Transcripts For CSPAN Campaign Finance 20140608

Based upon my Student Loan Debt. I graduated from law school in early 2010 but could not find a job right away. Problem is with the private loans. That, i was forced to take a job in my field and pay for them. I had to look at homes with my mom also. It has been very hard because everything i do now, im in my mid30s and i can by home. Aboutt even thinking buying a home or even just going on vacation or things like that. My main priority is trying to get my debt down. This is a problem not just with me but my friends also in the legal field. One of them is an attorney who just tried to purchase a home but she was not approved. Affecting notly only College Graduates but professionals up there practicing at the present time. It is something that needs to be addressed. What job did you end up taking . In my legal field, working for a publishing company. Im still pursuing finding an attorney addition. Hard, that many job prospects out there trying that we can beng able to pay for Student Loans is very difficult to stop i think something needs to be done and hopefully something will be done soon. Lex we will be hearing from president of him tomorrow on what he intends to do with the student loan question. From the lighthouse, making an announcement hes expected to take executive actions on Student Loans. Adam, you are on the air. Lex thank you for taking my call. I was aware of this show i was notified one of our clients. Company helps, my people all day every day and what people dont understand is there are programs right now, it doesnt have to come off of president obama plus desk tomorrow, as the pay as you earn program which will be expanded. Lower payments to as low as zero. We help people all day every day. Government has made it incredibly onerous for people to try to take this on independently. Walk them through the step, we see if theyve all see if they qualify and normally, i would say 75 of the people who call and, you would not believe the stories we hear and hear the amount of debt. They are in deferments and in default of what about any changes the president could do . How that affect the work you do . What it will be easier. If you have a federally insured loan right now and it is the on your current ability to pay, there are programs out there but it is onerous. Its like getting into the health care system. It is almost impossible to do it independently. We take them hand by hand and walk them through the steps. Helping towe are raise millions of dollars of Student Loan Debt will stop lex what about the confusion of private loans in these federal loans . Loan sector is screwed. Excrete excuse my language. If something is not seriously dan connollys people are being ruined. If you have federal Student Loans, there are programs right now that can help you. You just need to act and have a professional like myself walk you through exactly what the government has made available to you. Were going to move on now and get some more calls. Republican slime, go ahead. Im kind of confused about this whole thing about this economy. Im 63 years old and died did alone way back in 98. I have been trying to get this thing closed and i have filed indigent see 15 years and im still owing a mere 1200 on the class i took and i just want to know why cant it the on bankruptcy which i filed . Is a stupidt i know 1200 that i cannot pay because im still having the same job i had before i went to school which they kicked me out because i didnt understand computer and i didnt take the class. How is it affecting your life on a daytoday basis the store for one thing, i cant buy anything that is hanging over my head. Brenda, and ohio. Sharon is going to be our call on the republicans line. So ahead. Hi. Currently, i have an outrageous amount of Student Loan Debt. I was in Law Enforcement in up moving toended oregon to help my mom out. I went into the teaching field and i work at a Charter School here. My Student Loan Debt is probably in excess of 40,000. I should be able to teach the academic classes. I need to go back to college which thats going to cost me now for my masters another 18,000. Thate you going to take on Additional Debt . I think its really bad for the economy but i have to agree with the colors. Its not so much the government side of the Student Loan Debt, its in the private side and when you call them i deal with sallie mae. They never wanted to help me and work with me in those areas and finally i got a new worker who told me about this low Interest Rate you can cure up on and i immediately got put to supervisor and they told me i did not qualify for that stop i pay 150fford to something dollars a month for my student loan and pay sallie mae 100 something on my government loan and 300 something a month on the private loans. Im paying over 700 a month in Student Loans. Thank you for letting us know whats going on in your world and all of the rest were colors as well. We will be hearing from president obama tomorrow from the white house, expected to announce actions he will be taking to ease the burden of college loan debt. Tomorrow morning, we will open our phone lines again to you, looking at the week ahead in congress. Will include work on legislation from senator Elizabeth Warren on how to deal with student loan refinancing. We will also hear from Rebecca Adams on the federal programs redundancy. And send us an tweet and weigh in on facebook at 7 00 eastern time. Years, cspan brings Public Affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house fence, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u. S. House all as a Public Service of private industry. We are cspan. Created by the cable tv industry and brought to you by a public brought to you by your satellite provider. Like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. Harryate majority leader reid and Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell testified on capitol hill this past week on a constitutional amendment in composed in response to the decision on Campaign Finance reform will stop in the courts most recent decision in april, the justices ruled five to four it was a violation of free speech to limit an individuals total contribution during election cycle. In this one hour and 45 minute portion, the two Senate Leaders provide contrasting views on this issue. Before i start, im joined in this by senator grassley. Two days hearing deals with a serious issue. As a practice, i begin with the Judiciary Committee and we stream these expect allve, i members of the public to understand this is a serious matter and to act accordingly. Privetes of the senate outbursts, clapping, demonstrations of any kind, including those for or against any others might take, including the democratic leader and republican leader. Also, your prohibited from blocking the view of the people around you which means if you hold up signs to block peoples views, ill have to ask the Capitol Police to move you. Verbal the signs are a to our position, everybody deserves the courtesy of being watched. I understand there will be plenty of room for people outside to demonstrate and i hope he will hold up their signs and get them to class they are either for or against. Want to getver they press i dont want to stop them from doing that, but the press and i find those who can be the most imaginative, whether they are in the minority or majority, i usually end up getting in the paper and god bless them. This morning, the Senate Begins itsommittee consideration of a constitutional moment to prepare it to repair the damage done by a series of Supreme Court decisions to overturn longstanding precedents of the court and campaignfinance laws. If left unanswered, these hurt the democratic process and the people have to act. Years ago, campaignfinance laws were enacted to protect the process and to prevent and deter specialon, to limit interests in our collections. In our elections. These were passed by large majorities, republican, democrat the house, butnd five justices have repeatedly overturned these. In doing