[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4324-4330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MONEY IN POLITICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salmon). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and include extraneous 
material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 
the Chamber this evening. I want to talk about the topic of money in 
politics, which is something I think Americans across the country are 
increasingly anxious about because it really jeopardizes the voice they 
should have in their politics, in their democracy in their own 
government.
  Yesterday, there was a special election in Florida's 13th 
Congressional District, and the results of that election will get 
commented on at length

[[Page 4325]]

in the coming days. People will try to make forecasts about what it 
means for the 2014 election cycle. Generally, they will analyze it. 
They will look at the data and they will prognosticate as to what the 
implications of it are going forward.
  A lot of that commentary will miss what I think is the most sinister 
aspect of the election yesterday that was held in Florida, and that is 
the tremendous amount of money, the tremendous amount of money that 
poured into that election, not from ordinary, everyday citizens, not 
from the people who really have a stake in the outcome. They were the 
ones asked to go to the polls, but the money that poured in there that 
bought advertisements, to the tune of about $12.7 million, almost $13 
million spent on that campaign, about 30 percent of it was donated to 
the candidates themselves. So 30 percent of that $13 million was 
donated to the candidates themselves. The rest of the money came from 
outside sources--party committees, super PACs, anonymous donors, the 
ones who have been flooding the airwaves in the last couple of election 
cycles with negative advertising. That is where the great majority of 
the money that came into that special election yesterday was sourced, 
and that, I think, is a harbinger of things to come.
  If you look back at the 2010 cycle, you look at the 2012 election 
cycle, both at the congressional level and at the Presidential level, 
tremendous amounts of money pouring into campaigns and into elections, 
much of it coming from sources that don't identify themselves, secret 
money, these big super PACs who weigh in and try to determine the 
outcome of elections.
  Where does that leave the everyday citizen? Where does that leave the 
person out there who is sitting at their kitchen table, who is watching 
their television and is seeing all of these negative TV commercials 
pouring in? Where does that leave them in terms of their feeling about 
whether they have a voice in the process?
  I talk to my constituents, I listen to the way they feel about the 
current system of funding campaigns, and there is an increasing sense 
of disillusionment out there, deep cynicism that election outcomes are 
determined by Big Money and special interests and that the voices and 
opinions and priorities and concerns of everyday citizens are being 
cast aside. That is the legacy of the influence of Big Money and 
special interests on our politics today.
  So yesterday's election in the 13th District of Florida put a fine 
point on it. It demonstrated how much money can go into one special 
election. It was historic, $13 million being spent. More importantly, 
it is a lesson as to what we are looking at down the road. This idea 
that if you have got a big wallet you get an extra voice in our 
democracy, that somehow your opinion and your ideas count more because 
of the size of your wallet and your ability to throw millions of 
dollars into campaigns, well, that is not what a democracy is about; 
that is plutocracy. That is a government and a system that is dominated 
by Big Money and special interests and leaves the voices of everyday 
citizens behind so that they start asking themselves: Does my voice 
matter? Can I have an impact? Do my ideas count? If I am only able to 
write a check for $25 to a candidate who I think will do the right 
thing for me, can that $25 check compete against a $1 million check 
that some big donor can write to fund a Super PAC?
  This is why people across the country, it is not the only reason, but 
it is one of the main reasons why people across the country are so 
disaffected with Washington and Congress and government, because they 
feel like their voice is being drowned out by the big-moneyed interests 
out there.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about this because if we are 
going to restore the confidence and trust of Americans across this 
country, they need to believe again that their voice matters. They need 
to believe that when they are trying to understand the issues in an 
election and follow the debate and become informed, that that 
information will come to them from responsible sources, not from these 
shadowy hidden secret donors out there that have found a way to 
dominate the airwaves.
  So that special election yesterday I think was a warning to us all 
that this trend towards Big Money and special interests weighing in to 
what ought to be a democratic process that is owned and invested in by 
everyday citizens, that that trend is continuing and it is worsening.

