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Washington who has spoken so 
powerfully on this issue, which is especially appropriate at this time 
because we do mark the 2-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's 
momentous and misguided decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election 
Commission. That decision strikes at the core of democratic ideals and 
principles, not just because it opens the floodgates for money that can 
drown out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans in the political 
process, but it also demonstrates the results of judicial activism at 
its worst. In that case, the Court, by a 5-to-4 margin, held that 
corporations have a first amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of 
money in the service of political candidates and that those rights 
cannot be abridged by placing limits on their

[[Page S102]]

independent spending for political purposes.
  This decision not only expanded the ability of wealthy individuals 
and large corporations to flood out the voices of millions of ordinary 
Americans, it also reversed nearly a century of existing law and struck 
down the validly approved--by this Congress--Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act, approved in 2002. The purpose of that act was to limit the 
corrosive influence of money on our political process that has been 
discussed and denounced by Members of this body again and again and 
again and by the President of the United States as recently as a couple 
nights ago.
  This decision, in my view, was wrong as a matter of law as well as 
policy. It enables unlimited anonymous money to be contributed in 
support of or opposition to candidates. It allows the wealthy and 
powerful to have a disproportionate voice in the most important and 
fundamental aspect of our democracy--a free and fair election that 
counts everyone's vote equally.
  The shock waves of that decision in Citizens United are reverberating 
now with increasing impact throughout our political system. We can see 
them every day, literally, in the ads that appear on TV in major 
markets in the primary States and throughout the country that could and 
would--might as well be in the voices of the candidates themselves. 
Outside groups spent four times as much money in the 2010 midterms as 
in the 2006 midterms--nearly $300 million. Nearly half of the money 
spent in the 2010 elections was spent by just 10 groups. Outside 
spending per race tilted in favor of the winning candidate in 60 of the 
75 contests last year where power changed hands. This impact is visible 
and tangible, undeniable in our political process. It is right before 
us, as visible as the desks and people in this Chamber. That impact can 
be expected to grow dramatically in 2013, as spending in the 
Presidential years is typically much higher than in the midterm 
elections.
  According to opensecrets.org, which tracks political spending, as of 
today, 296 groups organized as super PACs have already reported 
spending nearly $41 million on the upcoming election. These super PACs 
are banned from explicitly coordinating with the candidate they 
support, but they are operated and controlled by supporters, many of 
them former staff members. Their collaboration and confederacy are no 
less impactful because of that rule barring explicit coordination.
  We must act to limit the destructive effects of Citizens United 
before it permanently alters the nature of our political system, 
undermining it forever and eviscerating the fundamental rights and 
freedoms that are protected by our Constitution.
  I am a strong proponent of legislative proposals to force 
corporations and individuals to disclose their enormous donations and 
expenditures to the public--a number of them have been mentioned by my 
colleagues--and I support them. The Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens 
United naively argued that voters could readily learn the identity of 
companies behind these corporate-funded political advertisements. But 
the fact is otherwise.
  Nearly half of the $300 million spent by outside groups in 2006 came 
from groups that did not disclose their funding source. We must pass 
disclosure legislation immediately to at least allow sunshine to rein 
in the worst excesses of this new system, to give ordinary Americans 
the knowledge they need so that disclosure protects their freedom.
  But I also believe we need to go further, and that is why I am a 
cosponsor of the constitutional amendment that would reverse this 