so, the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates. Justice John Paul Stevens had it right when he wrote of the courts decision and said it undermines the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. Heard how it threatens the Constitutional Rights of americans that wanted their voices heard on the grounds of special interests on television. We would also like to know who is actually behind the ads for were against a particular person. Continue to people support this and other avenues. To fight back against the corrosive effects of the Supreme Court decisions regarding money in politics. Those petitions have been brought to our hearing room those boxes in the back , they are a tangible reminder that americans are calling on congress to act. I have looked at hundreds of , things like bumper stickers to put to score political points. Be dismantled every reasonable protection against corruption in our political process. Let people know where the money is coming from and from whom and which special interest it may be. Senate republicans repeatedly filibuster that legislation over the disclose act. It would at least allow people to know whos putting money into the historic process. I hope it will be able to convince enough my friends on the other side of the aisle to overcome the filibuster in this transparency matter. Court basedsupreme its ruling on flawed interpretations, the statue torry principal would not surprise. The statutory principle would not suffice. Reedhere from both senator and senator mcconnell. Friends harryk my reid and Mitch Mcconnell for being here. I think their joint appearances 20 appearance is a first in this committees history, as near as we can tell. It underscores the importance of the public discussion were having today. We may disagree on some issues, theyre both good friends of mine and i am glad to have them here. Mr. Chairman, our leaders and my colleagues on this committee, what is more important than protecting our rights . This hearing also shows, as clearly as possible, the differences between conservatism and progressivism. Lets start with first principles. A declaration of independence states that everyone is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that governments are created to protect. Those preexisting rights include the right to liberty, and the constitution was adopted secure the blessings of liberty to all americans. Americans rejected the view that the structural limits of government power contained in the original constitution would adequately protect the liberties they fought a revolution to preserve. They insisted at that time on the adoption of the bill of rights. It protects individual rights, regardless whether the government or the majority approves of their use. The First Amendment of their rights protects the freedom of speech and that is basic to selfgovernment. Other parts of the constitution falls to or equality or justice and our representatives in government. The bill of rights is only about one thing. Individual freedom. Free speech creates a marketplace of ideas in which is and can learn, debate, and persuade fellow citizens. It enables citizenry to be educated, to cast votes to elect their leaders. Today, freedom of speech is threatened, as it has not been in many decades. Too many people are impatient and will not listen and debate and persuade. Instead, they want to punish and intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree. A Corporate Executive who opposes samesex marriage, the same physician president obama held at that time, is to be fired. Universities who are supposed to be fostering academic freedom, cancel graduation speeches by speakers that some students find offensive. Government officials order other government officials not to deviate from the party line concerning proposed legislation. Today, sj resnick and, cut from the same cloth, wood amend the constitution or the first time, to diminish an important right americans have that is contained in the bill of rights. It would cut tax on the most important of these rights, cord free speech about who should be reelected to govern ourselves. The proposed constitutional men would enable government to live in funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates. I would give the government the ability to limit speech. The memo would even allow the government to set the limit at zero. There could be no contributions, no election spending. No public debate on who should be elected. As you can conclude, incumbents like us here the table, but find that outcome to be acceptable. They would know that no challenger could run an Effective Campaign against them. Speech at low limits would produce similar results. What president with this amendment create . Suppose Congress Passed limits on what people could spend on abortions or what. Theres or hospitals could spend to inform them. What if congress limited the amount of money people could spend on guns or a limit on how much money they can spend on their of their own money. On their own health care. If congress limit how much people can give to charity or how much charity tends end . Under this amendment, congress could do what Citizens United rightfully said it could not. For instance, it could not make it a criminal offense for sierra to urge recover the public that favors logging international or is there they could not stop the National Rifle Association Board could stop them from publishing a book seeking published public support to a senator who favors a handgun ban, or for the aclu to post on his website before boulders to support a president ial candidate because of his stance on free speech. That should be frightening prospects to all of us. Under this amendment, congress and the states can limit Campaign Contributions and expenditures without limit. And without complying to existing concert constitutional provisions. Congress could pass a law limiting expenditures by democrats but not by republicans by opponents of obama care but not by supporters. What does the amendment mean when it says congress can limit funds spent in opposition to candidates . Congress under this amendment could criminalize that as spending in opposition to a candidate. A senator on the senate floor appearing free of charge could the same a private citizen. A member could say the citizen was eyeing elections. If the citizen spent any money to rebut the charge, he could end up being charged. We would be back to the days when criticism of elected officials was a criminal offense. You remember the history of the acts. Supporters say the amendment is nessus very word democracy. It is outrageous to say that limiting each is necessary for democracy. The only existing right that the amendment says it will not harm his freedom of the past. So congress and the states could limit the speech of anyone except those reparations that control the media. That would produce an orwellian world in which every speaker is equal, but some speakers are more equal than others. Freedom of press has never been understood to give the Media National Constitutional Rights denied to others. After years of denying it, supporters of political spending limits now admit that enacting their agenda of restricting beach may require an amendment to our fundamental charter of liberty. In light of recent Supreme Court decisions him an amendment may soon not be needed at all. There were four justices right now that would allow for political speech to be rejected. There would be no need to amend the constitution cut act on freedom. Just as rye ors dissent for these four justices in the decision does not view his freedom of beach as an end in and of itself there at our founding others did view it as an end in the health area justice rye or thinks free political speech is about the publics interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. To be sure, individual rights often advanced socially desirable goals. Our us to show rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advanced to moxie as vacant conceive it. Our Constitutional Rights are individual. They are not collected. Never in 225 years