                              {time}  1930

  At the end of that path lies deep, deep cynicism on the part of the 
American people. You can feel it; you can almost touch it when you go 
out into your district and you talk to your constituents who are angry 
and frustrated and want to see this place respond to their concerns and 
to their needs.
  So what can we do about this? I said a moment ago that we have got to 
do something soon; we have to address this cynicism that people are 
feeling, or they are not going to trust us at all. They are not going 
to believe that we can deliver for them in the people's House.
  This is the House of Representatives. It has the name the ``people's 
House.'' We run every 2 years. We are as close to the people as elected 
representatives can be. They want to see that we are listening to them.
  Right now--I said this last week--in some ways, when it comes to the 
relevance of this body to the average American out there, we are 
hanging on by a thread.
  We are hanging on by a thread because, increasingly, they think that 
we answer to Big Money and special interests, and we stop listening to 
the average person out there.
  So we need to do something about this. We need to fix this. We need 
to recognize that there is a problem, and we need to take meaningful 
steps to address it.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, joined by over 125 
original cosponsors, I was proud to introduce something called the 
Government by the People Act, which is an effort to create a new way of 
funding campaigns that puts everyday citizens back at the center of the 
equation.
  It says: no longer are we going to seed the financing and funding of 
campaigns to Big Money and special interests. We are going to come up 
with another way of doing it, a way that puts everyday citizens in a 
place of owning their democracy again, of feeling like they have a 
voice.
  Already within the last month, we have seen, across this country, 
more than 400,000 people who have become citizen cosponsors of the 
Government By the People Act because they are desperate to see a change 
which gives them their voice back at a time when they feel--as those 
residents of the 13th District in Florida felt over the last few 
weeks--that their voice isn't the one that matters; it is the voice of 
Big Money and special interests and the super-PACs that seems to carry 
the day.
  So the Government by the People Act would encourage people to 
participate in the funding of campaigns, small donors who would be 
assisted by a tax credit--a refundable tax credit of $25, to make it 
easier for them to participate on the funding side of campaigns.
  It would bring matching dollars from a freedom from influence 
matching fund that would come in behind those small donations and 
amplify them and lift them up, so that candidates would begin to pay 
attention to everyday citizens for the funding of their campaigns and 
not be so dependent on Big Money and special interests. That is the 
promise of reform that is embodied in the Government by the People Act.
  We even provide that candidates who are true grassroots candidates 
who go out there and make the case to their constituents and earn the 
support of their constituents in these small donations, that those 
candidates, when they get into the final days of a campaign in an 
election, if a super-PAC starts to come at them and try to wipe them 
off the field--off the playing field, there is some additional 
resources that can help them stay in the game, can keep their voice in 
the mix, so they can get to Election Day.
  I believe that, under those circumstances, many of those candidates

[[Page 4326]]

