Sixth Anniversary of Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today marks the 6-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this far-reaching opinion, on a divided 5-4 vote, the Court struck down years of precedent and held that the First Amendment permitted corporations to spend freely from their treasuries to influence elections.

As a result of Citizens United and the series of decisions that followed in its wake, special interests and wealthy, well-connected campaign donors have so far poured more than $2 billion into recent Federal elections, including 2016 races. About half of the total outside spending since Citizens United went toward the 2012 Presidential election. More than 93 percent of all Super PAC donations in 2012 came in contributions of at least $10,000 from only 3,318 donors, who make up 0.0011 percent of the U.S. population. Of that group, an elite class of 159 people each contributed at least $1 million--which was nearly 60 percent of all Super PAC donations that year.

In the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential primaries, we are once again witnessing an immense amount of spending. A New York Times investigation in October found that of approximately 120 million households in the United States, a mere 158 families, along with businesses they own or control, had already contributed $176 million-- nearly half of all funds raised to support the 2016 Presidential campaigns before a single primary vote has been cast.

Congressional races have been similarly flooded with outside spending. For example, in the 2014 midterm elections, outside groups spent more than $560 million to influence congressional races--eight times the approximately $70 million spent in 2006, the last midterm election cycle before Citizens United. And more than 30 percent of that spending came from tax-exempt, ``dark money'' groups that conceal their donors from the public.

The impact of this incredible spending stretches from races for the White House and Congress to Governors' mansions, State capitols, and city halls throughout the country. As in Federal campaigns, Citizens United has led to an explosion of outside spending at the State and local levels, with corporations and wealthy single spenders looking to play kingmaker, pouring cash into races for positions ranging from district attorney to school board members. One of the most startling examples occurred in 2014 in Richmond, CA, a city with a population of 107,000. Chevron--an energy company with more than $200 billion in annual revenue--spent approximately $3 million through campaign committees aimed at influencing the mayoral and city council races. That means Chevron spent at least $33 per voting-age resident in Richmond.

The long-term damage to our political process from Citizens United is just beginning to reveal itself. Some scandals have already surfaced, and there will undoubtedly be more stories of corruption and corrosive influence ahead, further eroding public confidence in our government. I have worked with my colleagues on a number of solutions to stem this tidal wave of secret unlimited spending, including improving disclosure and creating a more transparent campaign finance system. I will continue my efforts to establish a public financing system for congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act, which I reintroduced last year.

We also must continue to push for a constitutional amendment that would protect and restore the First Amendment by overturning Citizens United and empowering Congress and State legislatures to set reasonable, content neutral limitations on campaign spending. In 2614, Justice John Paul Stevens discussed his support for an amendment to overturn Citizens United in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee. Here is what he said: ``Unlimited campaign expenditures impair the process of democratic self-government. They create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of non-voters who provided them with money than to the interests of the voters who elected them. That risk is unacceptable.''

As we approach the sixth anniversary of the Citizens United decision, we should heed Justice Stevens's words. It is unacceptable for politicians to feel more beholden to wealthy donors than their constituents. We must work to fix America's campaign finance system and overturn Citizens United so that elected officials listen to the everyday Americans who voted them into office--not just those who bankrolled their success.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source