have any supreme word decision described our rights as collective here as the declaration of independence states, our rights come from god and not from the government and the public. An sitter the history of the last 100 years. Freedom has flourished where rights belong to individuals were governments were bound to respect, where rights work elected and existing only at the whim of a government that determines when they serve socially desirable purposes. The results have been horrific. We should not move even one inch in the direction of little justices where this amendment would take us there it is takes could not be higher for all americans who value their rights and freedoms. Beach concerning who the people selected representatives should be, speech setting the agenda in public discourse, speech designed to open and change the minds of our fellows and since,s each criticizing politicians, and speech challenging Government Policies are all in this nation vital rights. The amendment puts all of them in jeopardy upon the penalty of prosecution feared it would make america no longer america, and though i intend to do what i can to stop it and i urge others to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate what you said about the Supreme Court. We may have Supreme Court justices who actually follow i want to hear from senator reed and senator mcconnell and then, because they are chair and rank members of the subcommittee, will be handling this, very brief remarks from senator cruz. Senator reed. For convening this hearing, you remind me all the time about the work done in this committee, having served in they legislature in a Judiciary Committee, i understand much of the work is funded through this committee. Even on a state or federal level. Senator, thank you also for your statement. I am very impressed with attendance for the day. It is really heartwarming to the everyone caring so much about this issue. Members of the committee, i am here because a flood of our money in the political system post the greatest threat to our democracy that i have witnessed during my tenure in Public Service. The decision of the supreme or left the American People with a status quo where one sides leaners are pitted against the other sides billionaires. We are with a simple choice. Keep the that is argue all day and are up and all night, weekends, forever about whos billionaires are right and whos billionaires are wrong, or we can Work Together to change the system and get shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic vegetables of one american and one vote. Mr. President , a little bit of history from my perspective. I ran for the senate in 1980 or. I had to be educated as to what federal laws were. We had an entirely different system. The federal system, that is not the case. That was not the case. Very close advisers, wayne pearson, who was supporting me, said, understand, under the federal rules, be very careful. You cannot take cash from anybody. The rules are very strict. There is a limit to how much money they can give you. Their address, occupation, and be very careful of any money you take. The president , mr. Chairman, i have been asking nevadans to vote for me for decades. I have seen firsthand how the dark money is reverting our political system. Way back 40 years ago, it was pretty easy to do. Follow the rules. I have seen it change. In 1998, i had a close election john and we each spent about 10 million and we were allowed to do that because the supreme word again had left an opening that said you could divert money into the state party and that more that money could be corporate money, and used for denigrating the other person, building the other person who had the money up. I felt so, unclean for lack of a better word. A person could give a lot of money. One person gave a quarter of a Million Dollars to the state party and he wanted me to know he had done it there it i hope he did not corrupt me, but he is correcting. After 1998, two good senators got together and work very hard to change that. We had the law that came into a act and took her but money out of politics. When iran in 2004, it was like i had taken a bath and i felt so clean. It was an election that everyone involved in a federal election had to list where they got the money and there was a limit to how much you could ask or get someone else. You were listed their occupation and so on. It was wonderful. Then comes 2010. Back into the sewer. That was the race Citizens United and january had ruled no holds are. Any money could come from any source, with rare exception. That race, as far as i was concerned, not a lot of fun. 1998. I talk to you about that in 2010, 1998, he may 1998 seem like a picture in the park. Money coming from every place. Not a suggestion of where the money came from. Citizens for good government, good guys, sponsored this one. Now, from 1998, to 2010, i have no idea. I have an idea, but that race in nevada, from oblique 120 million were spent in that race. Can you imagine that . No one knows where the money came from. The people in nevada were subjected to false and misleading ad. Not knowing anything about these shadow groups fear that was 2010. In 2012, it got worse. Here we are, mr. President. The other decisions the Supreme Court has made has only made it worse and during the 2012 president ial campaign, outside groups spent more than 1 billion and that is a conservative estimate. That is about as much money as was bent in the previous 12 elections. This spike in the amount of shadowy money pumped into the elections is not surprising. Recent decisions rendered by the united ace up in court, Citizens United, mccutchen, our Campaign Finance laws were eviscerated and it opened up the floodgates. The cynics scoff at the idea of us working together on an issue as critical as good government, but it was not all that long ago campaign against reform enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. Campaign finance from arm has proposed a number of times before. Even by my friend, the republican leader, senator mcconnell. Senator mcconnells his own constitutional amendment, his own sponsor, empowered congress to enact laws any person which from his legislation can be made to advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or office. Navigating for the reform, senator mcconnells head, and i quote, we have put together a responsible Campaign Reform agenda that would restrict the power of special interest backs, stop the flow of all money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office, close out office. That gives you the general idea. At one time, senator mcconnell agreed, without question, with me and most of the people behind me. Senator mcconnell had the right idea than. I am hopeful we can rekindle a way to bring worth the noble principles again. I found it hard to fathom when my republican colleagues want to defend the that is both. Is there any member of the committee who really believes the status quo is good . He opposed billionaires using their own money for office, senator mcconnell now funds the ability to fund campaigns and independent expenditures. In fact, he even declares today, in our societys spending is speech. Money equals free speech. American families. They cannot compete with billionaires if free speech is based on how much money you have. My republican colleagues attempt to there are winners and losers in every budget. In the budget he produced, it is undeniable mr. Pope won big. Tens of thousands of people lost unemployment benefits. The two wealthiest men in america interested in their bottom line. Governmentment in should not be dependent on our bank account balances. The American People reject the notion that money gives the Koch Brothers corporations and special Interest Groups a thaner voice in government a mechanic, a liar, a doctor a lawyer, a doctor. Thatbelieve, as i do elections in our country should be decided by voters. Have americans who constitutional and fundamental right to elect their a present tense, the constitution that Everybody Loves to talk about doesnt give