[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13156-13160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) is 
recognized for 35 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, you know, they say that he who pays the 
piper plays the tune; but unfortunately in today's campaign finance 
system, it's just like one Johnny One Note, and it's about millionaires 
and billionaires.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak on an important issue. The fact 
is that our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder. Super PACs, 
millionaires and billionaires are taking over our election. They're 
doing what ordinary individuals don't have any capacity to do, and the 
impact on policymaking and on elections is debilitating. It makes 
voiceless the very people, Mr. Speaker, who most need a voice in these 
very troubling times. Our seniors, young people, poor people, working 
people, women, middle-income families, and small business owners, all 
of them have just been shut down because of this system. But it's worse 
now than it was even in the dark days of Watergate.
  Now, before coming to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I spent nearly 15 years 
of my career actually working on issues related to campaign finance 
reform, election law, voting rights, and government ethics, from my 
time as a lawyer to my service as executive director of several 
nonprofit organizations; and I just can't think of a worse time than 
this time that we're living in now.
  The complexity of balancing important constitutional considerations 
is really important, but appropriate public policy is also important; 
and we're just not striking that balance. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you 
think about it, in the days following Watergate and the reforms that 
came thereafter, much of the way that we thought about our campaign 
finance system and that we thought about the role of money in politics 
and its relation to policymaking was almost completely circumscribed by 
pretty much one decision and a couple of others, the Buckley v. Valeo 
decision and all the cases that followed.
  During that time, we could not have imagined a more desolate campaign 
finance landscape, in fact, than the one we have here today, Mr. 
Speaker. Here we are facing the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in 
Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Now, you would 
think that a lot of people would not really be familiar with any one 
Supreme Court decision, but in fact all across this country people are 
outraged by that decision because it has been devastating to the 
political system.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my congressional district is in the metropolitan 
Washington area, in the Maryland suburbs, and so we get the benefit in 
this area of hearing advertising that comes on television from 
Virginia. Now, Virginia is a battleground State in the Presidential 
elections, and so that means that we get to experience in Maryland, 
where we wouldn't ordinarily, all of the election advertising. What we 
see is ad after ad. And you can't even read the small print on the ad. 
You don't know who's paying for it. You don't know where it's coming 
from. You don't know what's behind it because none of that is 
disclosed. You hear hammering one candidate or hammering another 
candidate.
  And so here you sit, as an ordinary person at home just wanting to 
get up and take care of your family and make sure that your kids are 
okay, and this political system has gone amuck and awash in campaign 
dollars, money coming from all sorts of sources.
  But what Citizens United did was it upended the role of the people in 
the process and took away our voice in the face of unlimited, 
undisclosed sources of money that did not, in the past, have a place in 
the campaign finance mix. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this can't 
continue. We can't allow it to go unchecked. It's just been too 
debilitating to people at home. It has an impact all across the board 
on participation, on whether people feel that they have a voice in 
policymaking, on the candidates who choose to run for elected office or 
not. I can understand why the American people feel like, you know what, 
I just want to shut down because the system simply isn't working for 
me.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to 
say a few words this evening because we're 97 calendar days away from 
the November 2012 election, but we're 16 legislative days away. That 
means that Congress--every elected Member of the House and the Senate--
has 16 legislative days, 16 days of opportunity to restore sanity to 
the campaign finance system, to let the people know that we actually 
care about whether their voice is important, versus the voices of the 
millionaires

[[Page 13157]]

and the billionaires who get to set the agenda. Sixteen days. There's a 
lot that you can do in 16 days--or you can do nothing. That's the 
choice that we have today.
  So there can't be any doubt that in fact we've entered a really 
unprecedented era in our political system, where super PACs rule. I 
didn't even know what a super PAC was, most Americans probably didn't, 
but we sure do now, where one person, one vote has been more 
appropriate for a history lesson than a description of the electoral 
process.
  How did we get to this framework that allows a free rein to outside 
organizations, to corporations and their treasuries, to the wealthy, 
allowing them to raise unlimited amounts of cash to influence American 
elections? The question really is that we got here because of Citizens 
United.
  So, 2 years ago, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, said, you know 
what, we're going to invalidate everything we've known about the 
campaign finance system; the Federal Election Campaign Act--which has 
been rendered pretty much useless; the bipartisan--and I'll repeat 
that, bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, Campaign Reform Act that was a way that 
Republicans and Democrats came together for things like disclosure and 
limiting contributions and circumscribing the role of money in 
politics, and in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court threw 
it all out. In doing so, what the Court did was it struck down long-
time prohibitions against corporate use of general treasury funds for 
independent expenditures and for communicating in elections.
  Now, what the American people need to understand, Mr. Speaker, is 
that means that no matter what corporation you are, maybe you represent 
insurance companies or the financial sector or the energy sector or any 
number of sectors that certainly hire a lot of employees, and they have 
shareholders, but what the Supreme Court said is we're going to reach 
into the corporate piggy bank and we're going to allow corporations--
for the first time ever, really, in our modern-day politics--to spend 
their money directly on campaigns.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, corporations have name-brand identity, so they 
don't do this willy-nilly. So what do they do? They pass it through an 
organization that's a shadow organization so we don't know where that 
money is coming in directly until after the fact. Maybe we see three-
point type on a television screen that flashes right by, Mr. Speaker; 
but the fact is the American public doesn't know.