who turn to their own constituents, who turn to small donors, who turn 
to everyday citizens to fund their campaigns can be competitive and can 
win, even in the face of these super-PACs and the big money that is 
pouring into campaigns.
  So this is real reform, Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased, as I said, 
that we had a number of original cosponsors who joined us when we 
introduced the bill about a month ago.
  One of them, who has been listening as carefully as anybody out 
there, to what everyday citizens are saying about this and joined us as 
a cosponsor on the bill and can really speak to this, I believe, from 
the heart, is my colleague Alan Lowenthal from California.
  I would be happy to yield some time to him now.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I really want to thank the fine gentleman 
from Maryland, who has worked so long and tirelessly on ensuring that 
unlimited campaign spending does not drown out the voice of the people. 
I want to thank him for putting together a bill that gives the public a 
chance to be heard over big money interests.
  A little bit, Mr. Speaker, about my own experience, when I first ran 
many years ago for city council and then I went on to the State and 
came here to Congress--when I first ran for city council, it was a very 
difficult time in my district.
  It was a time where we actually had a period of where--when I first 
was elected, where we had martial law because we had rioting because 
of--after the Rodney King decision in southern California.
  I walked my district, and I heard from everyone that their voices 
weren't being heard, that the city at the time was not listening to 
them; so I felt, as important as any piece of legislation, was to give 
people a chance to come together to create something to have their 
voices heard.
  I spent that first year, when I was elected, working with my 
community in groups, and we decided that campaign reform limiting the 
size of contributions would enable our city to move forward again and 
would bring people together, and they wanted to be able to have a 
chance to participate. We did it, and we put it on the ballot, and it 
overwhelmingly passed.
  I realized, as I went forward, first to the State legislature and 
now, here, to Congress, that the best way to fight against unlimited 
campaign spending by outside individual action committees and 
individuals who are capable of spending unlimited amounts of money--
short of amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United--is to do 
exactly what Congressman Sarbanes has done, give a voice to ordinary 
citizens. That is what we should be doing.
  Congressman Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People 
Act, is a comprehensive reform package, designed to combat the 
influence of Big Money politics. As equally important, it is to raise 
civic engagement, and it really is to amplify the voice of ordinary 
Americans. That is what we should be hearing. That is what we are 
hearing every day in our districts.
  The bill would magnify the impact of small donations from average 
citizens, allowing Congressional candidates who only take small 
donations to be competitive with candidates who are backed by outside 
groups, who are capable of raising and spending large amounts of money.
  For example, if this bill becomes law, individuals will be given a 
$25 refundable ``my voice'' tax credit per year to help incentivize and 
spur small-dollar donations to candidates for Congressional office. 
People would be feeling that the government is asking them to 
contribute and to participate.
  Candidates now who forego contributions from super-PACs and only 
accept donations of under $1,000 would be eligible to a 6 to 1 match by 
small donors--that is people who are donating under $150--from a newly 
established freedom from influence fund.
  Do you know what this will mean to the average American who says: If 
I contribute a small amount, it doesn't mean anything?
  All of a sudden, we are saying: you count, your contribution means 
something.
  According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2012, individual 
small donors were outspent 3 to 1 by outside groups. We need to figure 
out how to empower average citizens whose voices are drowned out by 
outside money from shadowy organizations.
  We have to shift this balance of power away from wealthy interests to 
ordinary Americans, to people who are asking that their government be 
responsive to them.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 20, the Government by the People 
Act, and I urge the Speaker of this House to bring this vital bill to 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Give us the opportunity to vote for democracy, to vote for the people 
of this country.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman. I might ask him one question 
because my sense is that, if you have a system like this in place, not 
only will you empower everyday citizens to feel like their voice truly 
does count--and that would increase participation--you would have 
people, I think, coming back into the political town square who have 
now fled the town square because they are cynical and disillusioned.
  But my sense is it would also create more access for candidates who, 
right now, are shut out of the process because they may not be in a 
position to raise the big dollars that you have to raise these days to 
run a race.
  There is a lot of good people out there who would like to try to run 
for Congress, perhaps, but they don't know a lot of people who have a 
lot of money; but if there was a system that rewarded small donations 
to their campaign and provided public matching funds coming in behind 
that, they might be able to run, and they might be able to be 
competitive.
  I wonder if you have some thoughts about that.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I agree completely.
  People decide to run frequently--or want to run--maybe even better 
than decide, they don't decide--they want to run because they believe 
that they can be the voice for those that do not have a voice, for 
people in their community who feel disenfranchised, people like 
themselves who just want to participate and feel that they have no 
voice.
  Then they get involved in this process, or they think about it, and 
they realize that that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who you are 
listening to. It doesn't matter who you are accountable to. It doesn't 
matter that you really care about creating a sense of community and 
involvement and that people have a responsibility to participate 
themselves.
  All that matters is how much large money you can raise, and that is 
what the rules are.
  I think that that balance between funding elections and listening to 
people has gotten way out of whack. That has discouraged so many people 
from wanting to run because they are now confronted with the reality.
  It makes no difference that you are tied to a community and you give 
voice to people in that community. The only thing that makes a 
difference is how much money you can raise from large interests. I 
think that does a tremendous disservice to this institution and to all 
institutions that depend upon public support.
  Mr. SARBANES. Again, I want to thank my colleague for his support of 
this reform effort, for joining us as an original cosponsor of the 
Government by the People Act.
  We think there is real momentum here. We have 140 Members of this 
body now that have joined as cosponsors; but there is something else 
happening, which is exciting, and I think offers some new opportunities 
for this kind of legislation.
  We have had these efforts in the past, and some of them have gotten 
attraction you would like to see; others have not.
  But there is something new happening. There are organizations--
national organizations across this country who are forming a coalition. 
This consists of many of the good government groups and reform groups 
that have been in this space for a long time.