corporations a vote and doesnt give dollar bills a right to vote. The undue influence that my decried three decades ago has not magically transformed into free speech. Vegascopperfield in las cannot come up with that one. It is still bad for america, it is bad for the body of politics. He must undo the damage done by the Supreme Courts recent Campaign Finance decision and we need to do it now. I support this constitutional amendment. I admire and i graduate senators tom udall and senator Michael Bennet for authoring this amendment, which grants congress the authority to regulate and spend money for Political Campaigns. It will rein in the massive of super pacs, these secret organizations. It has grown so much since that january 2010 decision of simply put, the constitutional amendment is what they need to bring the senate back to Political Campaigns. The American People want change. They want their voice in government to be protected. Free speech shouldnt cost the i amcan people a dime happy if you have questions. Otherwise i would ask your leave. I know both you and senator mcconnell have a great deal of following the tradition of the speak. Ee that you both i thank you very much. I want to make sure my leaving doesnt take away at all from my friendship with Mitch Mcconnell. We criticize each other for years. Upset by myont be leaving. No problem. I appreciate the i assume you were referring to my role as president pro tem. I know i have said before both senator grassley and i are both friends of senator mcconnell and senator reid and have been for years. I keep my baseball bat in my office area you never know when you might need it. I have it for my visit from kentucky. Bad thishow incredibly proposed amendment is i cannot play my friend from wanting to talk about things like the koch i may have said over a quarter of a century ago. Remarksg to confine my to what is before us and i want to start by thinking senator grassley for an absolutely observation about what the First Amendment was supposed to be about. At the very core of it was little speech. Americans understand how extraordinary how distorted narrowly special the First Amendment is. Founders they know the Free Exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize the government are necessary for our democracy to survive. Benjamin franklin noted that whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. The First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom and it has never been amended to attempts to weaken the First Amendment should therefore pass the highest scrutiny. It falls short of that high bar. It would allow congress to write the rules of who gets to speak in the public. Imagine people should be concerned and many are already that those in power would use this extraordinarys extraordinary authority to suppress speech that is critical of them. I understand no politician likes to be criticized and more are criticized and some are criticized more often than the rest of us. The recourse is not to shut up your fellow citizens. This is designed to give us the power to pick the winners and losers in the political discussion in this country. That is what this amendment is all about. The solution is to defend your ideas more ably in a political marketplace. Or to simply come up with better ideas. The First Amendment is purposefully neutral when it comes to speech. Right whether or not their views happen to be popular with the government at any given moment. The First Amendment is also in equivocal. It provides that Congress Shall abridging the freedom of speech. The First Amendment is about empowering the people, not the government. The proposed amendment has it backwards. It says congress and the states can pass whatever laws they want, abridging political speech, the speech that is at the core of the First Amendment. If politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself. A new majority would try to disadvantage the other part of the country. This is at odds with the First Amendment. The last time a proposal like this was considered, in 2001, we had a vote on this. It was defeated on a bipartisan basis. I get the impression all the democrats have walked away from the First Amendment. Back then, senator kennedy and several other democratic colleague voted against it. A similar proposal was disputed in 1997. Our colleagues who voted against those proposals were right. I submit that they would be wrong to support the latest proposal to weaken the First Amendment. This is clear when one compares the language of the amendments. Joint resolution 4, back in the 100 seventh congress, would empower the government to set reasonable limits, whatever that is, on political speech. The same was true of Senate Resolution 18 in the 105th congress. As bad as those proposals were, they at least limited the governments power to setting reasonable limits on speech. Again, whatever that is. By contrast, the amendment we are discussing today would drop the pretense. It would give the government control over the little speech of its citizens. Allowing it to set unreasonable limits on their political speech. Including, banning it outright. Reminiscent of the , that senator grassley pointed out. It would favor certain speakers over others and guarantee preferential treatment. It contains a provision not found in prior proposals, which provides congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. This is great. If you are a corporation that owns a newspaper. This is terrific news for you. You get your speech, but nobody else does. The media wins and everybody else loses. Everyone on this committee knows this proposal is never going to pass congress. This is a political exercise and that is all it is. The goal is to stir up one partys Political Base so they will show up in november. That is to do it by complaining loudly about americans exercising free speech and Association Rights while being happy than other americans, those who agree with the sponsors of this amendment are doing the same thing. The political nature of this exercise should not fear how shockingly bad this proposal is. This is embarrassingly bad. To be advocating, for the first time in history, that we amended the First Amendment to restrict the right of citizens to the. When it comes to free speech, we should not substitute the protection desires of politicians or the protection of all americans. I remember a time when most of us agreed to it. It is too bad we cannot agree on it now. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I would love to stay for the rest of your hearing, but i will talk to you later. I have a feeling you will be able to overcome your sorrow of not being able to be here. To quote the statement most often heard, of course i will read your statement for the record afterwards. Thank you. Senator durbin. As chairman of the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary on constitutional amendments, i have had a personal point of view on this for a long time when it comes to the nature of amendments being altered. I think the constitution is written with the amendments that have been adopted, it constitutes a sacred document that has guided this country well for decades and centuries. Too often i have seen proposals for constitutional amendments which take a roller to a rembrandt. I have resisted efforts into cosponsoring amendments. This is an exception. I am cosponsoring this amendment. The time has come for us to do something to save this democracy and the political process that supports it. Secondly, there is hardly a politician elected official alive who is not changed his over position on an issue. That happens. I can recall when Abraham Lincoln was criticized for changing his position on an issue and he said i would rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time. It is breathtaking, the change that has taken laced with the Republican Party in the United States senate on this issue. In 1987, the senate leader, the Republican Senate later, this would give congress an opportunity to level the playing field, to eliminate the millionaires