decision. The amendment, S.J. Res. 29, would reiterate what we all 
believed the law to be before Citizens United. That resolution 
clarifies, and the amendment would do so, that Congress does indeed 
have the power ``to regulate the raising and spending of money and in 
kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections and that States have 
the authority with regard to State elections to do the same.''
  I know that amending the Constitution is not easy, and supporting a 
proposed amendment is not something I do lightly. But, unfortunately, 
the Supreme Court has clearly demonstrated that it will permit 
unchecked corporate power over elections, and the task is then for 
Congress and the States and the people to restrain such spending and 
thereby rein in the Supreme Court.
  Many have seen Citizens United as an expression of the U.S. Supreme 
Court's judicial activism in favor of well-funded and well-lawyered 
corporations, often at the expense of vulnerable Americans, and there 
is support for that view of the Supreme Court trend in decisions.
  In AT&T v. Concepcion, it expanded the ability of companies to force 
consumers into secretive binding arbitration agreements. In Wal-Mart v. 
Dukes, it restricted the ability of similarly situated persons, 
including female employees who faced discrimination in the workplace, 
to ban together and seek redress against a powerful company.
  In PLIVA v. Mensing, a case involving a woman who sustained injuries 
from a drug company's failure to properly disclose the risk of a 
generic drug, the Court sided with the drug companies, holding that a 
generic drug company is not liable under State law for failing to 
notify the FDA or the consumer about newly discovered risks of the 
drug.
  In Sorrell v. IMF Health, the Court overturned a Vermont law intended 
to prevent improper and invasive practices of drug companies tracking 
doctors' prescriptions to patients. Just 2 weeks ago, in CompuCredit v. 
Greenberg, the Court halted a class action lawsuit by consumers who 
signed up for a credit card marketed to individuals with poor credit 
histories. Each of those decisions and others has been interpreted as 
part of a pattern that led the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a 
hearing a few months ago entitled: ``Barriers to Justice and 
Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings will Affect 
Corporate Behavior.''
  But more important than that perception and the appearance of that 
favoritism in judicial activism is the activism itself, the potential 
overreaching that undermines the faith and confidence of people in the 
Court. Citizens United exemplifies judicial activism at its worst. 
People want limits on the corrosive and corrupting influence of money. 
They want restraints on the power of corporations and wealthy 
individuals to fund----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. In closing, people speak through their legislature. 
The judiciary struck down a measure through which the people spoke to 
place those limits on the ability of corporations to shape results, and 
the judiciary now should be overturned through a constitutional 
amendment that restores the Democratic voice of the people as a whole.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon State.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleagues and I come here today to 
speak out against the hijacking of American democracy by powerful 
special interests. It was 2 years ago this last Saturday that the 
Supreme Court found in Citizens United that unlimited secret funding of 
campaigns in America is just fine. This is not an opinion shared by 
Americans who understand that secret donations corrupt the electoral 
process. It is not an opinion shared by virtually everyone who serves 
in this body, who has come to this floor and talked about transparency 
and accountability. Certainly it is a viewpoint that would be very 
strange to the authors of the Constitution.
  What are those first beautiful three words of the Constitution? Are 
they, ``We the powerful''? Are they, ``We the special interests''? No, 
they are not. Those three words are, ``We the people.'' Virtually every 
schoolchild in America can tell you that. ``We the people.'' That is 
what American democracy is all about.
  The entire Constitution is written for the prosperity and success for 
the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. Indeed, it 
was President Lincoln who captured the genius of American democracy in 
this phrase: A government of the people, a government by the people, 
for the people.