                              {time}  2100

  Now, there had been long-settled cases in this country that said that 
corporations actually didn't have the ability to spend out of their 
corporate treasuries when corporations are formed for all kinds of 
reasons, but not really to spend out of their treasuries like people, 
real people can and should in the political process. But Citizens 
United changed all of that.
  Then came another case. Now keep in mind, this is just in the last 2 
years that our system has been completely upended. Then came another 
case called speechnow.org v. the Federal Election Commission. And what 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided 
was that contributions to political action committees that only make 
supposed independent expenditures can't be limited. That's right: 
unlimited contributions from political action committees. These have 
come to be known as super PACs.
  And why are they so super? Because it's unlimited money, and it's 
just gushing into the political system. In States all across the 
country that are the favored battleground States, people in those 
States, and States like North Carolina and Virginia and Ohio and other 
States, can actually see that money firsthand because it's just being 
spent like crazy.
  And you know what? With 97 days, Mr. Speaker, left until the 
election, there will be more.
  In fact, I think that the American people will be so sick and tired 
of the advertising and not knowing who's behind it and the cross-
messaging and things that may or may not be true, but you have no way 
of checking it, the American people are going to be so sick and so 
outraged that they will continue to demand, as they have been, that we 
return some sanity to the system.
  These court decisions, of course, have said that corporations have 
equal rights to those of an individual. Can you imagine that your local 
corporation that does a great job of hiring people in your community is 
on par with an individual when it comes to making a political 
contribution? But that is, in effect, the land that we live in right 
now.
  The result has been a stunning influx of money that threatens to 
erode our democratic process and leads us to even lower voter 
participation rates. The danger of Citizens United and the cases that 
followed was actually heralded by Justice Stevens in his dissenting 
opinion in the case. And he couldn't have been more prescient. Here's 
what he said. He warned that it would ``undermine the integrity of 
elected institutions around the Nation.''
  Well, you don't have to look very far, Mr. Speaker, to know that the 
American people understand and believe that our institution is about as 
low as you can go. I mean, all of us have seen the numbers; and it 
can't be separated, the way that the American people feel about our 
elected officials, feel about our elected institutions, feel about the 
ability of our institutions to respond to their everyday needs. We must 
know that that is deeply connected to the role, the perverse role of 
money and politics.
  I don't have to tell the American people. Mr. Speaker, you don't have 
to tell the American people because they know. They know in their gut 
that it's actually wrong for corporations to reach in their treasuries 
and spend on campaigns. They know in their gut that it's wrong for a 
handful of millionaires and billionaires to control the agenda, to 
control the policy, to control the message. They know it's wrong.
  Now, Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion--and, remember, the 
majority won in Citizens United--stated that ``independent expenditures 
simply do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of 
corruption.''
  Clearly, the Justice has not really participated in politics because 
you don't have to look very far to know that, in fact, the corruption 
is actually rampant. Now, there is the appearance of corruption, maybe 
not out right. Nobody's buying or selling a vote. That's not the point.
  But the point is that it appears to be just really dirty. Most people 
look at our politics, they look at the nastiness, and you know what, 
Mr. Speaker? They just want to wash their hands.
  Now, it's possible that this flow of super PACS into elections would 
allow for independent expenditures; but the fact is there's nothing 
independent about it. It's not independent when a family member starts 
a super PAC. It's not independent when a former business partner starts 
a super PAC. It's not independent when former colleagues and coworkers 
start a super PAC and then begin spending on elections not very far 
from the candidate. And the American people understand this.
  Now, we can try to pretend that it's something different, but it's 
not different. The operations of these super PACs provide a stark 
contrast to the flawed assumptions that the Court made in its ruling.
  It's up to us in the Congress, in 16 legislative days, 97 days before 
this important election, to change that dynamic, to say that for the 
future, that for going forward, we understand that there is no role for 
this kind of money in our politics. There's no role for it in our 
elections.
  And so, although these organizations have been supposedly declared 
independent by the courts, the reality is that they flout the 
coordination rules that have set up, that supposedly would keep them 
independent, staffers, family, friends of a particular candidate that 
the super PAC is supporting.

