U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–623 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–935 

THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT: A 

COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS UNITED 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–15 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 33 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 29 

Simpson, Hon. Alan, former U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, Cody, 

Wyoming ............................................................................................................... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Mitchell, Cleta, Partner, Foley & Lardner, Washington, DC .............................. 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Youn, Monica, Senior Counsel, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, New York, New York ................. 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted by Senator Graham for Cleta Mitchell ............................... 73 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Cleta Mitchell to questions submitted by Senator Graham .......... 74 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Civic 

Leaders for Fair Elections ................................................................................... 75 

Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Government Leaders for Fair Elections .................................................................... 76 

Americans for Campaign Reform, Concord, New Hampshire: Overview, Building the Movement for Reform ............................................................................. 77 

American Constitution Society, Monica Youn, Washington, DC, June 2010, 

Brief ....................................................................................................................... 78

Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform? Notes/Bibliography .......................... 99 

Additional Document for the Record, Senator Lindsey Graham, April 12, 

2011, Web Site link .............................................................................................. 107 

Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 108 

AFSCME, Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation, Washington, DC, 

April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................................................ 109 

American Sustainable Business Council, David Levine, Co-Founder, Executive 

Director, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter ................................................ 110 

Lake Research Partners, Celinda Lake, President, Washington, DC, April 

18, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 111 

Boston Globe, ‘‘The High Cost of Private Campaign Funding,’’ by Daniel 

Weeks, November 19, 2009, article ..................................................................... 113 

Center for Competitive Politics, Sean Parnell, President, Alexandria, Virginia, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 114 

Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI), Lawrence S. Ottinger, 

President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................ 120 
Page

IV 

CREW, Melanie Sloan, Executive Director, Washington, DC, September 21, 

2010, letter ............................................................................................................ 121 

Democracy Matters, Joan Mandle, Executive Director, Hamilton, New York, 

April 7, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 123 

Democracy for America, Jim Dean, Chair, South Burlington, Vermont, letter .. 124 

Demos, Miles Rapoport, President, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ...... 125 

Detroit News, May 8, 2010, article ......................................................................... 127 

U.S. News, Noteworthy Facts and Figures Related to Money and Politics, 

Fred Wertheimer, April 11, 2011, fact sheet ..................................................... 128 

Common Cause, Bob Edgar, President, and Sarah Dufendach, Vice President 

for Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, April 11, 2011, letter ....................... 129 

Members of Congress and Time Spent Fundraising, report ................................ 131 

Main Street Alliance, Sam Blair, Network Director, Seattle, Washington, 

April 8, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 133 

NAACP, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Senior Vice President for Advocacy 

and Policy, Washington, DC, April 7, 2011, letter ............................................ 134 

Public Advocate for the City of New York, December 2010, report ..................... 135 

Progress Now, Aniello Alioto, National Political Director, St. Paul, Minnesota, 

April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................................................ 151 

Lioz, Adam, Program Director and Counsel, Progressive Future, Washington, 

DC, letter .............................................................................................................. 152 

Progressives United, Russell D. Feingold, former U.S. Senator, Founder, Middleton, Wisconsin, April 11, 2011, letter ............................................................ 153 

Public Campaign, Nick Nyhart, President and CEO, Washington, DC, April 

12, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 154 

Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Washington, DC, 

April 6, 2011, letter .............................................................................................. 156 

Public Citizen, David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division and Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Washington, DC, 

April 12, 2011, statement .................................................................................... 157 

Rock the Vote, Thomas Bates, Vice President, Civic Engagement, Washington, 

DC, April 8, 2011, letter ...................................................................................... 161 

Roll Call, June 23, 2010, article ............................................................................. 162 

Democracy21, Fred Wertheimer, President, Washington, DC, April 2011, fact 

sheet ...................................................................................................................... 163

Sierra Club, Michael Brune, Executive Director, Washington, DC, April 11, 

2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 168 

U.S. News and World Report, ‘‘Taxpayer Checkoff Protects Against Corruption,’’ April 11, 2011, article ................................................................................ 169 

USA Today, ‘‘Biggest Election Winner: Big Money,’’ November 5, 2010, article .......................................................................................................................... 171 

US Action, Jeffrey Blum, Executive Director, Washington, DC, April 5, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 172 

The Washington Post, ‘‘A Republican Tradition Goes Awry,’’ February 5, 2010, 

article .................................................................................................................... 173

The Washington Post, ‘‘WHITMAN: Too Much Money in Politics,’’ October 

5, 2010, article ...................................................................................................... 174 
(1) 

THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT: A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS 

UNITED 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

Room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. 

Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Franken, and 

Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights will come to order, 

and we will examine today the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2010 

decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a landmark ruling that by all 

indications has dramatically changed the nature of financing in 

Congressional campaigns. 

We will also discuss the Fair Elections Now Act, a comprehensive 

proposal which I have introduced to fundamentally reform the way 

that these Congressional campaigns are financed. 

Senator Graham, unfortunately, is unable to be with us today. 

He had to be back home in his State, but I want to thank him in 

advance for his tremendous bipartisan cooperation on these hearings. 

I am going to make a few remarks, and then if a Ranking Member is here from the Republican side, I will certainly give them an 

opportunity to speak to this issue before the hearing commences. 

On November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln stood before 10,000 

Americans to formally dedicate the Soldiers National Cemetery. He 

was not the main speaker on that day. That honor belonged to Edward Everett, the former Secretary of State, who spoke for more 

than two hours. When President Lincoln was given a chance to 

speak, he spoke for about two minutes. He delivered the Gettysburg Address, which has become one of the most famous speeches 

in American history. 

He paid respect to the soldiers who died at Gettysburg. He challenged their survivors to uphold the principle for which they had 
2 

died: a ‘‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’’ 

My guess is that President Lincoln would be certainly surprised, 

if not disappointed, to look at the expanded role of special interests 

in Congress today. 

Senators and Congressmen are forced to spend so much time 

chasing campaign donations that Congress has become more responsive to lobbyists and corporate donors than it is to everyday 

Americans. It is personally troubling to me, if not embarrassing, 

how much time we spend behind closed doors talking about raising 

money for campaigns. 

Some argue that our government of, by, and for the people has 

morphed into one that is bought and paid for by special interests. 

Our fellow Americans see the corrosive impact that special interest money has on our political system, and they do not like it one 

bit. Recent surveys confirm that Americans are losing faith in Congress: Eight out of 10 Americans surveyed in February believe that 

Members of Congress are ‘‘controlled’’ by the people who fund their 

campaigns; seven out of 10 Americans believe that ‘‘most Members 

of Congress [are] willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution.’’ 

Let me be clear: The overwhelming majority of people serving in 

American politics in both political parties are good, honest, hardworking people who are guided by the best of intentions. 

The problem is that even the best of us are caught in a terrible, 

corrupting system. This system creates the perception among average Americans that politicians are beholden to big money interests. 

The situation has been made worse by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. In that decision, which ignored decades of 

Court precedent, a divided Supreme Court held that corporations 

and unions can spend as much money as they want to influence 

Congressional elections. 

That is exactly what happened after the Citizens United decision 

in the election of 2010. 

Last year, a record $4 billion was spent on federal elections by 

outside organizations, political parties, and Congressional campaigns. 

Outside groups spent 500 percent more on Congressional campaigns than they did just four years earlier. 

The amount of money these lobbyists and corporations are willing to spend is going to continue to increase dramatically, and 

more and more of it will be done in secret. We will not know the 

sources of the money that is being spent in these campaigns. 

Big money donors, corporations, and lobbyists are spending tens 

of millions of dollars to elect candidates. It is not just simply because of their love for our system of government. So no one should 

be surprised, as you go out here in the corridors of this building, 

to see who is walking the halls, hoping to cash in on their investments. 

This flood of campaign spending from big corporations and special interest lobbyists is drowning out the voice of everyday Americans and crippling Congress’ ability to solve problems. 

The Supreme Court may strike another blow in favor of special 

interests this term when it takes up the Arizona campaign finance 
3 

law, enacted by the people of Arizona. Clearly, it is time for Congress to step in. 

Transparency is critical. We need to know which special interests 

are donating to candidates and how much they are giving. But our 

system is in desperate need of even more comprehensive reform. 

That is why I introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, with 12 of 

my Senate colleagues. Our bill will allow candidates to get out of 

the fundraising business and focus on being Senators and Congressmen. 

The voluntary system created by the Fair Elections Now Act will 

allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without raising a 

dime, not a penny, from special interest lobbyists or corporations. 

Qualified candidates will receive grants, matching funds, and television vouchers to help them run their campaigns. 

In return, the candidates voluntarily agree to only accept cam- paign donations of $100 or less from citizens in their own State. 

Fair Elections candidates will be able to stand up and publicly 

say, ‘‘I did not take a dime from special interest groups. I am beholden to no one but you as a voter, and I will represent your interests if I am elected.’’ 