[[Page S103]]

  Citizens United is the opposite. Secret unlimited donations are an 
instrument of the powerful. Secret unlimited donations are an 
instrument of very large companies. Our Constitution honors free 
speech. The first amendment is about free speech. It recognizes how 
important it is that citizens are able to openly debate the merits of 
candidates and the merits of ideas. But the action of the first 
amendment is that competing voices must be heard and measured against 
each other in a marketplace of ideas. But that falls apart under 
Citizens United.
  Under Citizens United, the torrent of cash amounts to the equivalent 
of a stadium sound system drowning out the voices of the people. Let me 
give you an example of what I am talking about. If you were to take a 
very successful company in 2008--I will choose one, Exxon, a very 
profitable company--if it had spent 3 percent of its net profits in 
2008, that money would have been equal to the money spent by all 
Americans on the Presidential campaign. One company, one board room, 
one proposal, spending 3 percent--only 3 out of 100--of the net 
profits, equivalent to all money spent by all of the rest of America on 
a Presidential election. That completely corrupts the concept of a 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
  Now, in 2012 we are seeing the results. I am going to put up a chart. 
Take a little comparison. We see that spending in 2008 at this point in 
the campaign was about $23 million. About half of that, where these 
blue arrows come to, was coming from independent expenditures. The 
other half was coming from candidates and parties.
  Well, here we are 4 years later, post-Citizens United. Look down 
here, and you will see the very small amount that comes from candidates 
and parties. You will see this enormous part of the funding coming from 
independent parties. Ninety-five percent up to this point is coming 
from independent parties. Well, the number went from 26 to 45, and the 
amount spent through the ordinary system has dropped massively. This is 
the special interest impact on American elections. This is the impact 
of the powerful on American elections.
  Now, let's look at the campaigns to date for the Presidency. The Iowa 
caucuses: Newt Gingrich started to rise to the top of the polls, but 
then super PACs supporting Mitt Romney weighed in. They came to town 
and they spent a huge amount of money. When caucus night came, Gingrich 
lost, and he lost badly.
  Newt Gingrich commented, ``For a State this size,'' referring to 
Iowa, ``to spend that number of dollars in negative ads aimed at one 
candidate is pretty amazing.''
  It is amazing and it is effective. The story changes when Newt 
Gingrich had a super PAC of his own that came in with $5 million in 
South Carolina. Instead of being defeated, he won. The pattern is 
clear. The message is clear: The vast expenditures of secret powerful 
money make an enormous difference in who wins elections.
  Why is this corrupting? Every person on this floor, every one of us 
sees that pattern. Everyone running across this country sees that 
pattern. It means, when the powerful come to an individual and say: You 
are going to run. This is my position. Will you not back it? And they 
know that company can put millions into their race, that corrupts the 
process.
  When a bill is on the floor of this Chamber and someone knows the 
person backing that bill can spend millions of dollars in the upcoming 
race, that corrupts this process. That is not what American democracy 
is all about. So we must change that. We must have full disclosure of 
donors. We must have timely disclosure of donors. We must have 
commonsense limitations on how money is raised and how it is spent. 
That is why with others, I have joined to back Senator Tom Udall's 
constitutional amendment that makes it very clear that is exactly what 
can be done.
  This does not constrain speech; this makes free speech work as 
designed in the Constitution for the citizens in a government by and 
for the people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Oregon for 
his statement.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I would yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak 
immediately after Senator Wyden for no more than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from New York for his courtesy. I too 
will be brief. It is an extraordinary honor to represent Oregon in the 
Senate. Having this special privilege, I have tried to make the 
lodestar of my service transparency and accountability. It is why I 
worked with the distinguished Senator from Missouri Mrs. McCaskill to 
end secret holds in the Senate.
  I have had more than 600 open town meetings. That is why we take 
legislative drafts and put them online so citizens can comment wherever 
possible. It is all about transparency and accountability. Today's 
campaign finance system is neither. It is not transparent, it is not 
possible for Americans to see who is giving what sums to what 
particular candidate, and there is no accountability--certainly no 
accountability in the sense that when people go to the polls in Vermont 
or New Hampshire or New York or anywhere else people know who has given 
a donation so that they can factor that in to their political judgment.
  With the explosion of mass media, the tradition of negative 
campaigning through pamphleteers and partisans has grown and grown to 
the point where the typical voter cannot find a way to avoid the flood 
of half truths and outright falsehoods. It becomes even harder to send 
the message that voters want; that is, we made our choice because we 
have full and complete information.
  Now, all of this was getting worse until the Congress came together 
to take two steps. The first was Congress enacted regulations of 
independent expenditures and eliminated the so-called soft corporate 
money that had begun to overwhelm the process.
  The second step--and I want to thank Senator Collins from Maine for 
working with me on this issue--is we passed what is called ``stand by 
your ad.''
  This is the law that requires candidates who sponsor political ads to 
take individual responsibility for their ads and state in the ads that 
they ``approve this message.'' I thank Senator Schumer, who has been a 
champion for this kind of accountability for years.
  That is where we were until the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 
Citizens United drove the system right back into the mud. Through this 
decision, the Supreme Court has seen fit to create what amounts to a 
new route for massive sums of unreported, unaccountable, and 
unacceptable spending to drown out any responsible discourse. In my 
view, this decision degrades our democracy and creates the appearance 
that the American Government is simply up for sale to the highest 
corporate bidder.
  This decision by the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court overturned 
almost a century of precedent and undermined the intent of the 
Founders. The decision, in my view, reflects a lack of understanding 
about a political process and an inability to see the corrosive effect 
of massive and hidden expenditures.
  Justice Kennedy, in the decision, specifically said this:

       We now conclude that independent expenditures, including 
     those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or 
     the appearance of corruption.

  In effect, it was the opinion of the Court that if Disney or Comcast 
or British Petroleum spends $20 million in an otherwise $10 million 
Senate race advocating one candidate, that newly elected Senator will 
not even have the appearance of working in their corporate interests 
instead of the public interest. In my view, that kind of reasoning does 
not pass the smell test. This is the sort of decision that ought to be 
left to the branch of government with constituents who understand not 
just the theory but the reality of elections.
  It is incumbent upon the Congress, whose members do understand the 
electoral system, to begin the process of restoring balance to the 
mechanisms of democracy. This needs to be done before our elections are 
entirely overrun by shadowy interests warring unchecked, using the 
political system and American voters as pawns.