[[Page 13158]]

  No great secret. In fact, coming out of the Republican primary 
elections, it was no secret at all who the millionaires and the 
billionaires were putting their money behind. And so, while the 
official campaign and the candidate are allowed to keep their hands 
clean, and I use that term loosely, clean, these shadow arms of a 
campaign are used to launch unrelenting attacks against an opponent 
that they pretend or that are unaffiliated with a particular candidate 
or an election strategy. It's almost laughable. And in fact I think 
people at home, when they're not tuning out, in fact they're laughing 
at us.
  Justin Stevens' warning materialized initially in the 2010 election. 
I know that I recall that because for the first time in our history, 
corporate and wealthy individuals really began to flood the airwaves. 
And here we are in 2012, and in that 2-year interim, boy, have they 
figured out this system, Mr. Speaker. And it's all over the place, 
flooding the entire electoral process.
  In the 2010 election cycle, the spending by corporations and outside 
groups actually multiplied fourfold from the 2006 election, going to 
nearly $300 million, astonishing at that time. But you know what? You 
haven't seen anything yet.
  Let's take a look at where we are today. From 2008 to 2010, the 
average amount spent for a House seat, that is, for a winning 
candidate, increased 32 percent, from about $2 million to over $2.7 
million. But as we know, the worst really was yet to come.
  At the start of the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, we really 
began to see the creep and the crawl and the impact and the danger of 
Citizens United. And the results, as I said, were on full display in 
Iowa. Super PACs there actually outspent candidates 2-1. That's right, 
the so-called independent expenditure groups outspent the actual 
candidates. The super PACs had a bigger voice than the actual 
candidates for the Republican primary.
  Republican Presidential hopeful and former Speaker of this House, 
Newt Gingrich, who, at the time, actually supported the Supreme Court's 
decision, what did he see? He saw his poll numbers plummet after a 
barrage attack of about $4 million in negative advertising that was 
paid for by Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting former Governor 
Mitt Romney and run by his former staffers.
  The same group then poured nearly $8 million into the Florida 
primary, with Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting former Speaker 
Gingrich spending a $6 million ad buy.
  Let's look at the numbers. And I'm sure the American public, Mr. 
Speaker, must be saying, I can't believe they spend that much money on 
politics. But surely they do.
  And after being targeted by Restore Our Future, former Speaker 
Gingrich, who, keep in mind, said that he had supported Citizens 
United, concluded, ``I think,'' referring to the anonymous ads, ``that 
it debilitates politics.'' He said, ``I think it strengthens 
millionaires and it weakens middle class candidates.''
  I couldn't agree with him more. I could not agree with him more.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. Speaker, the landscape has continued to darken as we march toward 
the general election with groups that are collecting and planning to 
spend enormous sums of money.
  American Crossroads and Priorities USA reportedly plan to raise and 
spend $240 million and $100 million respectively on the election. Just 
recently, National Public Radio reported that Republican super PACs and 
other outside groups, including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and Tom 
Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--supposedly independent--plan 
to spend a combined $1 billion before election day. That's right. The 
American people need to understand that. $1 billion. Unless we think 
that this is just about Republicans, Democrats are trying to play, too. 
It doesn't matter who is playing. It's wrong.
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of August 1--
that's today--705 groups have organized as super PACs and have reported 
receipts of over $318 million and independent expenditures already of 
more than $167 million in the 2012 election cycle. That's as of today 
and here we are. They've got 97 more days to raise more money, to spend 
more money and to do all of that undercover. I want to put it into 
stark contrast because just a couple of weeks ago, just 2 weeks ago, 
the numbers stood at 678. Today, it's 705--who knows what it will be 
next week?--with receipts of $281 million. Now those receipts are $318 
million. Can you do a little math on a multiplier? Because this thing 
is like rapid fire all across the country in this election cycle. The 
growth is really out of control.
  Citizens United will continue to allow super PACs to permeate the 
airwaves with distortions and with half-truths, all of it in an attempt 
to alter the political discourse. This is not about what candidates are 
saying individually. It's hard to even hear directly from them because 
we're hearing so much from the super PACs.
  I can recall many years ago when I began working on issues of 
campaign finance reform, it was the Republicans who said, Do you know 
what, we don't want all that other regulation, but we love disclosure. 
It turns out that now, in the day when the majority opinion in Citizens 
United declared that the one thing that wasn't off limits is actually 
disclosure, Democrats have put forward a disclosure bill called 
DISCLOSE, introduced by my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen. 
Many of us have signed onto it. That disclosure bill was brought up in 
the Senate. It has been brought up over here in the House. And do you 
know what? It has gone nowhere. It's the same people who over the last 
20 years or more, even since Buckley v. Valeo--certainly more--said we 
support disclosure. We are robust supporters of disclosure, but not 
today. Not today, Mr. Speaker. Not today. They don't want to disclose 
anyone--any individual, any corporation--that's behind these 
contributions.
  Why is that?
  It's about politics, Mr. Speaker. It's because maybe it's working in 
the favor of those who don't want disclosure, who don't want their 
names out there, who don't want the American public, whether it's in my 
district or in any other district, to know who they are and to know 
what's being spent.
  Of course, I envision that, like many Members of Congress, you could 
run the risk as a Member of Congress, to be sure, in speaking out 
against this nasty, dirty, unlimited money in our politics, and they'll 
all gang up on you. I'm going to take that risk, Mr. Speaker, because I 
happen to believe that the American people are sick and tired of it. 
They want us to do something about it. It's important for us to speak 
out about that because otherwise we lose everything. We lose 
participation. We lose people wanting to be involved and engaged in 
politics and wanting to run for elected office. Those who pay the piper 
just get to carry on in the process. We can't allow that to happen.
  So I believe in disclosure, but I don't think we can end at 
disclosure. I think we have to go a step farther. We want to promote 
that kind of transparency, though, in the political process. We want to 
enhance the public reporting by corporations and unions and all outside 
groups. I'm happy to let anybody know who is funding my elections. All 
of us should be pleased to do that because we know that it contributes 
to the public confidence in us as elected officials. I want to stand by 
any ad and say I approve of this message. Well, a corporation should 
stand by and say that it approves of that message, too. I want to know 
who is behind those ads.
  I think we still have 16 legislative days left in this Congress. 
Bring DISCLOSE to the floor. It's time to do the right thing. Now, I 
don't control the agenda on the floor, Mr. Speaker. The Republican 
majority does. They do have the capacity to bring reforms to this floor 
before we do anything else.
  I also think this campaign finance problem requires some other 
things, too, which is why I've supported the Fair Elections Now Act. 
It's in the Senate as S. 750, and here in the House it's H.R. 1404. 
It's modeled after successful programs in the States. There