Now, they will be able to say that. Those who do not engage in 

the system will not. Those who do not engage in the system probably will have more money to spend. But I am betting on the American people when it comes down to this. If you have people who 

stand up and honestly say, ‘‘I am here because of small donations 

and I did not get the money from special interest groups. My opponent went the other way and spent a lot more money. You are 

going to see that person on TV and hear him on radio a lot more. 

Take your pick.’’ I think that is a fair match. 

Not one penny of taxpayer money will be used to fund this system. We would pay for it by asking the businesses and corporations 

who earn more than $10 million a year in federal contracts to pay 

a fee of one-half of one percent, up to $500,000 per year. 

Incidentally, these same corporations are now usually the owners 

of big political action committees which spend dramatically more 

money than that on campaigns. So this is not a new hardship or 

burden to these major corporations and businesses. 

This Fair Elections Now Act will amplify the voice of everyday 

Americans and, I hope, will break some of the gridlock in Washington. 

You might wonder why it is so hard to cut a defense program 

from the Pentagon or why Congress cannot get rid of tax benefits 

for certain corporations and special interests. The answer, I am 

afraid, is very clear. 

For every program, tax break, or government contract, there is 

usually a lobbyist on deck ready to pounce when their client’s pet 

project is threatened. There is nothing wrong with that. That is 

part of our constitutional process, petitioning Congress. 

Members of Congress thinking about cutting the program, 

though, often have to look into the eyes of the same lobbyist who 

is writing a check that evening or the previous day to their campaigns. It is a vicious cycle in a corrupting system. It needs to end. 

Lobbyists and special interest donors will not have that kind of 

influence over candidates who participate in the Fair Elections sys-
4 

tem. Restoring a government of, by, and for the people requires reforming the way we finance Congressional campaigns. The Fair 

Elections Now Act is the vehicle, I hope, that will start that conversation. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

I am going to start with the panel here, and as I said, if a minority Member of the Committee appears, I will give them an opportunity for an opening statement. 

We welcome this panel of three. Each witness will have five minutes for an opening statement, and as is the custom of this Committee, I begin by swearing the witnesses in, so if you would all 

please stand and raise your right hands. 

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do. 

Ms. YOUN. I do. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let the record reflect that all three of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Now, the first witness is no stranger to these halls. His name is 

Alan Simpson. Alan Simpson, the former Republican Senator from 

Wyoming, is co-chair of Americans for Campaign Reform, a nonpartisan organization he co-chairs with Senators Bradley, Bob 

Kerrey, and Warren Rudman. He was also—and I know very 

well—the co-chair of President Obama’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. 

Al Simpson was a member of the Wyoming State Legislature for 

13 years, served in the Senate for three terms, and for 10 of those 

years he had the same job I have—Assistant Majority Leader. After 

leaving the Senate, Senator Simpson was a visiting lecturer and director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. 

Kennedy School of Government. 

I did not know that Harvard was a recognized institution in Wyoming, but now that you have bridged that, I—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is a beautiful thing. 

Chairman DURBIN. It is a beautiful thing. 

In 2000, he returned to his alma mater, real alma mater, University of Wyoming, to teach. He is a partner in the Wyoming law firm 

of Burg Simpson and a consultant in the Washington, DC, firm 

Tongour-Simpson Group. 

Senator Simpson, I thank you for joining us today. It is an honor, 

and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN SIMPSON, FORMER U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING, CODY, WYOMING 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Lindsey, wherever he is, 

let me just say a word. I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

The last part about Tongour-Simpson is one arrest, I am not involved with them at all. I never have been a lobbyist. That would 

have prevented me from going on the floor and seeing my chums 

from both sides of the aisle. 
5 

I want to say a word about this Chairman. We served together 

on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. 

This is a splendid person who took heat and voted for the final report, and I remember his last remarks. When he finished voting, 

he said his son called and said, ‘‘Thanks, Dad.’’ And that is what 

this is about, what we do over there. We are doing it for 15 reasons. Erskine and I, he has got nine grandchildren and I have six. 

Well, enough of that. 

But my father was in World War I. He was a veteran. He had 

a phrase that fits Senator Durbin: ‘‘He has got more guts than a 

government mule.’’ I will leave it at that for you to discern how 

deeply that goes. 

And then to see Cleta over here, whom I have not seen for years, 

and to meet with Monica, what a pleasure. 

Well, I see the button, and I know that you are very difficult 

when it goes over five minutes. You have covered who is on this 

group Americans for Campaign Reform, John Rauh and Dan 

Weeks—amazing people—but we have to do something here. This 

is really an extension of what you and I did on the Commission. 

The reason the gridlock is there, is when we discovered 

$1,100,000,000,000 in tax expenditures, which is just spending by 

another name, or earmarks, it is because of the power of the lobbyists and the power of the vested interests. 

