Fair Elections Now Act

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I leave the Chamber, I will be headed to the Senate Rules Committee on which I serve for a hearing to discuss the Supreme Court case that was decided a few days back that is going to make a dramatic difference in the way political campaigns are waged.

For 100 years, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, we have agreed to keep major businesses, big corporations out of our American political scene. They get involved, make no mistake. We saw that on health care reform. The major forces for and against it in the private sector bought ads. But when it comes to candidates, actual people running for Federal office, we have said: No corporate contributions to these candidates; individuals, yes, who work for the corporations, but not the corporations themselves that have millions of dollars they can funnel into campaigns. That was the law for 100 years.

Then the Supreme Court took up this case and, as a result, it is all going to change. When I saw the final decision, I noticed that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito had joined with Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia for the five-vote majority on the Court. I couldn't help but remember not that long ago when Chief Justice Roberts appeared before the Judiciary Committee. I was there. He was asked: What is your role on the Supreme Court going to be as Chief Justice? He said: I am just there to call the balls and strikes. That is it. I am not there to make up the rules of the game. That is for somebody else.

For 100 years, it was pretty clear that when major corporations wanted to participate in supporting directly the candidacies of Federal candidates, the ball went right down the middle, and it was clearly a strike. We said: You are out. But not this Supreme Court, not under this Chief Justice. This is clear judicial activism.

I challenge any of Chief Justice Roberts' supporters on the other side of the aisle who preach to us over and over again about their loathing for judicial activism to explain what happened in this case, when this Supreme Court overturned that prohibition against corporations being directly involved in candidates' campaigns.

Most people who haven't been in this world are probably scratching their heads and asking: What difference does it make? You folks spend millions of dollars anyway. What is a couple million more going to do?

What it basically means is that when corporation X comes to the office of a
Senator and says: We have an important tax matter coming up here and for our corporation; we would appreciate if you would vote against this new tax on our business. Now Senators can take a look at it and say: Well, I may vote for it; I may vote against it. I know perhaps the officers at the corporation, maybe its employees, may be upset if I vote for the tax. I have to make up my mind.

Now there is a new element. Because of this Supreme Court decision, corporation X can say: We would appreciate if you would vote against that tax. And you will know in the back of your mind they can literally spend $1 million to defeat you in the next election, thanks to the Supreme Court.

How do we fix this? This morning the Rules Committee will talk about disclosure, making sure that corporations are well known when they buy these ads so at least the American people know who is paying for them, and some other aspects to regulate the Supreme Court decision within the bounds of what the Supreme Court said we can do. But I think it goes to a larger question.

Some of my colleagues in the Senate have said all along that what I am about to describe is too far in the future, not within our grasp. I think it is time for us to seriously consider public financing of campaigns. I think we ought to start drawing a bright line between those who will accept public financing and limited contributions from individuals and those who are ready to go out into this wild west of corporate politics, special-interest politics, big-money politics.

I introduced a bill a few years back, the Fair Elections Now Act. As a matter of fact, the current President, when he was then Senator Obama, was a cosponsor. What we are basically trying to do is to follow the lead of major States that have voted for campaign finance reform. When States such as Arizona took this issue to the voters of their State and asked: Do you want to clean up elections; do you want to have fair elections, public-financed elections, the voters said: Yes. Get the lobbyists and special interests out of this mess. Let's try to make this directly candidates to the voters and take the special interest groups out.

This bill would do that. What it basically says is that to qualify for public financing, you go out and raise small contributions, $100 maximum contributions, and put those together in a sufficient amount to show you are a viable candidate, and then you qualify for public financing--in the primary, then again in the general--based on the population of your State. Will you have as much money as a big corporation? No. But here is my theory. My theory is, if a candidate goes for public financing, they will have enough money to get out their message, introduce themselves to the voters, make the issues, and clarify if some major corporation is going to come in and try to steamroll them. That is the best we can hope for, but it may be all we need.

My State of Illinois is, with one possible exception, notoriously suspect of big-money candidates who come in and spend millions to get elected. They waste a lot of their personal wealth and they don't win, with one possible exception. I think there is a skepticism to big money.

Public financing is a way to clean up our political campaigns, to have candidates in the constituent business rather than the campaign financing business. If you could sit down with Members of the Senate and say a few words to them, they will know instantly what you are talking about: Power hour, dialing for dollars, weekends on the road. We all know what it is about. It is about the incessant money chase that is necessary to raise money to finance campaigns under the current system.

It is time away from our States, away from our families. It is time away from meeting voters who don't happen to be rich, who deserve representation and a voice in the process. That is unfortunate. It should change. What we are trying to do now is to bring in public financing with the Fair Elections Now Act.

How would we pay for it? We would impose a tax on corporations doing business with the Federal Government. It wouldn't be onerous, but it would be enough to fund public financing of all campaigns for the House and the Senate. I don't think that is unreasonable.

We would also provide discounts on time that candidates would buy on television and radio so they wouldn't have to pay as much as the most expensive time that is sold.

What do people think of this idea? It turns out it is one of the few things people agree with on a bipartisan basis: 69 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents support this proposal when we describe to it them. It is supported by a lot of government groups, many former Members of Congress, some business leaders, and even some lobbyists. Recently a letter was sent to the Senate, a general letter from major corporations across America saying: Please, leave us alone. We are sick and tired of being asked to find excuses to give you money. Do it some other way. Clean up this mess in Washington.

The Fair Elections Now bill I have introduced will do that. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and to try to imagine a world where we didn't have to go scrambling looking for money. Imagine a world where you walked down the streets of your hometown and when you are in an election cycle, people don't rush to the other side of the street for fear you will ask for another check. Think about what life would be like if we were talking about small contributions creating the base of grassroots support for candidates, both challengers and incumbents. That is a reality of our future, if we have the courage to step up and do it.

This decision by the Supreme Court should be the reason, should be the catalyst for making this reform decision now. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsorship of Fair Elections Now. We are anxious to get as many Senators on board as possible. We hope it can be moved in this session of the Senate.

Source