thank you the committee on the judiciary subcommittee, will come to order, that objection share, we, i'm authorized to the record the races of the subcommittee time to welcome everyone to today's hearing, potential responses by, congress i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. can you hear me? i'm not going to talk that loud. i will try to talk closer to the microphone, thank you. this year marks the tenth anniversary of the supreme court's deeply troubling decision in citizens united versus federal election commission. >> this is good as i'm going to do. >> that decision is resulted in the croatian of our democracy, giving disproportion a way to might interested drowning out the voices of ordinary american, today's hearing will examine the extent to this corruption explore was ways to repair the damage that the flood of darkening to our political system as broad as a result of that decision. citizens united supreme court struck down as unconstitutional ban on corporations and unions, using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures, trustee advocating for the election or defeat of canada. sexually the court held wrongly in my view, this ban on independence day centers violated corporations first amendment free speech rights, citizens united representative unjustified extension of public reversible supreme court discussion in 1976, the struck down independent expenditures by individuals. handled decision have since decided citizens overturned decades the presidents helping the government regulate, corporations, unity is negative effect this is denied it was immediately apparent, same years reports aside since united u.s. court of appeals at the u.s. district, decided, speak now versus fec, strike it down federer -- taken together these two discussions resulted in the rise of the so cold, super pac committees, because of these decisions individuals and corporations could make unlimited contributions to packs, dedicated only to making independent expenditures, whose donors disclosure rules are much more opaque, allowing them to accumulate massive mounts of dark, money is now ten years later we are seeing the negative corrosive effects of a wealthy mega donors and corporations for an unlimited amounts of money into our elections. perhaps now more than ever many americans believe their elected leaders do not care about the politicians, that they only care about racing, money and the people that have that super pacs i'll get them elected, nourishes of the corporations the political system, people feel it's rigged against them. they believe their voices will be found out, from the election by the megaphones bought by dark, money megaphones as if they are speech, example after example shows they are right, most americans including most gun or support the universal background checks for gun purchases, according to teen quarterbacks university poll almost 90% of gun owners, support universal background checks, despite the fact that a never so backer check would be all mover womanly popular, the grim reaper, also known as mitch mcconnell, majority leader, the so far refused to take up a tirade. nonpartisan backer checks, the house has nearly a year ago, perhaps not survive fittingly, since 2016, the national rifle association is that more than 54 million dollars, outside spending, efforts including 34 million dollars raised from historic money arm on, that's a lot of money and it has a big impact on who wins elections, and influences the opinions, of whom gun ownership, similarly americans overwhelmingly support lowering prescription drug prices, according to the henry jay kaiser family foundation more than 70% of americans believe drug costs are on reasonable at the drug companies are putting profits before people. similarly a study conducted by politico in the harvard school of public health found that 92% of americans favor lowering the rate for destruction growth even president trump during a show of shows often as a state of the union address throw this week in a speech that could otherwise best be described as a campaign rally masquerading as a rowdy tv show called on congress to pass a bill to dramatically lower job, prices for years congress has done nothing why probably is something to do with pharmaceutical companies are we have lobbyists, backed up by massive massive dark money raised by super pacs. sadly i can in policy after policy, from climate change will she regulations, were americans overwhelming lee believe that congress should take, action get congress is failed to take such action, and targeted by massive spending by dark money, the people that benefit from that, are the leaders of the senate, and leaders of the house. generally they are not going to favor giving up the tool that gives the more power. particularly on the side that has the most, money very real danger here is the american people convinced that their voices will be drawn to buy major donors and corporate interest will lose face an enterprise of self government. it is for this reason i support a constitutional amendment overturned citizens united, when a cosponsor, a state press to democracy for all amendment, chairman representative deutch for working so hard on that for many many years, passing a constitutional amendment one way to bring market agent, of the super pac to definitive clothes, and also criminals take up hr1, for the people act which i believe would enact reforms over most dark money donors, i think representative for their work on this issue. she is another bill, that goes a little further. passing a constitutional amendment overturned citizens united should be are also michael, in the meantime now congress to take whatever action they can't stop people with dark money elections, to turn to a road even for the american people's faith in democratic self governing, look forward to our witnesses testimony and thank them all for appearing here, all the citizens to get involved in this issue, i recognize the ranking member johnson's opening statement. >> thank you mister chairman, thank you all for being, here i know this is a shoe that concerns a lot of americans on both sides, it will not surprise you that our side over here, it's a very different view of the, issue before i get into the opening remarks, it's incumbent upon me to remind my chairman here is a violation and decorum to refer to the rigidity leader of the other house as the grim reaper, even if he does so himself. we can't do it. here,. >> no objection, we