So, anyway, growing older has a way of focusing on things you 

leave behind, and when I take stock of the country that my children and grandchildren will have, I shudder because the causes of 

concern are many. I will not pretend to offer them all. 

There is an old guy in Wyoming—he died—very wealthy, and 

they said, ‘‘How much did he leave? ’’ And an old cowboy said, ‘‘All 

of it.’’ Which is about what it is. And we are going to leave nothing 

for these young people, and part of it is because of this twisted system. 

Well, we will never get things right, and I did serve, as you did, 

as assistant Majority and Minority Leader under Bob Dole. I cannot tell you the times that we would be in the midst of debate at 

night, and Bob would say, ‘‘We are going to have a vote at about 

10 o’clock.’’ And they would say, ‘‘I have to be in Detroit at 10 

o’clock,’’ or ‘‘I have to be in L.A. at 10 o’clock because I have a fundraiser.’’ 

So Bob and I would finally say, ‘‘Well, it might be a great idea 

to recall that you came here to legislate and could you that? 

Wouldn’t that be wonderful? You could come here and do what you 

get paid to do? ’’ And that is called legislate, not go to the cubicle 

and raise money with a Rolodex and spend half your day in there 

for your next campaign. 

Absolutely absurd, and you have seen it, and I have seen it. The 

system does not work. You do not have time to visit with colleagues. You do not have time to speak with each other. You do not 

have time to commingle in social events. You are stuck—stuck in 

a trough of raising bucks. 

And then, of course, the Supreme Court decision is a hammer. 

I do not get it. I do not understand how you can have ‘‘corporate 

personhood.’’ That is really from Oz. But so it is, and it will clog 

the system in ways that you and I will never know—and already 
6 

is. So few people give of the private sector because the others crowd 

it out. 

Well, I see I have one minute, this yellow light. I have this beautiful testimony. I scribbled all over it on your behalf. I came here 

on my own expense. What in the world am I doing here? 

No, I did not mean that. I can leave that out. This is going to 

go into the record, anyway. 

Ah, yes, why is it that the same Congress that authorizes the VA 

to negotiate discounts on pharmaceuticals has made it illegal for 

the government to negotiate such discounts for millions more of our 

elderly and disabled? 

Why is it that Congress continues to approve the multi-billiondollar contracts when the Pentagon does not even want the equipment? Why do public employee pensions often exceed the private 

sector equivalents? 

Why is it that all of these issues and more, which together account for hundreds of billions in tax expenditures, have not 

factored more strongly into our current budget debate? It is absolutely—we all know what is happening, all of us. All of us were 

here. 

So I think this is a very good bill, and I think the financing of 

it is a very good measure. I think that is good. If you figure out 

what they have spent with PACs, what they would be putting in 

to fund this effort would be certainly nothing excessive. 

But in our final report, which you signed on to, Erskine and I 

observed, as you did, ‘‘In the weeks and months to come, countless 

advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily and savagely and heavily to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and 

common purpose. The national interest, not special interests, must 

prevail.’’ 

So, in the future of our country, I think if it is going to continue 

as great Nation, you have got to get a handle on this, which is directly responsible for the gridlock we see every day in the news. 

I thank you very much, and go forth and multiply. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I will have some questions. 

Cleta Mitchell is a partner at Foley & Lardner and a member of 

the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election 

Law. We are honored that she has joined us today. 

Ms. Mitchell serves on the Board of Directors of the National 

Rifle Association. She is the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation and President of Republican National Lawyers Association. She has served as legal counsel to the National 

Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican 

Congressional Committee. 

Ms. Mitchell is a former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. She served as director and general counsel of the 

Term Limits Legal Institute. She has litigated cases in State and 

federal courts nationwide, served as co-counsel in U.S. Supreme 

Court cases on Congressional term limits and the 2002 federal 

campaign finance law. She received her Bachelor’s degree and Juris 

Doctorate degrees from the University of Oklahoma. 

Ms. Mitchell, please proceed with your testimony. 
7 

STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL, PARTNER, FOLEY & LARDNER, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for me 

to be with you this morning. My written testimony, of course, will 

be made part of the record. I want to just touch on a few highlights. 

First, this hearing is entitled ‘‘Fair Elections Now Act: A Reasoned Response to Citizens United.’’ I want to talk about Citizens 

United because I think there has been much that has been said 

about it which is not based on fact. 

Citizens United was actually a return to the jurisprudence of the 

Supreme Court prior to two aberrant decisions, and in the Citizens 

United decision, the Supreme Court cited 22 cases going back 60 

years of Supreme Court precedent which establishes that corporations have First Amendment rights. 