[[Page S104]]

  My final point is that I do not reach this judgment lightly. I 
believe constitutional amendments ought to be reserved for those 
situations when the delicate balance set up by the Founders has been 
upset by time, circumstance, or, in this case, a sudden and ill-
considered change in the jurisprudence that governs our system. That is 
the situation we face today, and it is why I have decided to add my 
name to the sponsors of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to again call for increased 
disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures so the American 
people are informed about who is spending in our elections.
  I thank my colleagues from Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley, 
for their good remarks, as well as many of the others who have spoken.
  This week marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
appalling decision in Citizens United, in which Chief Justice Roberts 
and his cohort of activist judges overturned a century of legal 
precedent and created a flood of special interest group spending 
coursing through the veins of American elections.
  It is my view this decision has done more to poison our politics than 
most any other in recent times. In fact, some have argued this is the 
worst decision the Supreme Court has made since Plessy v. Ferguson. I 
agree a great deal with that argument.
  The Court's decision created a loophole that allowed entities to 
create groups to serve as a conduit to anonymously funnel money and 
mislead the public about their true motives. The decision has also led 
to the creation of super PACs, which are not only able to receive 
unlimited contributions and spend money at unprecedented levels, they 
are able to do so without accountability, working under the protective 
shadow of anonymity. As a result, a multimillionaire individual, 
corporations, and labor unions could spend $1 million or $5 million or 
$10 million against a candidate because they didn't like his or her 
stand on the environment, but all the ads would talk about would be, 
say, gay marriage. Nobody would know where the ads came from.
  What the decision does is make our people feel more and more distant 
from our politics and our government. That is corrosive--vituperatively 
corrosive for any democracy. What has happened since this decision is 
appalling. I sometimes wonder what our Supreme Court Justices are 
thinking as they watch what is happening. Can they hide up in their 
ivory tower and say this is the first amendment at work? They know 
better than anybody that no amendment is absolute. They know we can't 
scream fire falsely in a crowded theater and we have libel laws, child 
pornography laws, and other kinds of laws that balance the needs of the 
first amendment with other societal needs.
  One of the foremost needs of our society is for a fair functioning 
democracy, where there is some semblance of equality, that each person 
who votes has the same weight in the system. We know money 
counterbalances that fundamental fairness, but never has the balance 
been so put out of whack as by this decision. This decision--it is hard 
to believe that our Supreme Court Justices, whatever their ideology, 
went for this. I hope some of them are paying attention.
  To be honest with you, I sat behind the Supreme Court Justices at the 
State of the Union Address. I was so tempted to talk to them about 
this, but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate protocol. I hope they 
are listening today--particularly Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, who 
wrote the majority decision. I hope they will listen to what we are 
saying because what they are doing is undoing our democracy. It is that 
fundamental.
  In short, the Citizens United decision represents one of the most 
corrosive and destructive changes in law that has occurred in recent 
memory. Democracy is already struggling to stay afloat in a sea of 
powerful special interests, and this decision is an anchor around its 
neck.
  In my judgment, there is no more important step we can take to ensure 
America's continued greatness than to fight back against this deeply 
flawed decision allowing anonymous special interests to subvert 
democracy. The need for reform is urgent.
  Last Congress, I sponsored the Disclose Act to foster effective 
disclosure. I pledged my continuing commitment to fight for disclosure 
legislation in this Congress. The Disclose Act failed to get cloture by 
one vote. I hope the level of unmitigated spending in the Republican 
primary has changed the minds of the opponents. As we have seen, we now 
have a system where a single person can change the course of an 
election. That is a system more like monarchy than a democracy.