[[Page 4327]]



                              {time}  1945

  But there are other people coming to this issue. There are other 
people who are joining the fight to push back on the influence of Big 
Money and special interests in our politics and in our government. 
Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, civil rights 
organizations like the NAACP, and labor organizations are getting 
behind this effort because they understand that the change they want to 
see--protecting the environment, making sure that our civil rights laws 
are being enforced--too often is being thwarted by the influence of Big 
Money, so they have adopted this issue as a priority for their 
organizations. They are joining this coalition.
  This is not just about the influence of Big Money on the outcome of 
elections. Oftentimes, that is where the focus gets placed. This is 
also the effect that Big Money has when it comes to governing because 
the reality of it is that, if you have an institution that becomes 
increasingly dependent on Big Money and special interests, then when it 
comes time to vote on important policy matters, it is just human nature 
that the institution will tend to lean in the direction of where that 
money comes from and lean away from everyday citizens.
  The promise of this legislation is that, if everyday citizens and 
matching funds become the source of powering campaigns, then when the 
candidates who are elected get here to Washington, the only people they 
will owe are those everyday folks who helped to power their campaigns. 
They will have an independence that will allow them when they go to 
make policy to really think about the issues that are at stake. The 
fact of the matter is the tremendous amount of money that pours into 
this place from PACs and other special interests can gum up the system 
so that it doesn't work.
  I would be interested in my colleague's observations on a couple of 
quotations of former Members of Congress. These are very interesting. I 
am going to read a quotation from former Senator Bob Dole, Republican 
minority leader, who said in 1982:

       When these political action committees give money, they 
     expect something in return other than good government. It is 
     making it much more difficult to legislate. We may reach a 
     point where, if everybody is buying something with PAC money, 
     we can't get anything done.

  That was Republican Minority Leader Bob Dole in 1982 before the trend 
had gotten to the point where it is now.
  I would be interested in my colleague's observations just on how 
money comes in and how it can actually begin to influence the way 
policy gets made here in Washington.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. On many different levels.
  Thank you, Congressman.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, today, people say that 
government--the House of Representatives and the Senate--is 
dysfunctional. Yet, as you pointed out in that quote, Senator Dole saw 
a long time ago, when at least some things were getting done and more 
things were getting done, that we were beginning to go down the wrong 
path, that the influence of money was stopping us from really looking 
at the critical policies that affect the Nation and from debating those 
and listening to ordinary citizens here.
  As we talked about, when ordinary citizens are cut out and when the 
only people who get to visit and to talk to us are those who contribute 
large amounts of money to our campaigns, it is they who have special 
access. Theirs are the bills that get brought up. They are the ones we 
listen to because everyone stops being beholden to the policies that 
brought them here--what they want to do to form good government--and 
they are beholden to what will get them reelected and to the large 
amounts of money that come in.
  So I agree. It is interesting that Senator Dole said that. That is 
now over 30 years ago when we did not heed the warning of listening to 
citizens of creating a system that not only would decrease the role of 
large, outside interests but would, as you have done, increase the role 
of ordinary citizens to actually be listened to and be able to bring 
their thoughts to bear because we would become accountable to them. I 
think that is where we are today as that accountability is not there.
  Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, and I will follow up on what you just 
said.
  There is another quote that I would love to read from Senator Warren 
Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, who was a force here on 
Capitol Hill when he served.
  He said:

       Money affects whom Senators and House Members see, whom 
     they spend their time with, what input they get; and make no 
     mistake about it, the money affects outcomes as well.

