[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10998-10999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CAMPAIGN FINANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens 
United, we have seen a massive wave of secret spending in our political 
system. There was over $100 million in dark, unregulated, and anonymous 
money spent in the 2014 midterm election cycle; and with the 
Presidential race right around the corner, that number is expected to 
balloon to over $600 million.
  While the problem is easy to identify, the solution is far more 
difficult to achieve. Reluctantly, I have concluded that it is 
necessary to amend our Constitution to address a long line of case law 
that began before Citizens United and prevents the Congress from 
meaningfully regulating campaign expenditures. The constitutional 
amendment must not only overturn Citizens United, but the Arizona Free 
Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett decision, which struck 
down an Arizona law that allowed public financing of a candidate if 
their opponent exceeded certain spending limits.
  The amendment is simple. It would allow Congress to set reasonable 
limits on expenditures and allow States to set up public financing for 
candidates if they choose to do so.

                              {time}  1015

  I first ran for Congress in 2000, in a campaign that turned out to be 
the most expensive in U.S. history and helped propel new campaign 
finance reform. It was this first-hand experience which convinced me 
that our elections have increasingly come to be polluted by ever-
increasing amounts of unregulated outside spending.
  Millions of dollars in soft money, spending that avoided limits 
because of misguided legal distinctions between contributions to a 
candidate and independent expenditures in support of a candidate, 
plagued that 2000 race and almost every major Federal race since.
  On my very first day in Congress, I cosponsored the McCain-Feingold 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which attempted to ban soft 
money expenditures and allowed for public financing of campaigns. The 
bill passed, and for a brief window, the campaign finance system became 
more transparent and limited. That was, sadly, short lived.
  With Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down decades of 
restrictions on corporate campaign spending and freed corporations to 
spend unlimited funds to run campaign advertisements.
  The court has also allowed wealthy individuals and groups to spend 
with

[[Page 10999]]

impunity, with only a theoretical restriction that they do not 
coordinate with campaigns, but the reality is that the FEC has 
dismissed 29 cases in which super-PACs were suspected of illegally 
coordinating with candidates without even investigating the claims.
  Frustrating as it is for a candidate to contend with attacks by 
super-PACs or soft money, as I was, disclosure laws at least allow us 
to alert voters to the special interest which is behind those 
expenditures. Candidates being drowned out in attacks paid for by dark 
money, however, don't have that luxury.
  Groups who raise dark money do so by exploiting IRS regulations, 
designating them ``social welfare nonprofits,'' which allow them to 
operate tax exempt and raise unlimited money completely anonymously.
  Nothing about funneling millions in secret dollars to support 
campaigns could be construed to be in the interest of social welfare--
nothing. Social welfare nonprofits are supposed to limit their 
political activity, but IRS audits, even of groups that spend vast 
amounts of their time and budget in support of candidates, are 
extremely rare.
  Investigations into complaints of abuse can take years, at which 
point an election will long be over, the damage done.
  The Supreme Court has overturned decades of legal precedent, the 
regulatory process is at a standstill, and still, we watch billions 
pour into campaigns and in increasingly anonymous fashion.
  Sadly, we are left with one option, a constitutional amendment that 
allows Congress to set reasonable limits on both donations and 
expenditures and shines the light of day on both.

                          ____________________