[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 957-958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, Chairman Schumer started 
hearings this morning in the Rules Committee on the Supreme Court 
decision, Citizens United v. FEC. This Supreme Court decision 
completely changes the campaign finance landscape.
  Fifty years ago when my father Stewart Udall and my Uncle Mo were in 
office, money had minimal impact on the electoral and political system. 
It was about connecting with people and the marketplace of ideas. Right 
now it is just as much about the biggest checkbooks, if not more so, 
than it is about the best ideas.
  Unfortunately, we are about to see a lot more big checkbooks in the 
election process. Last month's Supreme Court decision in Citizens 
United v. FEC was a victory for the special interests at the expense of 
the average American. We have seen firsthand the impact special 
interests such as big oil and big banks and health insurance companies 
have had on the legislative process. Now, with this decision, already 
powerful corporations and labor unions will be able to further open 
their bank accounts, further drowning out the voices of everyday 
Americans in the political process.
  Members of both Chambers and the administration are working on 
legislation to address the Citizens United decision. I commend their 
efforts, but I believe a comprehensive overhaul of the campaign finance 
system is necessary in order to restore public faith in our elections. 
What we are seeing here today is large special interests supplanting 
the voices of everyday Americans in the political process.
  The Supreme Court has shown its willingness to rule broadly and 
ignore longstanding precedent when it is reviewing the 
constitutionality of campaign finance laws. The best long-term

[[Page 958]]

solution is a constitutional amendment that would prevent the Court 
from overturning sensible campaign finance regulations. I would welcome 
the opportunity to join my colleagues in introducing such an amendment.
  While I believe a constitutional amendment is the ideal solution, I 
also think comprehensive reform legislation is a step in the right 
direction. As a Member of the House for 10 years, I joined 
Representative Dave Obey as an original cosponsor of the Let the People 
Decide Clean Campaign Act, a bill that would fundamentally change how 
House elections are conducted. Mr. Obey reintroduced this bill in this 
Congress, and I intend to introduce a companion bill in the Senate in 
the coming weeks. The act does not attempt to fine-tune the existing 
congressional campaign finance system or tweak around the edges; 
rather, it makes fundamental, wholesale changes to fundraising by 
candidates, regulations of outside groups, and the role of political 
parties. It contains a finding that America's faith in the election 
system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside 
interest groups. It establishes a system of voluntary contributions to 
provide public financing in campaigns for House candidates in general 
elections. It provides more funds than the current system for the vast 
majority of challengers to mount their campaigns. And it empowers 
voters with the knowledge that their vote affects the outcome of the 
current election and also affects the amount of funds distributed to 
nominees in future elections. It bans all independent expenditures so 
that only the candidate is responsible for his or her message. It 
provides for expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment 
allowing these changes if the Supreme Court rejects the plan, and it 
provides a process by which third-party candidates can also participate 
in the system.
  Money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. We have 
seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of government. We have 
long needed substantive campaign finance reform, and it is my hope that 
the High Court's disappointing decision will provide the push we need 
to put elections back in the hands of average Americans and not the 
special interests who can use their unlimited bank accounts to railroad 
the process to their preferred conclusion.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Parliamentarian, what is the 
business before the Senate at this time?

                          ____________________