There is a very real body of law going back more than a century 

which established that corporations under American law have 

personhood or citizenship rights. So to say that Citizens United is 

somehow a departure is not correct. 

What Citizens United did was restore the precedent that existed 

prior to 1990 when the Supreme Court in the decision Austin v. 

Michigan Chamber of Commerce departed from its historic ruling 

that corporations—that entities, whether it is corporations or political parties or individuals, have a right to make independent expenditures. 

Citizens United is not about contributions. In fact, the Supreme 

Court specifically said in that decision that all of the body of law 

related to contributions to federal candidates were undisturbed. 

What Citizens United said and what it stands for is the proposition 

that corporations do have First Amendment rights, as had been the 

Court’s decision since the early 1950s, and that the government 

and Congress have no constitutional authority to deny speech 

rights to any source simply because of the form of that source or 

the speaker. That is what the Court said, is that Congress was essentially putting itself in a position of granting speech licenses and 

that that does not meet the First Amendment test. 

I want to turn specifically to the bill before the Subcommittee, 

Senate bill 749, and I want to call to everyone’s attention that this 

Friday there will be a national referendum on this legislation. Millions of Americans will go to the polls and will cast their ballots 

on whether or not they believe in public funding for federal candidates. When they file their tax returns this Friday at their local 

post offices, they will vote overwhelmingly that their answer is no. 

The only public funding mechanism we have today for federal 

candidates is the Presidential financing system, and fewer and 

fewer and fewer Americans participate in that system. Ever since 

Congress tripled the amount of money that people could check off 

on their income tax to give to that system, the total amount of the 

funding provided by the American people has gone down. The last 

year for which there are any statistics, which is 2007, only 8.5 percent of the American people participated. So I think that to say 

that this is something the American people want is to not look at 

the facts. They vote on it every year. 
8 

Now, specifically with regard to this bill, this bill was first introduced in 2007 in much the same form, and that is why it is a little 

odd to me to say that this is a response to Citizens United because 

this is the third Congress in which this bill has been introduced. 

But it was before the 2008 and the 2010 cycles, and I want to 

quickly share some statistics with you about Senate campaigns in 

2010. I am not even going to talk about the 2008 cycle where President Obama opted out of the public financing system and raised 

and spent substantially more, $750 million to John McCain’s $84 

million in the general election, that he got from the government. 

Anyone who is running for President now who would seek to participate in the Presidential financing system probably is not qualified to be President. 

But I want to call to your attention what happened in 2010. 

When you say that you need to have some kind of government program so people can have a chance to run, I want to call to your 

attention just some Senate races last year. Let us start with Harry Reid. He raised and spent $26 million 

in his Committee for re-election. Sharron Angle, his Republican opponent, raised and spent $27 million. Her third quarter report—I 

represented her, and so I had to make arrangements to file the report because Senate candidates do not file electronically. When we 

delivered her third quarter report, it was 9,112 pages; it filled 

three banker’s boxes, was three feet high, four feet long, and 

weighed 103 pounds. She raised $14.4 million in the third quarter 

alone from 194,000 donors, with an average contribution of $73. 

The average contribution to her entire campaign was $92. And that 

is but just one example. 

Senator Specter was a co-author of this bill in prior Congresses. He raised and spent $15 million to lose his primary campaign to 

Joe Sestak, who raised and spent $6 million. And I could go on and 

on. 

The fact is the bill is not needed. It is an anachronism. It is an 

idea whose time has come and gone. And I would urge the Committee not to move forward with the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell. 

Our next witness is Monica Youn. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Ms. YOUN. That is right. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Monica Youn directs the Brennan 

Center Campaign Finance Reform Project. She was previously in 

private practice and served as a law clerk to Judge John T. Noonan 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She received her 

J.D. degree from Yale Law School, her Master’s in philosophy from 

Oxford, where she was a Rhodes scholar, and her B.A. from Princeton. She has litigated campaign finance and election law issues in 

State and Federal courts. Ms. Youn was co-lead counsel for intervenor defendants in McComish v. Bennett, the Arizona public financing case currently pending before the Supreme Court. She is 

the editor of the forthcoming ‘‘Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United.’’ 

Ms. Youn, the floor is yours. 
9 

STATEMENT OF MONICA YOUN, SENIOR COUNSEL, DEMOCRACY PROGRAM, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW 

YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. YOUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

In the Citizens United decision last year, five Justices of the Supreme Court took a look at our federal elections and decided that 

the real problem is that corporations just do not have enough influence over our politics. 