loophole, put everyone in the same footing so that anyone in American Society who can get support could still raise the money, use the television, get into the race and build the contest. The fellow who inherited it or could go out and get it could not use his personal money to buy political office. He would have to get the same broadbased support the rest of us must do. That is a problem we can cure immediately. That is what senator mcconnell said about his constitutional amendment offered in 1987, which parallels the amendment before the committee today. Time passed. By 2002, the story was different. We were debating mccainfeingold. The elimination of soft money in the campaign process. Then, the position was taken by the senator from kentucky and many on his side, we want full disclosure. We want to know who is contributing the money. The American People have a right to know. That was the mantra for a long time. I just asked whether any republicans supported our effort when we introduced the disclosed bill. Our best memory is no. They do not support disclosure. Here we are today. Many of us had hoped that fair elections, a Public Financing bill, which i introduced seven years ago and keep reintroducing, might have a chance. With the Citizens United decision, that is not likely. When you look at the reality of what we are facing, spending by outside groups and campaigns has tripled. 27. 6 million in 2010. 97. 7 million so far this year. In 2006, these groups spent 3. 5 million. In 2012, superpacs spent more than 100 30 million on federal elections. 60 of all superpac donations came from an elite class of 159 americans. 159 americans accounted for 60 of the money for superpacs going into these campaigns. In North Carolina, a group had one member. 72 of all outside spending in 2010 came from a millionaire named art pope. He bankrolled the Governors Campaign and supported the super majority that recently enacted the most strict Voter Suppression law in america. We need to do this to say the political process in america. What is at stake is going to discourage mere mortals from engaging in this process. When you are up against multimillionaires from the start with unlimited contributions through Citizens United, you will lose the appetite for the contest. We cannot let that happen. Senator durbin, i thank you. I know at some point you are going to take over the gavel for senator cruz. We have a statement for the record. It will be made part of the record. Senator cruz. When our country was founded, we crafted a constitution that would serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. There has never been more mischief then there is right now. The bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution are precious to every american. The bill of rights begins with the First Amendment. Congress has not dared to mess with the bill of rights for two centuries. This amendment here today, if adopted, would repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment. When citizens hear that, they gasp. As immune as we are from the abuse of power from government, citizens are astonished congress would support repealing the First Amendment. Lets be clear. This amendment does not just do it for corporation or billionaires. Nothing in this amendment is limited to corporations or billionaires. It would give Congress Absolute authority to regulate the political speech of every single american. No limitations, whatsoever. This amendment is about power and it is about politicians silencing the citizens. Mr. Chairman, when did elected democrats abandon the bill of rights . Where did the liberals go . In 1997, when a similar amendment was introduced, here is what ted entity said. In the entire history of the constitution, we have never amended the bill of rights. It would be wrong to carve an exception to the First Amendment. Finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require we twist the meaning of the const touche. Here is what Russ Feingold said. The constitution of this country was not a rough draft. We must stop treating it as such. It is the bed rock of the bill of rights. If this amendment passes, congress can say you, the citizen, are no longer citizens. You are subjects. We have repealed the First Amendment and taken away your ability to speak. Senator feingold said the following about a similar amendment. This constitutional amendment would change the scope of the First Amendment. I find nothing more sacred and treasured than the First Amendment. It is the bedrock of the bill of rights. It has the notion that every citizen has a fundamental right to disagree with his or her government. I want to leave the First Amendment undisturbed. I agree with ted kennedy and Russ Feingold. Where are the liberals today . Why is there not a liberal standing here defending the bill of rights and the First Amendment . Democrats have signed their name to a constitutional amendment that would give congress the power to muzzle planned parenthood and the national right to life. 42 democrats have signed to giving the right to muzzle the National Rifle association. To muzzle michael moore. To muzzle the National Education association, to muzzle the naacp. To muzzle priests and rabbis. I am introducing two bills to further protect the free speech rights of individuals. I will be discussing those later in this hearing. This amendment, if adopted, would give congress the power to ban books and to ban movies. Citizens united was about finding a moviemaker who made a movie critical of hillary clinton. Ray bradbury would be astonished because we are seeing fahrenheit 451 democrats today. The American People should be angry about this. The senators who put their name to the should be embarrassed that they have signed up for repealing the free speech amendment, the First Amendment. Thank you. The statements have been completed. I wonder if senator mckissick and mr. Abrams could join us at the appropriate places on the table. Please remove the man holding up a sign contrary to the rulings of the chair. As the committee knows, i do not take a petition one way or another. We are having a hearing. I want people who are for or against it to be here. I do not want people blocking the views of others. You have plenty of time to do that outside. Lets hear from the witnesses. The first witness is floyd mckissick. He served in the North Carolina state senate since 2007. He is the deputy minority leader as well as for mckissick and mckissick. I apologize for the voice. It is allergies. I also note that your son is in the audience. I note that for when someone is searching through the mckissick archives, they see that. Thank you. It is a privilege to be here. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am a longtime resident of North Carolina. I have the honor of serving in North Carolina where i represent durham and granville counties. I entered politics for the same reason many of you did. I sought ways that North Carolinas government could work more effectively. In 2010, americans for prosperity, a group funded by the Koch Brothers, spent money in North Carolina. A new organization sprang up called real jobs North Carolina spent almost 4. 5 million. Overall, three quarters of all of the outside money in state races that money were tied to one man, art pope. They poured money into 22 targeted races. The candidates they backed one in 18 of those races. In 2012, 8. 