  This is not a partisan issue. There are super PACs and other kinds of 
anonymous giving on both sides. In fact, two of the leading candidates 
for the Republican Presidential nomination called super PACs ``totally 
irresponsible, totally secret'' and ``a disaster . . . [that] makes a 
mockery out of our political campaign season.'' That wasn't me or 
Senator Shaheen or Bernie Sanders speaking. One quote came from Newt 
Gingrich and one quote came from Mitt Romney.
  Disclosure will lift the curtain of secrecy and at least reveal the 
true identity of these organizations. One of the Supreme Court 
Justices' predecessors, Justice Brandeis, said, ``Sunlight is the 
greatest disinfectant.'' People would not have malicious, pernicious, 
and false ads if they had to disclose who they are. It is plain and 
simple. But if you can hide behind the shroud of secrecy and put 
unlimited money into these campaigns, as the Supreme Court decision 
allows--and we have not changed it because our colleagues on the other 
side are even against disclosure, which, of course, is allowed by the 
law--the American democracy gets weaker.
  Even eight of the nine Justices, in the activist and overreaching 
decision in Citizens United, agreed that the American people deserve 
meaningful disclosure. That makes the decision even more galling 
because they didn't require disclosure or limit what they did in light 
of the fact that we don't have disclosure, as they wrote. The Court 
found, though, that there was a strong governmental interest in 
``providing the electorate with information about the sources of 
election-related funding.''
  In conclusion, we cannot afford to be complacent while our democracy 
is under attack. The effect of the Court's decision is clear. The flood 
of secret money has begun cascading through our election system, and 
the American people need us to act. Spending by special interest groups 
must be checked, and the very least we can do is demand that these 
groups step into the light and identify themselves.
  The Citizens United decision is a poison coursing through our body 
politic and disclosure is the antidote.
  I yield the floor. If Mr. Coats is not here, with the permission of 
the minority, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New 
Hampshire be allowed to proceed immediately after me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, to all of my colleagues who have come to 
the floor today to talk about the critical nature of spending in our 
campaigns, I say I am pleased to join them to talk about the importance 
of preserving our representative democracy by restoring some 
commonsense restrictions to our Nation's campaign finance system.
  As we have heard, Saturday was the second anniversary of the Supreme 
Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. The Federal Election 
Committee. Already we have seen how that decision has altered the 
landscape of politics in this country.
  When the Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate financing of 
elections, it ushered in the age of the super PAC. These so-called 
super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money during 
political campaigns with very limited disclosure requirements.
  This election cycle the floodgates have opened. Super PACs have 
already spent over $30 million in the 2012 cycle, and the election is 
still 10 months away. That amount of money is staggering.
  When I was home over the holidays in New Hampshire, before our 
Presidential primary, I witnessed firsthand that influx of corporate 
cash and what

[[Page S105]]

