CWA Urges Congress to:
1. Overturn Citizens United
2. Clarify That Corporations Are Not “People”
3. Move Towards Public Financing of Federal Elections
4. Provide Greater Transparency of Political Spending
Reformers and Members of Congress have worked for decades to control, limit and restrict the influx of corporate cash into the political system. Progress has been made over the years but the 2009 Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court set those efforts a severe blow. Since then, CWA has joined with a broad range of organizations to ensure that our democratic system is not corrupted by a huge and unfettered influx of corporate cash and return it to “We the People,” not “We the Corporations.”
CWA urges Members of Congress to support efforts launched in Congress to address these problems – Constitutional Amendments to overturn Citizens United, address corporate “personhood, provide for greater transparency of political spending and to establish a system of public financing for federal elections – most of which are outlined in this document.
Constitutional Amendments that Overturn Citizens United and Address Corporate Personhood
(#1 & #2)
Problem: The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v FEC decision allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence candidate elections and basically gave big businesses new free speech rights. In fact, Mitt Romney even stated that “corporations are people.” As a result of the decision, corporate special interest money has drowned out the voices of hard-working Americans in many cases. While approximately $4 billion was spent in the 2010 elections, recent estimates predict that at least $11 billion will be spent in the 2012 elections.
Solution: In the current 112th Congress, more than 10 Constitutional amendments have been introduced that would regulate money in politics and help put voters back in charge of elections. Below is a list of Constitutional amendments that would overturn at least part of the Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United decision. Additionally, the second list includes several Constitutional amendments to clarify that only people are people and that corporations are not people. If you don’t see the name of your Member of Congress listed as a cosponsor, please encourage him/her to cosponsor.
#1: Constitutional amendments that overturn Citizens United
1. H.J. Res 72 (Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-OR): overturns Citizens United in so far as it grants Congress the power to regulate political money and in-kind contributions by corporations as well as individuals.
Cosponsors: Blumenauer (D-OR), Cohen (D-TN), DeFazio (D-OR)
2. H.J. Res 78 (Rep. Donna Edwards, D-MD): overturns Citizens United in so far as it restraints the rights of corporate entities to expend funds for political activity.
Cosponsors: Blumenauer (D-OR), Cicilline (D-RI), Cohen (D-TN), Conyers (D-MI), Filner (D-CA), Green (D-TX), Grijalva (D-AZ), Heinrich (D-NM), Hinchey (D-NY), Hirono (D-HI), Jackson Lee (D-TX), Jackson (D-IL), Johnson (D-GA), Keating (D-MA), Lee (D-CA), McDermott (D-WA), Moran (D-VA), Norton (D-DC), Olver (D-MA), Pingree (D-ME), Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Rush (D-IL), Ryan (D-OH), Slaughter (D-NY), Sutton (D-OH), Tierney (D-MA), Welch (D-VT)
3. H.J. Res 86 (Rep. Betty Sutton, D-OH)/S.J. Res 29 (Sen. Tom Udall, D-NM): overturns Citizens United in so far as it grants Congress the power to regulate political money and in-kind contributions by corporations and individuals.
House cosponsors: Cicilline (D-RI), Cohen (D-TN), DeFazio (D-OR), Eshoo (D-CA), Filner (D-CA), Heinrich (D-NM), Jackson (D-IL), McDermott (D-WA), McGovern (D-MA), Pingree (D-ME)
Senate cosponsors: Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Blumenthal (D-CT), Brown (D-OH), Conrad (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Merkley (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Sanders (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Whitehouse (D-RI)
4. H.J. Res 90 (Rep. Ted Deutch, D-FL)/S.J. Res 33 (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT): specifically overturns Citizens United by expressly excluding for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting corporate spending in all elections, and affirming the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
House cosponsors: Cohen (D-TN), Conyers (D-MI), DeFazio (D-OR), Ellison (D-MN), Farr (D-CA), Frank (D-MA), Fudge (D-OH), Grijalva (D-AZ), Hastings (D-FL), Jackson Lee (D-TX), Johnson (D-GA), Larsen (D-WA), Larson (D-CT), Lee (D-CA), Maloney (D-NY), McDermott (D-WA), Pallone (D-NJ), Pingree (D-ME), Rangel (D-NY), Sutton (D-OH), Van Hollen (D-MD), Welch (D-VT)
Senate cosponsors: Begich (D-AK)
5. H.J. Res 92 (Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN): narrowly overturns Citizens United in so far as it allows Congress and the states to regulate expenditures of funds for political activities by business organizations.
Current cosponsors: Grijalva (D-AZ), Lee (D-CA), Norton (D-DC)
#2: Constitutional amendments that address corporate personhood
1. H.J. Res 88 (Rep. Jim McGovern, D-MA): specifically addresses corporate personhood by stating that the words “people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.”
Cosponsors: Blumenauer (D-OR), Cicilline (D-RI), Cohen (D-TN), Cooper (D-TN), DeFazio (D-OR), Farr (D-CA), Filner (D-CA), Green (D-TX), Grijalva (D-AZ), Jackson (D-IL), Jones (R-NC), Olver (D-MA), Pingree (D-ME), Slaughter (D-NY), Welch (D-VT)
2. H.J. Res 90 (Rep. Ted Deutch, D-FL)/S.J. Res 33 (Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT): specifically addresses corporate personhood by expressly stating that the “rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.”
