HEARING WITNESSES OFFER BROAD

CRITICISM OF SUPREME COURT CITIZENS

UNITED DECISION

Unprecedented judicial activism viewed as undermining rights of individual voters

Washington, DC (February 3, 2010):  House Administration Chairman Robert A. Brady convened a hearing today to review the broad ranging implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United vs FEC case.  The conservative-controlled Supreme Court’s decision overturned more than 100 years of campaign finance law and created a context within which corporations and other entities can directly fund political messaging. The decision puts corporations on an equal level with individuals in exercising Freedom of Speech rights, a direct contradiction to years of established legal precedent.

In his opening statement, Chairman Brady provided vivid examples of disastrous consequences to the recent ruling. “Imagine Wall Street bankers creating political campaigns to target Members as we debated the TARP Plan,” said Brady.  “Does anyone think that giving the Gordon Geckos of the world access to corporate funds to wage political campaigns makes our democracy stronger? I doubt it.  Imagine foreign investors waging political campaigns during negotiations over American trade policy…I am hopeful that we will be able to reach across party lines to ensure that, at a minimum, corporations - particularly those that are foreign-controlled - cannot exert undue influence on American elections.”

“The struggle to gain equal voting rights in our nation for citizens of color has been a long and painful one,” said Judith A. Browne-Dianis, Co-Director of the Advancement Project. “People have suffered, bled, and died to ensure that individuals can express their voices equally through the ballot box. Equating the rights of corporations to the rights of individuals in an election context defies logic and trivializes the movement to gain the right to vote that was secured by the blood of too many Americans.”

Mary Wilson, President of the League of Women Voters, urged Congress to develop and advance legislation to address problems created by the Supreme Court decisions. “ The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC now allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates at every level of government,” said Wilson.  “This throws out the protections against direct corporate and union spending in elections that have served our democracy for decades. It has given the green light for corporations, including foreign corporations, to intervene directly in elections – from the local school board or zoning commission to Congress and the President of the United States -- taking the power away from voters.”

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law proposed potential legislative strategies “to restore the primacy of voters in our elections and the integrity of the electoral process.” Recommendations included promoting public funding of political campaigns, modernization of  voter registration processes, advancement of a “voter-centric” view of the First Amendment and modification of “securities laws to give shareholders the power to authorize future corporate political expenditures and to require corporations to report past political spending to shareholders on a periodic basis.” 

“American shareholders currently lack the ability to object or consent to political spending by American corporations,” said Torres-Spelliscy. “Indeed, because of gaps between corporate and campaign finance law, U.S. corporations can make political expenditures without giving shareholders any notice of the spending either before or after the fact. As beneficial owners of corporations, investors should be given the opportunity to approve corporate

political spending through a shareholder vote.”

“Citizens United has shifted the balance of power in political contests away from candidates running for office and towards corporations and unions seeking to advance their policy agendas,” said Robert D. Lenhard, former Chair of the Federal Election Commission. “Candidates are now far more vulnerable to unexpected negative ad campaigns, funded by corporations and unions either directly or through non-profit groups.”

In closing, Chairman Brady reiterated his focus on developing legislation to ensure the primacy of the American voter. “Today we begin the process.  This is the committee of jurisdiction over federal elections so make no mistake: any and all legislation that defines federal elections in the wake of Citizens United will be considered by this committee.  That is our responsibility and we intend to meet it.”

# # #

Chairman Robert A. Brady

“Defining the Future of Campaign Finance in an Age of Supreme Court Activism”

1310 Longworth House Office Building

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

In his State of the Union speech in 1905, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt said “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”  On January 21, 2010, in a single, sweeping opinion, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court threw out nearly 100 years of laws and destroyed decades of common sense legislation and regulation designed to adhere to that basic principle.

Imagine Wall Street bankers creating political campaigns to target Members as we debated the TARP Plan.  Does anyone think that giving the Gordon Geckos of the world access to corporate funds to wage political campaigns makes our democracy stronger? I doubt it.  Imagine foreign investors waging political campaigns during negotiations over American trade policy. 

I am hopeful that we will be able to reach across party lines to insure that, at a minimum, corporations - particularly those that are foreign-controlled - cannot exert undue influence on American elections.  Strengthening disclosure requirements, protecting the interests of shareholders, and safeguarding against foreign influence are three areas where we can start.

Many Members of Congress have already acted, including Mr. Capuano, who has introduced the Shareholder Protection Act. Mr. Capuano’s bill requires corporate CEO’s to disclose to their investors or shareholders how corporate treasury funds are being spent to influence elections.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama said that his Supreme Court decision will “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” At least one justice seems to believe that this is simply not true.

I say today to Justice Alito: Prove it. Prove that Citizens United will not lead to an election system that is, in the words of the President, “bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

Today we begin the process.  This is the committee of jurisdiction over federal elections so make no mistake: any and all legislation that defines federal elections in the wake of Citizens United will be considered by this committee.  That is our responsibility and we intend to meet it.

To this end, this committee will conduct hearings that allow for a full airing of all viewpoints. We understand that at the intersection of free speech and federal election law, opinions diverge and passions flair.  This hearing will, therefore, not be constrained by the 5-minute rule; members will be given the opportunity to fully air their concerns.  But this committee will not, in its relaxation of the rules, be taken advantage of.  We respect all opinions but we are also aware that at the end of the day our constituents expect us to act.

# # #

 For More Information:

Kyle D. Anderson

Communications Director

Committee on House Administration

1309 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-6157

Direct Office: 202.225.7476

Mobile: 202.384.3305

# # #