[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14081-14082]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are going to hold our first vote 
relevant to S.J. Res. 19 later today, so let me speak about that for a 
few minutes. It is a constitutional amendment. It is something rare 
here, but this would restore to Congress and the States the authority 
to set reasonable limits on contributions and expenditures in our 
elections. The amendment would also allow Congress and the States to 
distinguish between natural persons and corporations when shaping 
legislation regarding the financing of elections.
  Both the States and the national government have exercised this power 
for a long time in a responsible way until a narrow majority of Supreme 
Court justices ignored history, and, worse than that, they ignored the 
Court's own precedent. These Court opinions have now eviscerated 
campaign finance laws, and they have invited corruption into our 
political system. If we do not respond, we will continue on a path back 
to the days when only the wealthy few had access to our government. If 
we do not respond, corruption will flourish and hard-working Americans 
will lose any remaining faith they have in their elected officials. So 
I believe it is time to restore some sanity to our campaign finance 
laws but also to restore the true meaning and intent of the First 
Amendment.
  I came to the Senate in January 1975, in the wake of the Watergate 
scandal. Americans were voicing concerns about the integrity and 
honesty of their elected leaders. They were concerned about the 
corrupting influence of anonymous money flowing into elections. The 
public's confidence in our democratic institutions was at a low point, 
so Congress passed the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign 
Act. As a freshman Senator--in fact, the junior most Member of the 
Senate--I was proud to vote for this law.
  Decades later Democrats and Republicans again came together in 2002 
to pass the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It targeted 
the use of soft money donations and the unlimited spending that could 
be done anonymously, used to finance attack ads before an election. 
Just as we did in the wake of Watergate, our bipartisan effort 
recognized the need to pass important campaign finance reforms to 
protect our democracy from corruption and to preserve access to our 
popular democracy.
  But it appears today that many of our elected officials and a narrow 
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court no longer even acknowledge the 
corrosive influence of unfettered, anonymous money flowing in to fund 
our elections. Anonymous money--somebody can try to buy an election, 
and they do not even have to put their fingerprints on it. They just 
spend the money. They can say it is the Committee to Bring Honesty and 
Openness to Government even though it might be funded by a group who 
wants just the opposite.
  Over the last decade a slim majority of the Supreme Court has issued 
one dreadful campaign finance decision after another. In fact, in 2010, 
in a 5-to-4 ruling--five Republicans on the Supreme Court--in Citizens 
United, the Court reversed a century of precedent by declaring that 
corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance 
and influence elections. In effect, they said corporations were people. 
I have said this many times before, and sometimes people chuckle, but 
stop and think about it. This country elected General Eisenhower as 
President. If you really listen to what the Supreme Court said, we 
could elect General Electric to be President or General Motors to be 
President.
  In this past year the same five Justices held that aggregate limits 
on campaign contributions are now somehow a violation of the First 
Amendment. In other words, if you are running in a local election 
somewhere where people would normally spend $300 or $400, but it is 
critical because that local board may decide what the tax policy of a 
big corporation might be in that community, they could say: OK, people 
running the board are going to spend $300 or $400 each. We will just 
put $1 million in to elect a different board that will give us a $10 
million tax break.
  The Court's radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment 
contradicts the principles of freedom, equality, and self-government 
upon which this Nation was founded. The consequence of the Court's 
opinions is that a small, tiny minority of very wealthy individuals and 
special interests are drowning out the voices of hard-working Americans 
and skewing our electoral process. What they are saying is: I have 
millions of dollars. I have a voice in elections. You? You are just an 
average hard-working man or woman, and you do not have any voice.
  The expressed justification for time-honored campaign finance laws 
has been a genuine concern about the corrupting influence of money in 
politics. But despite this well-founded concern, Justice Kennedy's 
opinion in Citizens United nonsensically confined corruption to mean 
only quid pro quo corruption or bribery. In doing so, these five 
Justices discarded what our very Founders understood to be the meaning 
of corruption. They have also rejected the definition of corruption 
upon which this Court has historically relied. As recently as 2003 when 
the Court initially upheld the McCain-Feingold Act before striking much 
of it down later, the Court stated:

       In speaking of `improper influence' and opportunities for 
     abuse' in addition to `quid pro quo arrangements,' we [have] 
     recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public 
     officials, but extending to the broader threat from 
     politicians too compliant with the wishes of large 
     contributors.