1 Million Dollars flooded into the governors race. A large portion of that money was tied into pope. Surprise, surprise art pope is our state budget director. When Justice Kennedy wrote in Citizens United, he said limit us outside spending does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Try telling that to anyone who saw how the in North Carolina. There are winners and losers in every budget. In the budget he produced, it is undeniable mr. Pope won big. Tens of thousands of people lost unemployment benefits. Public Education Funding was cut back. Low income people were refused access to medicaid we had already paid for. While millionaires got a tax break, some families got a tax hike. After the money flooded into our election, we saw those two more big changes. A month after the Supreme Court gutted the voters rights act, the past one of the most restrictive voter laws in the country. It eliminated the ability of teenagers to preregister to vote before their 18th birthday and illuminated sameday voter registration. And eliminated sameday voter registration. Art pope and the Koch Brothers paid to roll back civil rights advances. A got easier for rich people to pour money into elections. Donors got new opportunities to write bigger checks to candidates and they got more ways to avoid any kind of disclosures in any Public Financing system. Including one that provided for clean judicial races. That was painful to me because i watched one of our Supreme Court justices, robin hudson, attacked in the most despicable way. More than 650,000 came from a washingtonbased organization trying to protect the antivoter laws that were pushed through to legislature. I cannot think of a more vicious cycle than taking a little more power from the voters and handing it to the big spenders. Once big money got into our elections, that is what happened. Public service is a calling. We are called to use our gifts to create laws and to administer our cities, states, and nations. Citizens united in the Supreme Court decision that have occurred have made this a mockery. It does not look like democracy. A mocker see is when the government represents the people. It seems that money and big donors pull the strings. I urge you support Senate Joint Resolution 19. Thank you. The next one is mr. Floyd abrams. Not a stranger to this committee over the years. Please go ahead. I appreciate your invitation to be here today. The description of the constitutional amendment that is before you today states it relates to the contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. That is one way to say it. I think it would have been more revealing to say it actually relates to speech intended to affect elections. I think it would be more accurate to say that it relates to limiting speech intended to affect elections. That is the core problem with it. It is intended to limit speech about elections and it will do just that. To start at the beginning, this has been said before. It is worth repeating. No ruling providing First Amendment protection has ever been reversed by a constitutional amendment. No ruling by the Supreme Court. No speech that the Supreme Court has concluded. Think of what we protected under the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts observes that money and politics may be repugnant to some, but so too does most of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flagburning and not see parades, despite the profound offense that such spectacles cause, it surely protects Political Campaign speech, despite popular opposition. The proposed amendment before you deals with nothing except Political Campaign speech. It does not deal with money that is spent for any other purpose other than persuading people who to vote for or against. As such, it would limit speech at the heart of the First Amendment. The fact that the investment is proposed in the name of equality makes it no less running. The Supreme Court observed, with particular in the buckley case, stalwart defenders of the First Amendment, that the concept that government may restrict some elements may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment. It is that view which is at the core of this amendment. That would reverse the buckley case as well as Citizens United. This amendment is not a Citizens United amendment. It goes back to the 1970s and would reverse buckleys ruling. The title of the proposed amendment goes even farther. It says it would restore democracy to the American People. I am willing to pass over in silence, rhetorical overkill about what democracy means, but the notion that democracy would be restored, saved by limiting speech is a perversion of the english language. It is inconsistent with any notion of democracy to say the way to accomplish it is to limit speech. Let me say in the most direct manner that it is equally, profoundly, obviously undemocratic to limit speech. Those who hold office in federal and state legislatures, armed with all of the advantages of incumbency may prevent their opponents from becoming known as a result of spending money to put ads on, describing who they are. I conclude with this thought. It is not a coincidence that until today, the First Amendment has never been amended. It is not a students that no decision of the Supreme Court confirming First Amendment rights has never been overruled. Emotions have run high before about decisions of the courts, which provided higher levels of liberty than members of this body thought were appropriate. Selfrestraint won the day. I urge that selfrestraint windy day today. The next witness is jamie raskin. He teaches constitutional law and legislation at Washington College of law in washington, d. C. He also serves as a senator in the maryland state legislature. Mr. Raskin, welcome. Thank you very much. We built a wall brick by brick over a century to separate the craddick money from them credit politics. Starting with the 1907 band on corporate contributions, which still stands, we have worked to. Four years ago, Citizens United bulldozed a major block of the wall. The one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. Five justices shut down the Public Financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard. The majority treated Additional Campaign speech as a First Amendment industry. It provides more voices, wider discussion and greater competition. This year, the same five took a sledgehammer to aggregate. To aggregate contribution limits. After five decisions, the wall between democracy and plutocracy is crumbling. If we keep waiting around, the last few bricks will be removed soon, including contribution limits, rules against corporate expenditures, and writing paign checks during should during legislative session. They are at odds with the dogma of five justices. Money is speech and corporations are people. To identify corruption, you have to find a bride. This will enable us to protect democratic politics. We need to revive government where all voices can be heard. And not drowned out by billionaires who turn up the volume on their soundtracks. In economics, we need to strengthen his misses that practice freemarket competition and pull the plug on rent seeking corporations that spend freely on campaigns now for sweetheart deals and public subsidies later. Finance, laissez isnt fair. When Justice Scalia went on cnn said i think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech the better. The sage of monticello never equated operations with citizens. He voiced dread at the photo plutocracy. He warned future generations not to embrace aristocracy. Founded on Banking Institutions and moneyed corporations writing and ruling over the common. The plowman. This nightmare vision sounds like a Citizens United aero. The majority of americans are appalled. 74 of voters in colorado and montana voted to call for this amendment. 