Now, whatever you may think of this diagnosis, we are now 

starting to feel the results of the Supreme Court’s prescription. For 

the first time in 100 years, we have unlimited spending out of corporate treasuries in federal elections. 

So let us look at what happened in 2010. The first thing that we 

saw there was we saw a massive rise in outside spending, the type 

of spending enabled by Citizens United out of corporate treasuries. We saw $280 million in independent spending, which is a doubling 

of the figure from 2006, and that figure is widely expected to double again in 2012. We are seeing an escalating arms race of fundraising. 

The second phenomenon we saw was an increase in the darkness 

of our politics. More than a third of the independent spending in 

the past election was dark. We have no idea who funded these campaign advertisements or what their agendas might be. I mean, we 

have some glimpses that are provided by independent investigations. 

For example, the New York Times determined that the American 

Future Fund, which spent $10 million running ads about, for example, the Ground Zero mosque, was, in fact, funded almost entirely 

by the ethanol industry, and the true target of that ad campaign 

was to target Committee members sitting on agriculture policy and 

energy policy committees. 

We also saw in the last election the rise of what are called super 

PACs, which are PACs that are able to accept unlimited contributions from corporate treasuries and from individuals. Not that they 

can accept corporate contributions, we can’t know if the PAC contribution is coming from corporate or its innocuous conduit 

Now, you can think of these super PACS and similar groups as 

sort of the Godiva chocolates of fundraising. They are very rich; 

they are very dark; and you have no way of knowing what is inside 

them. 

These super PACs poured tens of millions of dollars into the midterm elections, and in 2012 they have pledged to make that hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Now, why is this all a problem? Why is this escalation of especially independent spending a problem for our democracy? 

Corporate independent spending poses a major risk of corruption 

because it is functioning as the new soft money. Corporations view 

it as an investment, a quid pro quo to buy favorable treatment 

from elected officials. 

For example, my testimony details the example of an Indian 

tribe in Kansas who went to a legislator and said, ‘‘Look, we will 

run an ad campaign supporting you if you will vote in favor of our 

casino.’’ 
10 

We also detail a North Carolina example where a farmers lobby 

went to a legislator, ran him a series of smear campaign ads, and 

said, ‘‘You had better switch your vote about the farm subsidies, or 

we will run this smear campaign against you.’’ Of course, the 

smear campaign had nothing to do with the farm subsidies. It was 

simply character assassination. 

It is no wonder that, as Senator Durbin outlined so dramatically, 

the American public is experiencing a crisis of accountability. So let 

us talk about how Fair Elections can help. 

Fair Elections allows candidates to make a choice. Who are they 

going to be accountable to? Are they going to be accountable to the 

big money backers, the middlemen? Or are they going to be accountable to the electorate at large? 

Fair Elections also incentivizes political participation. The point 

is not to get money out of politics. The point is to expand the field 

of those who have a stake in our political campaigns. 

Ms. Mitchell gave you some examples of a couple of instances 

where there was some grass-roots fundraising, but I have to tell 

you, that is not the norm. Currently, only one out of 400 voters 

contributes to Congressional elections. In the past cycle alone, lobbyists and other DC-based contributors provided almost $300 million of Congressional campaign spending. That is more than the 

total contribution of 32 States combined. 

So if only one out of 400 is currently contributing to political 

campaigns, Fair Elections is about the other 399. Other jurisdictions who have adopted public financing have seen huge increases 

in the numbers of small donors who now feel that they have something at stake in our political campaigns. 

I wanted to end with a story. It is the story of an insurgent candidate who used public financing to challenge a well-known incumbent. This candidate had broad-based popular support at the grass 

roots, but lacked the support of the money men of the party. During the crucial primary month of January, this candidate was down 

to $44,000 cash in hand. Only the infusion of $1 million in primary 

matching funds that was enabled by the widespread donations this 

candidate had received from small donors across the country enabled this candidate to save his campaign. This candidate’s name 

was Ronald Reagan, and he was the single largest beneficiary of 

Presidential public financing funds in our Nation’s history. 

Fair Elections translates popular support into winning campaign 

without requiring candidates to sell out to big money backers. That 

is why we urge the Committee to support this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Youn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Simpson, the Fair Elections Now law is voluntary. 