House cosponsors: Cohen (D-TN), Conyers (D-MI), DeFazio (D-OR), Ellison (D-MN), Farr (D-CA), Frank (D-MA), Fudge (D-OH), Grijalva (D-AZ), Hastings (D-FL), Jackson Lee (D-TX), Johnson (D-GA), Larsen (D-WA), Larson (D-CT), Lee (D-CA), Maloney (D-NY), McDermott (D-WA), Pallone (D-NJ), Pingree (D-ME), Rangel (D-NY), Sutton (D-OH), Van Hollen (D-MD), Welch (D-VT)
Senate cosponsors: Begich (D-AK)
#3: Campaign Finance: Fair Elections Now Act
Problem: Campaign costs, like college tuition, only goes up. In fact, the escalating cost of candidate campaigns for local, state, and federal offices existed before the Supreme Court 2010 decision in Citizens United v FEC. The cost of an average winning race for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 was $407,556. Two decades later, winning candidates spent, on average, $1,439,997, nearly a four-fold increase. The average cost of winning Senate campaigns also rose precipitously over twenty years, increasing from $3,870,621 in 1990 to $9,782,702 in 2010. Lawmakers lacking personal wealth or access to those with deep pockets are, therefore, under constant pressure to raise money for their campaigns.
Solution: Under the Fair Elections Now Act, a robust public financing system using small donations and matching funds, participating Congressional candidates would be able to run for office without relying on large contributions. Such a system would free lawmakers from constant fundraising in order to focus more on the interests of their constituents instead of special interests.
Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, HR 1826, in March 2010 in the 111th Congress. The bill garnered 165 cosponsors and the bill passed out of the House Administration Committee on a party-line voice vote on September 23, 2010. The House went into recess for the November 2010 elections before the bill could get a floor vote. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced a similar bill, S 752, with 24 cosponsors.
In the current 112th Congress, Reps. Larson and Jones have reintroduced the bill, now HR 1404, with 79 cosponsors. As the House is under Republican control, there are no plans for the House Administration Committee to hold a hearing on the bill. Sen. Durbin also reintroduced his bill, now S 750, with 14 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights held a hearing on
S 750 in April 2011.
Cosponsors of H.R. 1404 –House Fair Elections Now Act:
Ackerman (NY-5)
Baldwin (WI-2)
Blumenauer (OR-3)
Boswell (IA-3)
Braley (IA-1)
Butterfield (NC-1)
Capuano (MA-8)
Cicilline (RI-1)
Clay (MO-1)
Cleaver (MO-5)
Cohen (TN-9)
Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Cooper (TN-5)
Costello (IL-12)
Courtney (CT-2)
D Davis (IL-7)
S Davis (CA-53)
DeLauro (CT-3)
Deutch (FL-19)
Doyle (PA-14)
Edwards (MD-4)
Ellison (MN-5)
Engel (NY-17)
Eshoo (CA-14)
Farr (CA-17)
Filner (CA-51)
Frank (MA-4)
Grijalva (AZ-7)
Heinrich (NM-1)
Himes (CT-4)
Hinchey (NY-22)
Hirono (HI-2)
Holt (NJ-12)
Honda (CA-15)
Israel (NY-2)
Jackson, Jr.(IL-2)
Jones, Jr.(NC-3)
Kildee (MI-5)
Kind (WI-3)
Kissell (NC-8)
Kucinich (OH-10)
Langevin (RI-2)
Lee (CA-9)
Lewis (GA-5)
Lipinski (IL-3)
Loebsack (IA-2)
Lowey (NY-18)
Lujan (NM-3)
Maloney (NY-14)
Matsui (CA-5)
McCollum (MN-4)
McDermott (WA-7)
McGovern (MA-3)
Michaud (ME-2)
Miller (CA-7)
Moran (VA-8)
Murphy (CT-5)
Nadler (NY-8)
Norton (DC)
Olver (MA-1)
Peters (MI-9)
Pingree (ME-1)
Polis (CO-2)
Price (NC-4)
Reyes (TX-16)
Rothman (NJ-9)
Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Sarbanes (MD-3)
Schakowsky (IL-9)
Sherman (CA-27)
Smith (WA-9)
Stark (CA-13)
Tonko (NY-21)
Tsongas (MA-5)
Walz (MN-1)
Watt NC-12)
Welch (VT)
Woolsey (CA-6)
Yarmuth (KY-3)
Cosponsors of S. 750 – Senate Fair Elections Now Act
Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD) Franken (MN) Harkin (IA) Kerry (MA) Klobuchar (MN) Leahy (VT) McCaskill (MO) Menendez (NJ) Merkley (OR)
Mikulski (MD) Sanders (VT) Shaheen (NH) Tester (MT)
#4: Campaign Finance: Disclosure and Transparency
Problem: On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that the government cannot limit independent, political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The 5-4 decision overruled two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations. The House Democrats appointed Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) to lead their efforts to mitigate the ruling.
Solution: In April 2010, Rep. Van Hollen unveiled the DISCLOSE Act to ensure disclosure and transparency in the political process. The DISCLOSE Act required that backers and top donors for such advertisements be clearly identified, with the leaders of sponsoring groups appearing on camera in TV ads. Some of the other provisions included: preventing organizations from coordinating their campaign-related expenditures with candidates and parties, banning pay-to-play by government contractors, and preventing foreign influence in U.S. elections.
The DISCLOSE Act passed the House on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. The Senate Democrats were not able to break a GOP filibuster on DISCLOSE for the remainder of the 111th Congress.
Neither the House nor Senate Democrats have reintroduced the DISCLOSE bill in the 112th Congress. Rumors swirled in Spring 2011 that President Obama would sign an executive order to carry out many of the provisions in the DISCLOSE bill, such as requiring all companies bidding for federal contracts to disclose money spent on political campaign efforts, including dollars forwarded through associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other private groups. The executive order has not yet been issued, but the clamor for the president to issue such an order has been revived following the explosion of Super PACs in the GOP presidential primary.