  This is exactly what you just said. You can understand why everyday 
Americans are getting so fed up.
  I went and hired a film crew. I decided I was going to go interview 
some people in my district at one of the local fairs. I just wanted to 
get their views on this issue. So I went out. I spent 2 hours and stood 
in the central artery of this festival.
  I said: I am Congressman Sarbanes. I want to just ask you two 
questions. The first question is: What do you think of Congress?
  They said: Do you really want to know?
  I said: I wouldn't be here otherwise.
  They told me what they thought about Congress, and you know what they 
think about Congress. All you have to do is look at the latest survey, 
which shows that our approval rating is hovering around 10 or 12 
percent. You can't run a country if the institutions that are supposed 
to be the instruments of democracy are held in such low esteem.
  The second question I asked them was: What do you think about the 
influence of Big Money on our politics?
  What was amazing--these were Republicans, Democrats, Independents--is 
that it was as though they had gotten together ahead of time and had 
scripted their answers, because they were all the same: the fix is in; 
the Big Money crowd runs things in Washington; my voice can't be heard; 
my voice doesn't matter. This is the way people feel when you actually 
ask them to talk about this issue, so we have to do something about 
this.
  The good news is that we have a bill that we have worked on really 
well. We have gotten a lot of people from not just here in the Chamber, 
who are people who are sensitive to this, but from people out there in 
the country who care about this issue. We have crafted something that, 
I think, passes the test of addressing in a meaningful way the cynicism 
and anger that people feel, this desire to get their government back, 
to get their voice back. They should know that there are people here 
who are determined to make this kind of change with the help and 
support and momentum and advocacy that can come from people--everyday 
citizens--around the country.
  I am very pleased that we are joined as well this evening with 
another person who was an original cosponsor of the Government by the 
People Act. He is relatively new to Congress but not new to a 
commitment and a passion around this issue. One of the first 
conversations we had was about: How do you reach out to everyday 
citizens and make them feel that they are really part of the process? 
that their voices really can be heard?
  It is a real pleasure to yield to my colleague from Texas, Beto 
O'Rourke.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to be here with my 
colleagues from California and from Maryland. I am especially honored 
that my colleague from Maryland would invite me to say a few words 
today. He has been, truly, one of the real bright spots for me in my 
first session in Congress.
  To give you a little context and a little background on why that is 
the case, like my colleague from California, I had the privilege of 
serving on the city council in El Paso for two terms. I represented 
there a constituency of between 60,000 and 70,000 people, so about a 
tenth of the constituency that we represent here in Congress.
  To win those elections to be able to serve on the city council, like 
my good friend from California, I went door-to-door to meet my 
constituents--to meet

[[Page 4328]]