it does to the Presidential election. Negative ads paid for by the 
super PACs contributed to disaffecting our voters and drowning out the 
voices of the people, those ordinary, everyday citizens of New 
Hampshire who aren't able to put in tens of thousands of dollars, in 
some cases millions, to affect the outcome of an election.
  This has to stop. This is not a partisan issue. The commonsense 
restrictions that were struck down in the Citizens United decision were 
part of legislation like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 
otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. That thoughtful legislation which 
had broad, bipartisan support limited soft money and corporate funding 
of political ads and campaign spending in a way that made sense.
  Our campaign finance system has gotten way off course. It is time for 
us in the Congress to help put it back on track. The unchecked 
influence of money in our elections compromises the very future of our 
representative democracy.
  The monied special interests and corporations have been given free 
rein to spend unlimited amounts of money during campaigns, and they do 
not need our help being heard. It is homeowners struggling to pay their 
mortgages, parents who want to send their children to college but 
aren't sure how they can afford it, and unemployed workers who are 
looking for jobs and hoping tomorrow will be better than today--those 
are the voices that are being drowned out in a sea of corporate and 
special interest cash, and those are the voices of the American people 
who need to be heard in Washington.
  So on the second anniversary of this decision, as we think about what 
we need to do to address this and to change the negative direction it 
is taking this country, I urge all of my colleagues to turn their 
attention to this important work and to reach across the aisle to build 
consensus on this issue. Let's all tell the American people that we 
hear their voices calling for change.
  I look forward to speaking with all of my colleagues in the coming 
weeks and months about the specific approaches we can take to repair 
our broken campaign finance system, and I hope we will have the courage 
and the commitment to do something about this.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I very much appreciate 
joining all my colleagues on the floor who have been speaking about the 
Citizens United case. I think what we are seeing in the Senate is what 
we are seeing in the country. The citizens of this country are 
concerned about unlimited corporate funds in campaigns, and Senators 
who are also concerned about that are standing and speaking out, as I 
know our Presiding Officer has, and are offering constitutional 
amendments in trying to resolve the situation we have before us.
  Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court issued its misguided 
decision in Citizens United v. FEC. 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. It enables these corporations to spend freely from their 
treasuries on campaign advertising. It also gave rise to so-called 
super PACs that we are seeing too much of. These super PACs can raise 
and spend unlimited funds to campaign for or against candidates.
  Now, what do we mean by corporate treasuries and super PACs? Let me 
cite an example. Exxon--the large oil company--has $80 billion in its 
corporate treasury. If Exxon wanted to go out and create a super PAC or 
contribute to these 200-plus super PACs that are out there to the tune 
of $80 billion, it could do it. That is what the Supreme Court opened 
in terms of its ruling.
  The toxic effect of this ruling has become brutally clear in the last 
2 years. The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to 
unprecedented campaign spending, drowning out the voices of ordinary 
Americans. Huge sums of unregulated, unaccountable money are flooding 
the airwaves. An endless wave of attack ads, paid for by billionaires, 
is poisoning our political discourse. The American public--rightly so--
looks on in disgust. As we head into the election year, this bad 
situation will only get worse. The checkbooks are out, and the money is 
gushing. Citizens United really means citizens denied--denied a fair 
playing field, denied an equitable influence in our political system, 
denied their right to be truly heard, and denied the right to even know 
who is spending all of this money.
  While much of the focus this week is on Citizens United, we must 
realize that the corruption of our campaign finance system did not 
suddenly happen 2 years ago. The Citizens United decision sparked a 
renewed focus on the need for reform, but the Supreme Court laid the 
groundwork for a broken system many years ago.
  In 1976, the Court held in Buckley v. Valeo that restricting 
candidate campaign expenditures violates the first amendment right to 
free speech. It established the flawed precedent that money and speech 
are the same. Since then, the influence of money has continued to play 
an increasing role in our Nation's elections. Sadly, in many cases, a 
candidate's ability to either raise money or self-finance can outweigh 
the quality of a candidate's ideas or dedication to public service.
  The Buckley and Citizens United decisions, among others, demonstrate 
the Court's willingness to ignore longstanding precedent and declare 
our campaign finance laws unconstitutional. Because of this, I believe 
the only way to truly fix the problem is to first amend the 
Constitution and grant Congress clear authority to regulate the 
campaign finance system. In November of last year, I introduced such an 
amendment. I am proud to say it currently has 19 cosponsors and support 
continues to grow.
  Our proposed constitutional amendment is broadly tailored and similar 
to bipartisan proposals introduced in previous sessions of Congress 
dating back to 1983. It would authorize Congress to regulate the 
raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns, 
including independent expenditures, and it would allow States to 
regulate such spending at their level. It would not dictate any 
specific policies or regulations.
  I chose my approach to not only overturn the previous bad Court 
decisions but also to prevent future ones. We don't know what a future 
Court may do. In Citizens United, the Court upheld campaign 
contribution disclosure requirements. A future Court might declare the 
same laws unconstitutional. Our amendment would remedy this problem by 
restoring Congress's authority--stripped by Buckley v. Valeo and 
subsequent decisions--to regulate the campaign finance system. If 
ratified, the amendment would ensure that campaign finance laws would 
stand constitutional challenges regardless of the makeup of the Supreme 
Court.
  The text of my constitutional amendment and any of the others is less 
important right now than the concept. Hearings can be held, and the 
text can be worked out. That is really the easy part of a difficult 
process. What is harder to achieve--and something we rarely see in our 
country--is gaining the widespread support necessary to amend the 
Constitution.
  The Citizens United decision was disastrous, and it may have been the 
very catalyst we needed to build a movement to amend the Constitution. 
There is a groundswell of support growing across the country for a 
constitutional amendment to rein in the out-of-control campaign finance 
system. City councils, from places as diverse as Los Angeles and New 
York to Missoula, MT, have endorsed resolutions calling on Congress to 
pass an amendment. Several grassroots organizations and coalitions have 
formed to advocate an amendment. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have 
signed petitions. Is it difficult to amend the Constitution? Yes, and 
it should be. But I believe the growing momentum demonstrates that this 
is the right time for Congress to act.
  Our Founders did not intend for elections to be bought and paid for 
by secretive super PACs. Our Founders did not bequeath a government of 
the millionaires, by the millionaires, and for the millionaires. Money 
can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We have seen 
evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government.
  We need to put elections back in the hands of average Americans and 
not in

[[Page S106]]

the hands of special interests with unlimited bank accounts. We need to 
answer to the American people and not just to the privileged. Our 
Nation cannot afford a system that says ``come on in'' to the rich and 
powerful but then says ``don't bother'' to everyone else. The faith of 
the American people in their electoral system is being corrupted by big 
money. It is time to restore that faith. It is time for Congress to 
take back control. It is time for a constitutional amendment that will 
allow real reform.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________