79 of the people favor limits on campaign money. This amendment protects our power to set such limits. Not by creating perfected equality. Billionaires will always have greater resources, but it is shores the rich will inhabit the same polity as nurses, businesses, and small people. It is one thing to tell middleclass citizens that the scale is 501. A regime like that fits plutocracy, not democracy. I think the amendment should empower the people to wall off campaigns from Corporate Treasury wealth. Which has been seen as a perl democracy for more than a century. This is no assault on the First Amendment because Citizens United does not increase the rights of citizens to express views. All it did was confirm our on ceos to write checks without a vote of the shareholders and without notice to the shareholders. It has nothing to do with free speech of the people. It has everything to do with increasing the power of the ceos over the people. If we do nothing now pretty , soon, people will no longer govern corporations. The corporations will govern the people. At times like this, when the court has undermined democracy, we have amended the constitution. We did it with the disenfranchisement of women. The bill of rights has strengthened the selfgovernment. It has expanded the Political Rights of the people. Even as the defenders of inequality and the elitists said their rights were being violated. Do not be intimidated. The people are with you. Thank you. Let me begin and then i will turn the gavel over to senator durbin. Senator mckissick, the story of our constitution has been one of progressive inclusion. Our Founding Fathers believed only white land owners should be allowed to participate in elections. Each generation of americans has expanded the promise of our founding a more perfect union. We have amended the constitution many times. The 14th and 15th amendments, for example. They transform the constitution, guaranteed equal protection of law. They prohibited the right to vote on the basis of race. The 17th amendment gave americans a right to elect senators of their choosing. There was a concern that corporations were corrupting state legislature. They would elect senators to be home to those corporations. We continue with the 19th amendment. The civil rights act. The 26th amendment extension of the vote to young people. I mentioned those because they mark progress on the path of inclusion. They make our country more representative. I have heard the Supreme Court decisions reverse that course. Do you believe the money put into the state races in the wake of Citizens United has led to a more representative State Government in North Carolina . It has not led to more representative governor in North Carolina at all. The will of the people is not being heard. I think that is represented by the moral monday demonstrations. It started out with 500 people coming out every monday when we can our session, protesting these policies that have been implemented. They grew to masses of 7500 people. There were close to a thousand people arrested. They were absolutely opposed to the policies and legislations coming out of raleigh. These were actions that not only impacted voter rights for individuals. If you would have pulled people about the Voter Suppression laws and asked if they like the early vote period, we have eliminated one week of that. In 2008, we had over 700,000 people vote that first week. By the time 2012 came, it was over 900,000 people voting. People had sameday voter registration. There were people getting able to preregister when they were 17 so they could vote at 18 years old. If you ask the majority if they like the early vote period and the right to exercise their constitutional privilege in a more expansive way, the answer would be, resoundingly, yes. You have heard some characterize the udall amendment as an effort to repeal the First Amendment. I dont believe that is accurate. But i hear in paid ads and others, and i guess some of the billionaires are going to profit by this paid for that. With enough advertisements, americans may believe it. You are a scholar. If this amendment were to be ratified, would it repeal the First Amendment . Of course not. The Citizens United case did not endow a single individual with any right to speak that he or she did not already have. Employees of the corporation, the members of the board, they could spend what they wanted of their own money. Citizens united said the ceo could take the corporate checkbook and write checks to put into politics. That ceo could have spent his own money. We have converted every Corporate Treasury in the country to a potential slush fund. In a deeper sense, mr. Abrams raises the question about buckley versus valeo. And the rights not of corporations but of the billionaires in order to spend. There is a very important Supreme Court decision called ward versus rock against racism. In 1989, a terrific group rock against racism would put on concerts in central park, but they wanted to crank it all the way up. The preschool could not me, the yoga class could not meet, other people could not do exercises. They were told they had to turn it down. The Supreme Court said that is right because you do not have the right to drown out everyone elses speech. If you understand that, you would understand North Carolina. You would understand why billionaires cannot take over whole states like North Carolina or montana. I encourage everyone to read the filings and montana. They describe a history of massive corporate corruption outside the state to take over their democracy. The ban on corporate spending was an attempt of the people of montana to govern themselves. This is about selfgovernment. So that democracies for the people. I have further questions, but i want to keep the time limits. My time is up. I yield to senator grassley. Before i ask my first question, i want to correct something that often shows up in the press. One of my colleagues has said the same thing today. Citizens united said the comment was made that Citizens United opened the door to millions of dollars in contributions. What they dealt with, and only, with expenditures and has no effect on Campaign Contributions. A frontpage article of the Washington Post says political nonprofit groups have become Major Players in elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision paved the way for unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. Political nonprofit groups have been active in campaigns for at least 10 years, long before Citizens United was decided. Am i right in thinking this point made in the Washington Post article is incorrect . I would say that i do not think it is correct to say that these groups are playing an enormously greater role than they used to. They have been around for a while. There is nothing wrong with them playing a greater role. The underlying thesis of critics of this is that you have heard it a lot today outside money is bad money. It is money that should not be around, should not be allowed and i reject that and the Supreme Court has rejected that. On the specific issue of nonprofits. Nonprofits do not have to publicly report their spending, except in certain areas. It is hard to know exactly how much more involvement that they have had. Only a small percentage, this we do know, the 7 billion spent in the 2012 election came from nonprofit groups or other resources. There are organizations again, there are organizations in washington that want to limit the role or influence the money in politics. Is that goal consistent with the First Amendment . I think what they are saying is they want to limit the speech that money allows. When people complain that there is going to be more of this and more is that, or that the speech will contain falsehoods or that politicians or others will be accused in ways that they find uncongenial, what they are really saying is that the money is doing bad things. That is, at its core, inconsistent with the First Amendment. The First Amendment favors speech. It favors speech from diverse sources. It rejects the notion that speech can be constrained or limited because one person has more than another person. Amid all of that that all comes with the First Amendment. A denunciation of money in politics is a denunciation of politics itself and of the public debate that we have in politics. My next question deals with a point you made in your opening remarks. I ask it only to give you an opportunity to emphasize what i think is an important point. Supporters of the proposed amendment think it is needed to prevent wealthy donors from drowning out ordinary citizens and to restore democracy. Can you elaborate how this is at odds with the protection of free speech . When somebody says that my speech will drown out someone elses speech and i should say less, it is the functional equivalent of telling a newspaper, you ought to have fewer editorials, you should not spend your space denouncing one candidate for office. It is not fair. You have too much power. I grew up in a