believe the supreme court's decision instances, united issue jacket, a girl was based upon along, line a prior supreme court, presidents in the constitutional history regarding the first amendment as the late justice scalia pointed out in his conferences united, your channel meeting of the text of the first amendment clearly supports the majority's decision this is what he wrote quote in 1791 as now, corporation's could pursue only objective set forth in their charters, but the descent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives, should be censured. most of the founders resentment towards corporations was directed at that stage granted monopoly privileges, that they individually chartered corporations enjoy, modern corporations don't have such privileges, and we probably would have been favored by most of our enterprising founders, individual persons right to speak, includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons, surely the descent does not believe the speech by the republican party of the democratic party should would be censored is not the speech of an individual american is a speech of many individual americans is associated in a common cause given the leadership of the party given the right to speak on their behalf the first amendment is written in terms of the speech not speakers, they offer no foothold of category of speaker from individuals to partnerships of individuals to unincorporated inventors association to incorporate individuals and this is not just a conservative view as you know. american civil liberties union most americans regard as a left or far left organization today, i do. seems generally supportive of the decision. on its website you can find in citizens united the supreme court ruled that independent expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the first amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the first amendment. our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear, it's know the role of government to make that decision for them. unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of big money and politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the citizen's united decision. a.c.l.u. will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit their free speech cause of the first amendment. i don't mind myself in agreement with the a.c.l.u. very often, but they've got to right. a c. lu and justice scalia appear to be on the same page and that's the parchment of our first amendment. i suspect much of what we'll hear today in the sorts of erroneous statements none other than president obama made about the united decision during his 2010 state of the union address in which he opined, quote, the supreme court reversed a century of law i believe will open the flood gates of special interest, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. unquote. every clause of that sentence was uncorrect. citizens united didn't reverse the sentry of law. and banned donations to campaigns and remain band. citizens united overturned 1990, spending by corporations which was itself a stark anomaly in our first amendment la you, the only time needed other than the need for corruption. second the quote flood gates of special interest weren't open. instead of dams preventing the free flow of speech were removed. and we may not always like that speech, but that's what the first amendment is about. as professor brad smith whom we'll hear from today explained new york times accused justices in citizens united much having paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and thrust back to the robber baron of the 19th century. and the same place that individuals who donate directly to candidates up to legally limited amounts. corporations can contribute well under 10% of political spending and voice is not dominant and the voters have a right to hear and third, citizens united said nothing about foreign corporations spending in political campaigns. obviously, there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation and even dare i say fake news circulated about the supreme court's citizens united decision, but i expect at least part of today's discussion may help us correct those interpretations and look forward to hearing the witnesses today. i want to apologize in advance before i >> yield back, a lot of us have multiple things going on this morning, we may be in and out, but it's know the a reflection of the importance of this earing. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. johnson. and mr. napper is not present. he has a statement he wants to introduce, but we thank chairman nadler for his participation in other ways. and mr. connell, a statement to enter? also no. we welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating. our first panel is going to be made up of members of congress who have worked hard on this issue. i will introduce each witness and after the introduction, i'll ask them for their testimony. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and you have five minutes and you have five minutes on the rules and the light. and the first witness represented ted deutch, represents the 22nd congressional district in the state of florida. chairman of the house ethics committees, chairman of the house foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east. north africa, and international terrorism. and a long time member of this house judiciary committee. he is a co-response sore or >> the prime sponsor of hjres2 that would overturn the decision and permit congress and the states to regulate campaign finance. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. before i begin my testimony, mr. chairman, i have the following documents to be included into the record. written testimony of bipartisan advocates from around the country cluck jeff clement, american promise. john putman, take back our republic. and tim rubens, as well as business executives, farmers, educators, ohio, michigan, tennessee, pennsylvania, kansas. thank you. >> thank you, chairman cohen and ranking member johnson and members. subcommittee. it has been 10 years since the supreme court's disastrous decision in citizens united and i am here today to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. in the 5-4 majority opinion, justice kennedy dismissed concerns about corruption caused by limitless spending. he wrote the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. but it has. the decision knocked down longstanding bipartisan campaign finance laws. now, there are three primary problems that have crystallized in the citizen united decade. first, extreme election spending destroys any hope of political equality in america. ... government institutions too often focus on their pet projects rather than on the public will. citizens united unleashed a torrent of billions of dollars into our elections. in the 20 years before the citizens united decision, $750 million of outside spending. in the tenure since, over $4.5 million. dark money groups are not required to disclose their donors. there's been a jump from one had $29 billion in dollars in the ten years before the decision to a billion dollars since. that can family so spent the most in our elections in the citizens united decade and a total of $1.2 billion. to put that into perspective, it would take 6 million americans spending $200 each to match the spending of these ten families. the flood of spending has distorted the agenda in congress and we now know it is sapping america's faith in our democracy and our government. 84% of americans think that special interests comes first year. last year the house passed the for the people's act that would require disclosure and in gerrymandering and make it easier to vote to protect voting rights. but statutory changes alone can't fix the problems created by citizens united. the democracy for all amendment would allow reasonable limits on campaign spending. americans want to get big money out of our elections. the amendment rejects the supreme court's claim that only quid pro quo bribes can corrupt politicians. out and it would level the playing field. would promote political equality and to protect the integrity of our government, institutions and elections. i want to thank the millions of advocates, hundreds of organizations to build the movement to get money out of politics. 20 states and over 800 local governments are calling for constitutional amendment. we wouldn't be her today without them. i want to thank vice chair raskin, representative mcgovern, senator udall and shaking for joining the introducing this bipartisan amendment or i i want to thank the 210 cosponsors including congressman chai paul and many members of the subcommittee for their support. and to be clear, this issue is not partisan among the american people. in 2018 the university of maryland reported that 75% of americans, three, three-quarters of all americans, support a constitutional amendment to allow for limits on election spending. that includes 85% of% of democrats, 70% of independents, and two-thirds of republicans. we must overturn citizens united to fulfill the ideals we affirmed at our nations founding your democracy for all amendment is necessary because your status in our democracy should not depend upon your status in our economy. whether you work three jobs and barely get by or your own three homes and you barely work, the eyes of our law, the eyes of our government and elections must see all americans as equal. this amendment >> would get money out of our elections, and most importantly, it will put voters back in charge. with that, mr. chairman, i appreciate the time and i yield back. >> thank you. well-timed and very well delivered. ms. jayapal is next, she is been a leader and congress for many, many progressive issues or chu represents the seventh congressional district of washington state. she's a member of the house judiciary committee which she sits on immigration and antitrust subcommittees. she seen you whip for the democratic caucus and cochair of the congressional progressive caucus. and the women's working group on immigration. she >> sponsor of h.j. res 48 i propose constitutional amendment divides the right to protected by the constitution of the united states are the rights protected of natural persons only. you are recognized for five minutes. thank you. >> chairman cohen, ranking member johnson and members of the subcommittee thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on my bill, house joint resolution 48, the we the people amendment. ten years ago the supreme court issued in its 5-4 landmark ruling in citizens united versus federal elections commission the implications of citizens united reach far beyond electoral politics and political donations. it has had a profound impact on our elections, our policymaking and our daily lives. that is why i am proud to sponsor h.j. res 48 the we the people amendment, a comprehensive solution to the citizens united decision. corporations and a few ultrarich have hijacked our election for far too long. the we the people amendment would put powerpack to everyday people but ending corporate personhood and clarifying that money does not equal free speech. speech. citizens united established political spending as protected speech under the first amendment of the constitution and further prevent the government from limiting corporations and other entities from spending money on candidates in elections. this established a dangerous precedent, a a corporate person that the we the people amendment reverses by specifying that the rights provided by the constitution are for real people, individuals, not corporations. the supreme court's decision apart the federal elections commission to all outside groups to accept unlimited political donations giving corporations and the ultrarich unrestricted power in elections. this created an enormous imbalance in power in which the average americans ability to influence elected officials is dwarfed by large corporations. as we in congress grapple with radical issues such as climate change, immigration and inequitable health care system, we must recognize the power that those with financial stakes in these industries such as the oil and gas, private prisons and insurance companies exert in our elections. we the people amendment would regulate political donations and mandate public disclosure to ensure transparency and public accountability. yet the impact of citizens united is not limited to the role of money in politics. the freedom of expression granted to corporations in citizens united led to the decision in hobby lobby. the court granted corporation begin busily to opt out of provisions of the affordable care act in order to deny basic healthcare to women employees on the basis that a corporation has religious liberty. it puts corporate rights over a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. and it is one more reason why we must limit corporate personhood beyond e