[[Page 13159]]

are some people who believe the States are the laboratories for 
democracy. I share that belief. The States have experimented with ways 
in which you could fund campaigns to encourage different and more 
diverse people to run for elective office and with ways that you could 
clean the dirty money out of the system so that we're not governed by 
making phone calls and asking people for money to fund our campaigns. I 
think that the Fair Elections Now Act actually does that, and it's why 
I've supported it.
  What would happen is we would create a voluntary program where 
congressional candidates could actually qualify for funding to run for 
competitive elections and campaigns. In exchange, what those 
participating candidates would do--and what I would do as a candidate--
is agree to strict campaign limits and to forgo all private 
fundraising.
  To the American public, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is, If you 
don't own your elections, then who does?
  Right now we know that we don't own our elections. We need that kind 
of reform. So I believe those interim reforms are really necessary. Yet 
as an attorney and as somebody who has spent decades working on 
campaign finance, I think that we have to go farther.
  I think that what the Court says is, Congress, you don't have any 
authority to regulate except by doing disclosure. To me, what that 
means is that it requires the serious consideration of an amendment to 
the Constitution. I don't take that lightly. In fact, as an advocate 
and as a donor long before I came to Congress, I spent the better part 
of my career shunning attempts by reform groups who would come to me 
and who wanted me to work on reforms that required us to amend the 
Constitution. I always said no.
  The reason is that I think amending the Constitution is a serious 
step and requires serious consideration, but here the Supreme Court 
really hasn't left us any choice. In fact, in a couple of cases from 
Citizens United, they inasmuch have said so. They said pretty directly, 
Congress, you don't have the authority to regulate campaigns except to 
the extent that you do disclosure.
  So I have made a proposal to amend the Constitution. I worked with 
Laurence Tribe, a noted constitutional professor. I worked with 
colleagues here in the Congress, including the then-House chairman of 
the Judiciary, John Conyers in the last Congress. I reintroduced that 
amendment in this Congress because I think that the time is now. I've 
always questioned the rationale for the Court's decision, but I've done 
a reality check because writing this decision requires us to start in 
the Halls of this Congress. It requires us to continue on to the States 
with a constitutional amendment. So I've introduced this amendment.
  I know that, since then, there have been a number of other 
constitutional amendments introduced. Just last week, I testified over 
in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution where there is 
the consideration of a constitutional amendment in the Senate. Now is 
the time.
  The other thing that we could do in these legislative days, in 
addition to bringing the DISCLOSE Act to this floor, is to convene 
serious hearings among serious people about amending the Constitution 
so that we can restore sanity to our system and to make sure that our 
citizens' voices count more than those voices of those just digging 
into corporate treasuries.
  I don't think there is even one way to do this, but I think it's 
important to put something on the table. I urge the consideration by 
this House of House Joint Resolution 78, which is an amendment to the 
Constitution. It goes on the very limited track of saying that 
Congress, indeed, has the authority that it needs under our 
Constitution to make the changes that we need to of the campaign 
finance system in order to make sure that elections are owned by the 
American people.