time where democrats were running against a oneparty press. Every newspaper was republican. Just about everyone, in those days. No one would have thought that the answer to the socalled oneparty press was saying the press cannot print something or that they are printing too much or they are drowning out the opposition. That comes on the menu of the First Amendment. That menu includes as much speech as one wants. I would like to address my first comment and question to professor raskin. We invited John Paul Stevens to testify before the senate rules committee, which was an exceptional opportunity to hear his thinking. He raised interesting questions about this issue. He said money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one activity financed by Campaign Contributions and expenditures. Those activities should not receive the same protections as speech itself. Campaign funds were used to fund the watergate burglaries. Actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment. In closing, he proffered a sample of a constitutional amendment. On the subject of reversing buckley versus valeo. He made an observation we ought to consider, even those of us who support Senate Joint Resolution 19. He suggested we should include the word reasonable when we are talking about limitations on campaign spending. Here is what he said. I think it wise to include the word reasonable to ensure legislatures do not prescribe limits so low that incumbents do not have an unfair advantage or interfere with the freedom of the press. Do you think reasonable would be a positive addition . , i do. Of course, reasonableness applies to all of the constitutional amendments. You can find dozens of courses i would take care of the problem by inserting the word. Your other point about money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand. There are forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalized. Buying sex, we dont say if someone wants to buy the services of a prostitute it is a violation of their freedom of speech. Even mr. Abrams and the people on the other side take the position that laws against bribery are. It is not clear why. I feel strongly about an issue and i want to give you money to go my way, why should you not be able to accept it . It is because we believe within the governmental process and electoral process, there are right reasons to make decisions and there are wrong reasons. A wrong reason is the money that youre going to put in your pocket or huge amounts of money you will put into your campaign, or lots of spending to take place. Why cant we take into account the social context of money . Money is not speech. It is property. It is a medium of exchange. Speech has verbs and adjectives and nouns. It is what the philosophers call a category error to mix them up. I might say that the bill i introduced suggested that incumbents are trying to protect themselves by arguing against Citizens United. We offer a greater opportunity for challengers than experience suggests that they currently experience that they currently have under the law. Senator mckissick, one thing that has been raised consistently we have been chided, saying we are not being good liberals by not expanding this. When it comes to North Carolina, and this gentleman mr. Pork, it appears that mr. Pope was responsible for 72 of all outside spending in your state in the year 2010. Instead of being an open process in North Carolina, it turned out to be an elite situation where his wealth gave him more power than the average person living in North Carolina to express his political will. Could you comment on what has happened to the North Carolina political process because of this favoritism towards the elite . I think as a result of his capacity to give millions and millions of dollars, he basically tainted the whole election process. He had influence disproportional to the number of people who share his beliefs. When it comes to the political process, as we have seen it today, there are many people who feel as if they have been disenfranchised. In terms of voting rights, in terms of womens rights. They have gone and as a result of legislation, there will be new ambulatory standards applied to abortion clinics. As a result, in North Carolina, there were 16 abortion clinics, all were closed except for one. They have purged people from boards and commissions that have been previously appointed by prior governors and members of. All of their terms were shortened. So they could appoint people who share their philosophies. Public education, there was legislation that was passed that eliminated teacher tenure. It was challenging the court and found unconstitutional. Many measures affecting Public Education that are opposed to have now been adopted in no limitation to the number of kids in the classroom, we are 46 in teacher pay in the country. Giving people 26 weeks, we go 12 to 20 weeks. We are the only state in america eligible thoseke with longterm benefits. The vast majority of north carolinians would not agree with implementeds been as a result of the amazing level to capacity level for pope influence the outcome of 18 critical races. Mr. Abrams, i am not the woolly one who believes youre the leading First Amendment lawyer in the country and youre not a member of my party either. [laughter] thats true. We are privileged to have you here today and to have other witnesses as well. This is not the first constitutional amendment. This one goes beyond what we have seen in the past. Tell, senatean resolution 19 is the first one for the purpose of achieving what it calls political equality amendment, the government could constitutionally redefine equality and decide who speech should be suppressed or allowed in order to achieve it. Isnt this at odds with americas entire history of controlling speech . It is. It gives enormous power to the legislatures, congress, and states to enforce the law. I would assume that the courts would be very deferential to anything that those legislatures did. That being said, while there might be an equal protection or other arguments made, i really believe that an amendment of this breadth would change substantially and in an irrevocable way, except another constitutional amendment, the whole nature of American Society as a speechprotecting society. Another difference is this amendment will give government to control not only money, but also it would cause inkind equivalents, like the notion of political equality. This is something completely new. It appears the government will be able if this amendment passes will be able to define this category, however it wants, and therefore control they would be able to control whatever government wants. How far do you think this new dimension of regulation extends, and do you expect it would have to be litigation to figure out how it applies . No doubt. There would have to be enormous litigation. The reality is how shall i say this to members of congress here . If you provide a congress or state legislatures with power, they are likely to use it. And they are likely to use it in this area, in a speechdestructive way. That is what this whole thing is about. I understand the argument of equality, that more people, few people have great wealth and wealth gives more power, as has been said. But the effect of this amendment is would be to embody into our law by changing substantively, changing and limiting the First Amendment in a way that at the least we are going to have years and years of litigation. But i do not mind that personally. What we are going to have beyond that is a significantly diminished ability to have this sort of ongoing confrontation at length that we have in our electoral process. The 2012 election in my view was a good example of this system working. There was lots of money out there. There was lots of speech. People heard, sometimes more than they wanted to, but they heard the views of the parties and had a chance to vote. That is way the system ought to work, and that is threatened by this legislation this amendment. Professor raskin says the Supreme Courts decision in citi u