Should I volunteer to be part of the system. I really hold myself 

to a pretty high standard. By my calculation I have to find about 

2,500 folks in Illinois who are willing to make contributions of $100 

or less for me to get into the system. So there is some pretty active 

grass-roots campaigning. It is a big State, but that is still pretty 

active grass-roots campaigning to get involved in the system. And 

then I limit myself to how much I can receive, the amount I raise, 

plus the matching funds and the like. So it’s totally voluntary. 
11 

There is another side of the equation that Ms. Mitchell alludes 

to and that the Supreme Court talked about, and that is the larger 

issue—the larger issue of free speech in America and whether or 

not corporations should have First Amendment rights to free 

speech. In other words, should we in any way limit the role of corporations in the election process? That does not relate at all to my 

bill, because the bill still allows them under existing law to continue whatever they are going to do under Citizens United or any 

other auspices. But if you would for a moment, could you address 

from your perspective, the flinty-eyed views of a cowboy Republican 

Senator, this issue of free speech and whether or not there’s an inhibition of free speech if we limited the role of corporations? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, you described me, and then I 

should describe you, as a tough old prosecutor from Illinois, but we 

both share the same views on this one. 

First of all, if you had to do that and get 2,500, that shows support. You cannot just come in and wade into this bill and say, ‘‘I 

want to run for the U.S. Senate or Congress, and I have two people 

who love me.’’ You have to show that people care and they are 

going to put up the bucks. I think that is very critical. 

I remember the days in my ancient time when there was a thing 

called COPE. It meant Committee on Political Education. It was 

solely union-backed, and then the corporations went goofy thinking 

how do these guys get away with this. So they formed PACs. So 

that was the corporate way of getting in to kill off COPE. But now 

they have both in it, and now they are both playing in this pool 

big time, unions—I think Republicans who are thrilled with this 

present system think that it is just going to enrich them. Wait 

until the unions gear up on this baby, and then there will be real 

competition for the bucks to pour into the system. 

And you get back to the real issue. We were elected to legislate. 

You cannot legislate when you are raising money day and night. 

And you finish one cycle. Forget figures, forget—and both of these 

presentations were excellent. But forget the numbers. The American people think we are on the take. They think that these guys 

out here are on the take, and if they were not, they would get 

something done. Why don’t they do something? And the issue is 

they cannot because in wanders Old Slick, who maxed out on you 

15 times in your 20 years here, he has taken you to dinner, he has 

had your staff plastered for 10 years with the finest wine they 

could ever get hold of they have never seen back in Bug Hollow, 

and there they are. And they say, ‘‘Hey, Eddie, you want to help 

us.’’ ‘‘Yeah, I do.’’ And they do. And that—it may be right, but it 

stinks. It smells bad. And that is what this is, as I see it. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let me, before I go to questions, say—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. I did not answer your question, but I got a lot off 

my chest there. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. You got real close to it. And my staff wasted 

no time correcting me. It turns out I need 11,500 donors in Illinois 

to qualify. That is dramatically more than four times what I originally thought. 

Ms. Mitchell, I have read your full testimony in advance here, 

and it was well written, as I expected it to be. 
12 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. And it turns out to be a very strong defense 

for the current system. I do not know if you are in favor of reform 

or not, but I want you to address Ms. Youn’s one element of what 

is going on in campaigns in America. In her testimony, she says 

Citizens United has actually accelerated ‘‘a sharp decline in disclosure of political expenditures.’’ 

‘‘Among groups making ‘electioneering communications’ (campaign advertisements that mention a candidate), disclosure of donors has dropped from 96.8 percent in 2006, to 49.3 percent in 

2008, to a scant 34 percent in 2010.’’ 

‘‘Among groups making independent expenditures, disclosure of 

donors dropped from 96.7 percent in 2006, to 83.3 percent in 2008, 

to 70 percent in 2010.’’ 

Back to her Godiva chocolate analogy, do you think it is in the 

best interest of our country for the donors to political campaigns 

to be invisible? Do you think secrecy in this process makes a democracy stronger? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of responses. 

First of all, let me correct something that Ms. Youn said which 

is incorrect when she made reference to super PACs as being the 

Godiva chocolates. Every contribution to a super PAC of over $200 

and every disbursement of over $200 to a super PAC is disclosed 

publicly to the Federal Election Commission, so I am not sure 

where it gets to be Godiva chocolate because it is pretty transparent. 

With respect to the examples of the Native American tribe and 

the farmer, the farm subsidies in North Carolina, frankly, if that 

indeed happened, that is illegal under current law. Citizens United 

only applies to independent spending, and there are very strict regulations regarding what constitutes independence and what constitutes coordinated expenditures. And—— 

Chairman DURBIN. What about these numbers that I mentioned? 

Ms. MITCHELL. These numbers, I am getting to that. The numbers that you refer to, let me just say this: The Federal Election 

Commission at the instigation of the labor unions—not corporations, but at the instigation of the labor unions—got the FEC to 

change the regulations on disclosure after 2006. There was a requirement that if an organization was to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications, those had to be made 

prior to 2006 and during the 2006 cycle from a separate account. 

