[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S285-S286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CITIZENS UNITED

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this year's political campaigns are 
different than just 2 years ago. There is a dramatic infusion of money 
from so-called super PACs. Now we are starting to learn the identity of 
those who were behind it. Just yesterday there were disclosures about 
some of the contributors. Many of the names are familiar--the same very 
wealthy people who have, time and again, been engaged in our political 
process. The new approach, of course, is that there is no limitation in 
what they can spend. In addition, there is little disclosure on a 
timely basis.
  There are a lot of reasons for that. One of them is the Supreme Court 
decision in Citizens United. It may be as flawed a decision as that 
Court has ever made: to equate corporations and special interest groups 
with average Americans when it comes to our political process and say 
speech is money, money is speech, and say, basically, there are no 
rules or limits in terms of what a special interest group or a 
corporation can spend in our political process.
  I cannot think of a more corrupting influence. We know politics and 
campaigns have become more expensive in this country every year. Those 
of us who are engaged in this business have, over our political 
lifetimes, seen a dramatic evolution in terms of how money is raised 
and spent. I can recall, in my first race in 1982 for the U.S. House of 
Representatives, raising and spending what was then almost a record 
amount in a House race against an incumbent Congressman of $800,000. It 
was a huge amount of money then, as I said, one of the most expensive 
congressional races to date. I waited anxiously for a $25,000 check 
from the Democratic National Campaign Committee they had promised, but 
it never showed up. But $25,000 was a big deal.
  Look where we are today. It is not unusual for candidates for 
Congress and the Senate to spend millions of dollars routinely in 
electing and reelecting Members of the House of Representatives. On our 
side of the Rotunda just dramatically increase those numbers, and you 
will see the basic political field we play on in political campaigns.
  The Citizens United decision was a step in the wrong direction. It 
wasn't that long ago when two of our own--a Republican, John McCain, 
and a Democrat, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--teamed up to end soft money 
in politics and to try to bring down the infusion of money from outside 
interests. They took years to reach their goal. Finally, when they did, 
after being challenged in court, they were picked away at over the 
years, and now with Citizens United, they have been toppled completely. 
Now the field is wide open.
  Whether we are talking about the need to reduce the deficit, reform 
the Tax Code, create jobs, most everybody knows different parties have 
different ideas. What many people don't know is that there are special 
interest groups that have their own agenda and ideas on these and so 
many other issues. It is just hard for Presidential candidates and 
Members of Congress to navigate through or around the special interests 
that have now become such an integral part of campaigns. The major 
donors in the Citizen United decision are a major force in American 
politics.
  I believe the overwhelming majority of people serving in the House 
and Senate in both parties are honest and hard-working people. I 
believe they are guided by good intentions. We are nonetheless stuck in 
a terrible, corrupting campaign financing system. That decision by the 
Supreme Court 2 years ago made our system so much worse that I think 
the only thing that can save it--literally save it so our democracy is 
protected--is a dramatic change.
  After Citizens United, corporations and unions can spend as much 
money as they want to influence the Presidential race, as well as 
congressional elections, and the Federal and State and local elections 
as well. In 2010, for the first time ever, spending on House and Senate 
races exceeded $1.6 billion. Outside groups spent 335 percent more on 
congressional campaigns than just 4 years earlier. Those numbers are 
still like a drop in the bucket compared to this year, this election 
cycle. The super PAC money is being used, as we have seen in the 
Republican Presidential primary, to fund negative, deceptive ads in 
support of candidates who are loosely, albeit not officially or 
formally, connected to those running super PACs.
  I think of the situation with former Speaker of the House Gingrich. 
One man and his wife have literally financed Gingrich's campaign in two 
States, with $5 million contributions in each of those States, as I 
understand it. That, to me, is a corruption of the process. You can bet 
that big business isn't going to be shy about engaging in the Citizens 
United strategy of spending money to influence the outcome of 
elections, and you can bet it will impact those of us who serve in the 
Senate and House. We know every single day as we vote, there is the 
potential for some special interest group out there deciding that is 
the breaking point; that from that point forward they will do 
everything in their power to defeat us, and they can spend as much as 
they want to get the job done. It is a humbling, sobering reality from 
the Citizens United decision.
  Well, there is an alternative. One is a resolution that has been 
offered by the Presiding Officer, which I am cosponsoring. That is a 
constitutional amendment that would reverse Citizens United. We all 
know how uphill that struggle will be, but at least we have staked out 
a position to say we have to overturn this decision; we have to go back 
to the days of accountability and manageability when it comes to 
financing campaigns. I applaud the Presiding Officer, the Senator from 
New Mexico, for his leadership on that issue.
  There is another issue too, one that I think we should continue to 
bring up and discuss. It is called Fair Elections Now. The Fair 
Elections Now Act is a bill that I have introduced in many Congresses. 
It would dramatically change the way congressional campaigns are 
funded. It would make super PACs irrelevant. The bill would allow 
candidates to focus on the needs of the people they represent 
regardless of whether those people are wealthy or whether they donate 
to a super PAC, attend a fundraiser, or try to find special access to a 
candidate.
  Candidates in the fair election system would not need a penny from 
special interest lobbyists or corporations to run their campaigns. 
Under this system, qualified candidates for Congress--and to qualify, 
they would need to raise small contributions in volume in the State 
they are running in--those qualified candidates would receive grants, 
matching funds, and television broadcasting vouchers from the fair 
elections fund to help them run competitive campaigns. In return, 
candidates who voluntarily participate in the fair election system 
would agree to only accept campaign donations from small-dollar donors 
in their States.
  We pay for the fund by asking businesses that earn more than $10 
million a year in Federal contracts to pay a fee of one-half of 1 
percent, with a maximum amount of $500,000 per year. That would fund 
it, and it would make certain that under the fair election system we 
would have public financing and we would put it into this money chase 
that I believe is not only corrupting our campaign system but could 
someday corrupt the very government we are proud of and represent as 
elected officials.
  It is time to reform our system. I am afraid, as I said in one 
gathering recently, if you are a student of history, it takes a massive 
scandal or crisis to create a massive reform. I hope that doesn't 
happen. I hope we have the good sense to move toward reform

[[Page S286]]

without that happening. In the meantime, what is happening to our 
political system is not in the best interest of democracy.
  If the average person who is not wealthy cannot even consider the 
possibility of being a candidate for Congress without the backing of 
huge special interest groups or without their own personal wealth, then 
we have lost something. A lot of us who got engaged in public life many 
years ago might never have considered it under today's rules because it 
is so expensive and overwhelming. Any person who now steps up and says 
they are ready to run for Congress or the Senate is introduced quickly 
to what is known as the ``Power Hour''--dialing for dollars. We sit 
them down in a chair and they get on the phone and call this list and 
beg every person they can reach for at least $2,300, $2,500. And they 
keep calling until the Sun goes down, and they start again the next 
day.
  There was a time when many of these candidates would not be sitting 
talking to the wealthiest givers in America but would be out in their 
States and districts talking to the people whose needs they ought to 
appreciate. That time has changed. We can change it back. We need to 
have the support of the American public and the political will in both 
political parties to achieve it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the President to notify me when I have used 10 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.

                          ____________________