those who were likely to vote in this election--to make my case for why 
I might be the best alderman or council member to represent their 
interests on the city council. Then, by Election Day, after having 
spent maybe $40,000 or $50,000 total--a tenth of what you would have to 
spend in a very conservatively managed congressional race--we ended up 
having the good fortune to win and serve in the city council.
  Not only was that the best way to get elected, but it was for me, as 
a new member of the city council in El Paso, Texas, the best way for me 
to understand what my constituents' interests were, the questions that 
they wanted to have answered and what their expectations were of me as 
their representative on the city council.
  So, when I made the decision to run for Congress, I chose to run for 
a seat that was currently held by an incumbent Member of Congress. I 
ran for that seat in the primary, which was going to be the decisive 
election in that election cycle. Precisely because we didn't have 
access to the kind of big money that we are talking about today--the 
political action committee money, the big donor money across this 
country and even the big money in El Paso, Texas--as the mother of 
invention with the necessity of finding those voters and in being able 
to connect with them, we went door-to-door again, this time in a 
constituency of 700,000 people. It was a very broad and a very long 
canvassing effort that lasted over 9 months and had me knocking 
personally on more than 16,000 doors.
  While my good friend from Maryland has actually modeled the 
Government by the People Act concept in his own district, I think, more 
out of virtue and more out of an effort to prove that this works and to 
understand what the opportunities and limits are of a different 
campaign funding paradigm--and I can't thank him enough for doing that 
because he has tested it and has proven it--we did something similar 
but out of necessity. Again, as with the city council races, we were 
fortunate enough that the case we made to the voters prevailed. We were 
fortunate enough to be elected to sit here in this Congress with these 
great colleagues I serve with now.
  I will tell you that a very rude awakening was delivered when after I 
had won this seat through the primary election, which was the 
dispositive election of the two in our election cycle, the number one 
issue that anyone wanted to talk with me about was not what policies 
were I likely to support, what committees did I want to serve on, what 
did I want to get done in my first term in Congress. Most of the 
conversations, unfortunately, revolved around money. Where was I going 
to raise my money from? Who was I going to give the money that I raised 
to? Who was I going to hire as the campaign person in Washington, D.C.? 
I didn't know that the creature existed until that point because we had 
had the good fortune of being, in some ways, buffered from money in 
that first race.
  So much centered around money as I came to Congress. You don't run 
for Congress to raise money. You don't run for Congress to spend money. 
You don't run for Congress to meet lobbyists and to meet those who run 
political action committees; although, there are plenty of nice people 
in those categories. You run for Congress because you want to get 
something done, because you believe in ideas that are bigger than 
yourself--things that are going to help the communities that you serve, 
issues that are going to help define your country that you want your 
communities to have a voice in. Those are the reasons I ran for 
Congress. Unfortunately and sadly, those were not the things that most 
people up here wanted to talk about.
  I was able to talk with Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard, who 
is somebody, if you haven't seen his lectures, you can find on 
YouTube--or if you have the chance to see one in person, you really 
should. He is someone who has put a lot of thought into and who has 
written about this subject and who has delivered some very compelling 
lectures about the influence of money in politics.
  So, as I was met with this challenge of how to respond to the demands 
for money in politics and in my new career as a Member of Congress, I 
started to do some searches on the Internet, and I found one of 
Lawrence Lessig's lectures. He brought up a really important point, 
which was, when we have an election for Congress, there are really two 
elections.

                              {time}  2000

  There is the election that we all think about when we think about an 
election for Congress, and that is the election that takes place at the 
ballot box, but there is also an election before that for the money. 
How do you convince the people who have control and access of the money 
that typically goes into a congressional race that you are a good bet, 
that you fit within their interests, and that you are going to be 
accessible to them should you win that second election at the ballot 
box? That first election, in most cases, is really the decisive one.
  So one of the things I like so much about the Government by the 
People Act is it opens up that first money election to not just the 
special interests, not just those who have legislation pending before 
Congress, who have an ax to grind, literally, here on the floor, but to 
those people that we represent in all of the different precincts in El 
Paso County and all the different neighborhoods, the streets, the 
homes. Those people, through a refundable tax credit, are able to have 
their voice heard and help decide who the field will be in a 
congressional race. I think that is awfully important and desperately 
missing right now to encourage truly competitive congressional 
elections.
  When you look at the reelection rate for a Member of Congress from 
1950 to today, when you look at the rate, I think it is somewhere 
around 93 percent. That really shouldn't be the case. We want this body 
to reflect the diversity, the difference of opinion of race and gender, 
and all the great things that make up who this country is.
  By and large, it is very difficult to do today, because once you are 
in Congress, you have access to that money. You win that first election 
for the money, almost deciding that second election at the ballot box, 
and it makes it very difficult to have competitive elections against 
incumbent Members of Congress.
  I am sure that we are in the minority of our colleagues here who want 
to encourage more competition for our jobs. I really think that is the 
right thing to do.
  If we want to renew our democracy, have a Congress truly reflective 
of this country, I think we want to make sure that every single person 
has a voice in the elections that decide the makeup of this body.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am just very honored to be an original 
cosponsor on this bill, honored to join in this effort, and honored to 
join all the great grassroots organizations across this country that 
are raising the level of awareness about the need to change our 
campaign finance and our election system in this country.
  I am very hopeful that we will be able to prevail upon our 
colleagues, especially those on the other side of the aisle, to see 
that it is in everyone's interest to have a body that truly reflects 
the American people.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank my colleague.
  Before we wrap up, I want to ask him and my colleague from California 
as well to comment on the kind of response they are getting as they 
talk to their constituents about this kind of reform.
  We are all very familiar with the cynicism and frustration. We 
encounter that on a daily basis. Sometimes it is so deep that it can be 
hard to get the attention of people to say to them, We hear you. We 
understand the frustration. We are trying to do something about it.
  I have begun to find that as I talk to people about the Government by 
the People Act, about this idea of a My Voice tax credit that would 
help them make a small contribution to support a good candidate that 
they want to see be competitive and successful, when I talk to them 
about the Freedom From

