Citizens United Anniversary

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, my colleagues and I come here today to speak out against the hijacking of American democracy by powerful special interests. It was 2 years ago this last Saturday that the Supreme Court found in Citizens United that unlimited secret funding of campaigns in America is just fine. This is not an opinion shared by Americans who understand that secret donations corrupt the electoral process. It is not an opinion shared by virtually everyone who serves in this body, who has come to this floor and talked about transparency and accountability. Certainly it is a viewpoint that would be very strange to the authors of the Constitution.

What are those first beautiful three words of the Constitution? Are they, ``We the powerful''? Are they, ``We the special interests''? No, they are not. Those three words are, ``We the people.'' Virtually every schoolchild in America can tell you that. ``We the people.'' That is what American democracy is all about.

The entire Constitution is written for the prosperity and success for the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. Indeed, it was President Lincoln who captured the genius of American democracy in this phrase: A government of the people, a government by the people, for the people.

Citizens United is the opposite. Secret unlimited donations are an instrument of the powerful. Secret unlimited donations are an instrument of very large companies. Our Constitution honors free speech. The first amendment is about free speech. It recognizes how important it is that citizens are able to openly debate the merits of candidates and the merits of ideas. But the action of the first amendment is that competing voices must be heard and measured against each other in a marketplace of ideas. But that falls apart under Citizens United.

Under Citizens United, the torrent of cash amounts to the equivalent of a stadium sound system drowning out the voices of the people. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. If you were to take a very successful company in 2008--I will choose one, Exxon, a very profitable company--if it had spent 3 percent of its net profits in 2008, that money would have been equal to the money spent by all Americans on the Presidential campaign. One company, one board room, one proposal, spending 3 percent--only 3 out of 100--of the net profits, equivalent to all money spent by all of the rest of America on a Presidential election. That completely corrupts the concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Now, in 2012 we are seeing the results. I am going to put up a chart. Take a little comparison. We see that spending in 2008 at this point in the campaign was about $23 million. About half of that, where these blue arrows come to, was coming from independent expenditures. The other half was coming from candidates and parties.

Well, here we are 4 years later, post-Citizens United. Look down here, and you will see the very small amount that comes from candidates and parties. You will see this enormous part of the funding coming from independent parties. Ninety-five percent up to this point is coming from independent parties. Well, the number went from 26 to 45, and the amount spent through the ordinary system has dropped massively. This is the special interest impact on American elections. This is the impact of the powerful on American elections.

Now, let's look at the campaigns to date for the Presidency. The Iowa caucuses: Newt Gingrich started to rise to the top of the polls, but then super PACs supporting Mitt Romney weighed in. They came to town and they spent a huge amount of money. When caucus night came, Gingrich lost, and he lost badly.

Newt Gingrich commented, ``For a State this size,'' referring to Iowa, ``to spend that number of dollars in negative ads aimed at one candidate is pretty amazing.''

It is amazing and it is effective. The story changes when Newt Gingrich had a super PAC of his own that came in with $5 million in South Carolina. Instead of being defeated, he won. The pattern is clear. The message is clear: The vast expenditures of secret powerful money make an enormous difference in who wins elections.

Why is this corrupting? Every person on this floor, every one of us sees that pattern. Everyone running across this country sees that pattern. It means, when the powerful come to an individual and say: You are going to run. This is my position. Will you not back it? And they know that company can put millions into their race, that corrupts the process.

When a bill is on the floor of this Chamber and someone knows the person backing that bill can spend millions of dollars in the upcoming race, that corrupts this process. That is not what American democracy is all about. So we must change that. We must have full disclosure of donors. We must have timely disclosure of donors. We must have commonsense limitations on how money is raised and how it is spent. That is why with others, I have joined to back Senator Tom Udall's constitutional amendment that makes it very clear that is exactly what can be done.

This does not constrain speech; this makes free speech work as designed in the Constitution for the citizens in a government by and for the people.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source