                              {time}  2120

  It's a really simple thing to do, and let's take it to the 
legislatures.
  Because so many of my colleagues have introduced constitutional 
amendments also, many of us have actually joined with people all across 
this country. In fact, millions of people across this country are 
calling for us to be on the side of democracy, and we've signed on to a 
declaration for democracy. I'm a proud declarant for democracy. We have 
275 cities and towns from New York to Boulder, to Los Angeles, all 
across the country, big cities, small cities, who have called on a 
declaration for democracy to pass anti-Citizens United resolutions. We 
might differ on the subtleties on what this resolution might be, but 
that's the job of the United States Congress, to hear it out, to hear 
all sides, to hear from constitutional scholars about how we need to do 
this, but to do this together for the American people.
  Over 1,854 public officials across the country, including 92 Members 
of the House, 28 senators, and over 2,000 business leaders across the 
country have said it's time for us to take a stand for democracy. 
They've signed their name to our declaration for democracy. I would 
encourage all of our colleagues, before you leave town, sign your name 
to the declaration for democracy. Show the American people that we 
stand on their side.
  There's no doubt that it's a bold step to amend a document that's 
only been amended 27 times, and some would question the need to fix the 
problem with a constitutional amendment. But the Supreme Court pretty 
much answered that question unequivocally. The Supreme Court has also 
said, You know what, if Congress wants to do something, then Congress 
has to act in this way. I don't question that the Supreme Court made 
this decision. I accept that. It was a 5-4 ruling. That's the way our 
system works. The other part of our system is that free thinking 
Members of the United States House of Representatives and of the Senate 
come together to do what's right for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, here's what I would say in closing. Millionaires and 
billionaires are really doing simply what ordinary citizens can't do 
anymore. They've got all the strings. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, 
that there are people at home who just really aren't sure where they 
fit in this system. They're not sure what it means for their elected 
officials to be responsive to them because they believe that there's 
somebody out there who has more money and, as a result, more power and, 
as a result, more influence than they do at home.
  I've traveled all across this country, and I have to tell you that it 
doesn't matter whether you're in Maine or Montana, or you're all the 
way down through the South of this country and all across this great 
landscape, people really want to feel that they have some power, that 
they have some influence. Mr. Speaker, they just don't have that right 
now.
  I just don't even know another way to say that there's a ``for sale'' 
sign on the doors. I see poor old Uncle Sam here. He's looking mighty 
sad, Mr. Speaker. I've never seen a more sad looking Uncle Sam. Part of 
the reason is because he's shackled. He's shackled by $100 million from 
Priorities USA Action. Uncle Sam is shackled by $300 million from Karl 
Rove and American Crossroads. Uncle Sam is shackled by $61 million from 
only 26 billionaires. Uncle Sam is shackled by $39 million from who 
knows who else. And poor Uncle Sam, sad with his hand out, is shackled 
by $400 million from the Koch Brothers, shackled by $100 million from 
Sheldon Adelson.
  We could put a lot more up there, Mr. Speaker, but it's time for the 
United States Congress to remove the shackles of money from Uncle Sam 
so that we don't continue to sell our democracy. It's time for us to 
remove the shackles. It's time for us to say to the millionaires and 
billionaires, You've got to play just like the person who gives $5 or 
$1. Not a lot of people give money to political campaigns. I can 
certainly understand that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would close by urging us to use the 16 legislative 
days that are left to restore democracy, to restore sanity, by acting 
for the American people to restore the campaign finance system.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 13160]]



                          ____________________