[[Page 4329]]

Influence Matching Fund, think about that.
  Right now this institution is largely shackled by dependence and 
influence of Big Money. The Freedom From Influence Matching Fund comes 
in behind those small donations and makes it possible for a candidate 
to run their campaign by turning to everyday citizens.
  So as I talk to people about that and our ability to begin pushing 
back on super PACs, I am encountering some hope out there. People are 
skeptical. They have a right to be. I would rather have them be 
skeptical than cynical. I would rather have them have some hope and be 
ready to get out there and fight for this reform because I think we can 
make a difference.
  I would be curious to hear from my colleagues because I am starting 
to feel that. I am seeing a positive, cautious response that this can 
really make a difference as we move forward in elections and governing.
  I would be curious to hear, Alan, what is happening in your district 
as you talk about it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. In listening to this discussion and to your 
presentation about the bill to basically give government back to the 
people, listening to Congressman O'Rourke talking about what it is like 
to go door to door and talk to people, and then you are asking what are 
people saying, I think what I am hearing as I go out is that we have 
lost, in many ways--what has happened because of money in politics--the 
ability to talk to people. It is not necessary anymore.
  The thing is, when you talk to people, this is what they say: I want 
to have a voice. I want to participate. I want to be part of this great 
democracy.
  Less and less does that make any difference. You can win office 
without talking to people. You don't have to talk to people anymore. 
You just have to raise large amounts of money and let that money spread 
a message. What we are saying is, that is not only bad for the 
institution, that is horrible for the democracy that we live in.
  It is time to give back this democracy to our communities. It is time 
to recreate a sense of community. It is time to do what Congressman 
O'Rourke has said, which is to create competitiveness, to create a 
sense that people can listen and they can participate. They can if they 
are not part of the purchasing of this House, and that is what it has 
been now--the purchasing of this House.
  Rather than having the selection of people being due to your being 
able to convince people that you are listening to them and what you are 
proposing is in their best interest, it is really what is in the best 
interest of those that are contributing. That is what it is all about. 
This takes us another step closer.
  When I talk to people, first, they are very grateful that I am even 
talking to them now. They are thankful that I am coming out to talk to 
them about this. Not enough people are talking because we don't have 
the time to talk to people because too much time is spent raising 
money.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I have to agree with much of what my friend from 
California just said.
  El Paso, Texas, just had its primary elections this past week. In El 
Paso, the turnout was 11 percent. So really one of the smallest 
minorities of citizens who are able to vote, who have that right, have 
the freedom do exercise it, actually chose to do that.
  That small minority, 11 percent of voting age in El Paso, made the 
decisions for who is going to represent us in county government, in 
Congress, and on down the line.
  So that cynicism that you heard at the outdoor market in Maryland we 
see reflected in the polls and the turnout in El Paso. I think it is 
because of the same reasons that you cited. I think people feel that it 
is a closed system, they don't have access to it, why bother 
participating. The rules are going to be the same, regardless.
  By nature, we are social people. I don't know that we would be in 
these positions if we weren't. I like town hall meetings. We hold a 
general interest town hall every month. We hold special town halls. We 
have held town halls on the public bus system where we get to talk to 
our constituents. They have no place to go. They can't get out the 
doors because the bus is moving. We get to tell them what we are doing 
up here, and I am accountable to them. I have to answer the questions 
that they raise with me.
  As my friend from California said, it is wonderful. It shouldn't be 
this way, but they are impressed I am even there and listening. That 
should be. That should be the bar below which we never drop. We should 