  In fact, I look at the distinguished Presiding Officer--a man who 
served with such great distinction as Governor of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia--and I think about the jury verdict handed down last week 
against another former Republican Governor of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and it reminds us that when elected officials grant political 
favors in exchange for gifts and money, it certainly threatens the 
functioning of our democracy. What Justice Kennedy and those who joined 
with him fail to recognize is that more subtle forms of corruption are 
also corrosive and undermine public confidence.

[[Page 14082]]

  Way back in the last century, we changed the Constitution to allow 
the direct election of Senators. One of the motivating factors was that 
in one State--at that time the legislatures appointed Senators--in one 
State, one major corporation in the mining industry so controlled the 
legislature that it picked who were going to be the Senators. We 
changed that because we said everybody should have a voice.
  States and future Congresses should be able to recognize that 
corruption extends to the idea that money--particularly unregulated 
campaign contributions--buys access and influences the political 
process in disproportionate ways for a wealthy few.
  This ``pay to play'' notion is corrosive to our democracy. The size 
of your bank account should not determine whether and how the 
government responds to your needs. The government should be there for 
all Americans, not just the most wealthy. Vermonters understand this. 
They have led the way by speaking out forcefully about the devastating 
impact of these Supreme Court decisions. So we ought to start listening 
to our constituents. We ought to vote to protect our democracy against 
corruption. We ought to restore democracy for all Americans.
  Some have argued that money is speech so we should not allow the 
States or Congress to limit any spending in our elections. As Justice 
Stevens said in his testimony before the Rules Committee, ``while money 
is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of 
the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and 
expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same 
constitutional protection as speech itself.'' This is exactly right.
  I have also heard the argument that this proposed amendment would 
silence nonprofit advocacy groups like the NAACP and the Sierra Club 
because it allows Congress and the States to distinguish between 
corporations and actual individuals. Do not believe it. Until Citizens 
United, prohibitions on corporate and union political spending were the 
norm at the Federal level and in many states. Those prohibitions never 
stopped nonprofit groups from engaging in vigorous issue advocacy. Nor 
would this amendment.
  Moreover, I have received a letter of support signed by both the 
NAACP and the Sierra Club, among many others, that openly advocate for 
this proposed amendment. If this proposed amendment would have the 
potential effect of silencing their organizations, why would they 
support it?
  For those who claim the threat of these Supreme Court decisions is 
not sufficient to warrant a constitutional amendment, let's get the 
facts straight. Even incremental measures to simply increase the 
transparency of the flood of money pouring into our elections have been 
repeatedly filibustered by Republicans. In fact, many of us have tried 
for years to pass a law to require greater transparency and disclosure 
of political spending. I have tried to practice what I have preached. I 
have disclosed every cent ever contributed to me, including one time 
for one for about 40 or 50 cents. It cost us more to disclose it than 
what it was, but I wanted people to know exactly who had contributed to 
my campaign. We tried to have that kind of disclosure.
  Republicans have repeatedly filibustered that legislation, known 
aptly as the DISCLOSE Act. The statutory approach would allow the 
American people to at least know who is pouring money into the 
electoral system. It is bad enough that they can pour in an unlimited 
amount of money, but we ought to at least know who is doing it and why 
they are doing it.
  I hope we will be able to convince enough Republicans to join this 
effort to overcome the Republican filibuster of a modest transparency 
bill. But because the Supreme Court based its rulings on a flawed 
interpretation of the First Amendment, a statutory fix alone will not 
suffice. Only a constitutional amendment can overturn the Supreme 
Court's devastating campaign finance decisions.
  Our proposal to amend the Constitution simply restores the ability of 
future lawmakers--Republicans and Democrats--at both the Federal and 
State levels to rein in the influence that billionaires and 
corporations now have on our elections. It is necessary to restore the 
First Amendment so all voices can be heard in the democratic process, 
whether you are a millionaire or not, and it is vital to ensure that 
corruption does not flourish.
  I hope Senators will join with me on this vote.
  I do not see anybody seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________