always be there to listen and engage and solicit opinion and feedback 
and direction from our constituents.
  Government By the People will encourage that. Right now, if you have 
to raise a lot of money for a congressional race, which probably 
accounts for many, if not most, of the Members that we serve with, your 
time simply from a time value perspective is best spent with those 
large donors who can write the biggest checks.
  With Government By the People, you now have the incentive to spend 
time with your constituents, compel them with your argument and with 
what you have been able to do in office and what you are committing to 
do in office that you are the best bet to represent them for their 
future and for their children's future. With that you earn not only 
their vote in the ballot box, but that first vote that Professor Lessig 
talks about--that financial commitment to you as a viable candidate.
  I think my constituents want me making that pitch to them, both as 
voters and potential donors, much more than they want me to make that 
pitch here to corporate interests who are headquartered in D.C., who 
may never have been to El Paso, Texas, and have no real understanding 
or sensitivity to the concerns and needs that we have here.
  The last thing that I will say that really contributes to that sense 
of a closed system, again quoting from my favorite source on this, 
Professor Lessig, who says:
  The pernicious effect of these large-dollar donations is not really 
on your core issues.
  Issues 1 through 10 are your core convictions. That is what you ran 
on. That is what people expect from. You are never going to sway from 
them. No amount of money is going buy you off, but issues 11 to 1,000--
and we vote on thousands of issues every year--become much more 
persuadable for Members, I think, when you have large amounts of money 
involved. If you don't know much about issue number 259 because it 
doesn't really affect your district, you are not a subject matter 
expert in it, you have never really thought about it before, and 
someone is offering to give you $5,000, you are probably going to 
listen to their side of the story and you may not listen to other one.
  So I don't know if that is corruption. It certainly comes quite close 
to it. It is certainly not the way that I want nor my constituents want 
this body to run itself and govern our country.
  Again, Mr. Sarbanes, I am so grateful that you introduced this. I am 
so grateful that we have so many cosponsors. I look forward to working 
with you to hopefully pass this and make this law in this country.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me here this 
evening to talk about this critical issue of the influence Big Money 
and special interests on our politics and the way we govern here.
  Professor Lessig has gotten a good shout out--and he deserves it--
because he has really studied the effect of money on this institution.
  There is a path to reform, and that is what the Government by the 
People Act is. I will close by sort of capturing this as a matter of 
voter empowerment.
  In this country we view as sacrosanct the right to vote. We do 
everything we can--or we should do everything we can--and we even have 
legislation in front of us to make sure that we are preserving people's 
access to the ballot box, to the voting booth because the franchise is 
the most important thing in a democracy. It is the foundation of what 
American democracy is all about--protecting that franchise and

[[Page 4330]]

making sure that people have that franchise.
  If people go into the voting booth and they pull the lever and they 
exercise their franchise, and the day the person they send to 
Washington arrives and has to start representing Big Money and special 
interests, then what happens to the franchise? What happens to the 
voice of the person who went in there and pulled that lever?
  So the journey of empowerment, getting to the ballot box is just part 
of it. You have to protect that franchise so that when the candidate 
gets there, they can keep representing the interests of the people that 
voted to send them to Washington.
  That is what the Government by the People Act is all about, because 
if you power your campaign with funds from small donors and a Freedom 
From Influence Matching Fund, when it comes time to cast your vote, the 
only people you are answering to are those citizens that you represent. 
That is the promise of the Government by the People Act--to create a 
government that is truly of, by, and for the people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________