Chairman DURBIN. I need to really bring you back to my—— 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I am getting to that. I am trying to help you 

understand the—— 

Chairman DURBIN. You need to answer the question because I 

am out of time, please. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, because the system changed at the FEC. 

Chairman DURBIN. Is it changing for the better? Do you believe 

transparency or secrecy is better when it comes to political donations? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do not think that is the right question. I would 

be—— 

Chairman DURBIN. That is my question, so I am asking you. 
13 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I frankly think that when the NRA makes 

an expenditure, you know where that is coming from. And anyone 

who makes a contribution to an organization in order for that organization to be able to make an expenditure related to politics, it is 

required under current law to be disclosed. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let me ask Ms. Youn to respond before I turn 

to Senator Blumenthal. 

Ms. YOUN. Sure. The only way in which someone who contributes 

to an organization that is going to make an independent expenditure is required to disclose it is if that funder specifically earmarks 

that fund only to be used for these kinds of electioneering communications. If the funder does not earmark the fund, which pretty 

much none of the sophisticated funders do, then they have no such 

requirement. The money goes into a general dark slush fund out 

of which the entity can fund electioneering communications or not. 

You know, the real problem here is one of transparency. What 

Citizens United did is it set up categories of corporate treasury 

funding that do not have robust disclosure. There is no regime in 

place. Such corporations are not required to disclose such spending 

even to their shareholders or to their boards of directors under federal law. You know, there is no simple way to track when a corporation is funneling money through a conduit organization that 

then goes into another organization—you have this series of covers. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me thank Senator Durbin for his very important 

and really significant proposal addressing a problem that I think 

all of us agree is an issue most Americans feel is a problem in today’s democracy, and I want to thank Senator Durbin for advancing this debate and for a proposal that I think addresses many of 

the weaknesses and needs in the present system. And it is a difficult area legally and substantively, and I think none of us in the 

Senate or in this room, certainly none of our witnesses today, have 

minimized that problem. But it is one that people feel is an inherent issue in our present democracy because it leads to so many of 

the abuses that have been outlined by a number of you. And I 

think that one of the areas that perhaps the proposal does not address is a triggering provision or a provision that somehow enables 

a candidate who may still be outspent dramatically even with the 

system that has been proposed here. 

So I wonder if perhaps, Senator Simpson or Ms. Youn or Ms. 

Mitchell, you could address the issue relating to triggering both 

from a legal and from a substantive point of view. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I might say, as Senator Durbin well knows, that 

in our work, the Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Commission, 

Erskine Bowles, was the numbers guy and I was the color guy, and 

I would like to hear these two delightful attorneys rattle around on 

that question. It would please me greatly, and I would learn greatly. Please. 

Ms. YOUN. If I may, the current Fair Elections bill was drafted 

specifically with the sort of legal challenges at issue in the Arizona 

trigger case in mind. I mean, we knew at the time we were work-
14 

ing on the bill that those were coming up through the courts, and 

we thought that the prudent choice was to avoid such challenges. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And as you know, the Connecticut system 

was struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Ms. YOUN. Exactly, and, you know, we litigated that case as well. 

And so we are as aware as anyone of the current legal status of 

the trigger provisions. 

Fair Elections contains no such triggers, and even in the Supreme Court’s recent oral argument in McComish v. Bennett, the 

Court and the petitioning attorneys made it absolutely clear. The 

constitutionality of public financing is not in doubt. The Court may 

have taken issue with a particular provision, this trigger provision, 

and they may vote to uphold it or they may vote to strike that 

down. But that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of public financing. 

If I might address very quickly the practicality of public financing without trigger provisions, I think that your own home State 

of Connecticut provides a great example there. You had Dan 

Malloy, the current Connecticut Governor, who was a publicly financed candidate, who fought off much more well-financed private 

candidates—Ned Lamont and Tom Foley—in both the primary and 

the general elections, and prevailed using public funds, using exactly the message that Senator Durbin put forward: ‘‘I am here. I 

am not taking special interest money. I am accountable not to special interests but to the constituents.’’ 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and Senator Blumenthal, I think 

that the thing that I would ask the Senators to do is to step back 

and look at what has happened in the last two cycles. I think we 

have reached a point in our country where individuals can participate in the system through the Internet. When our campaign finance regulatory scheme was created in 1974, there were three 

networks, no Internet, no cable, no satellite, no talk radio. 

And people now can participate directly in supporting candidates 

that they want to support without a government program. And I 

only had time to mention in my oral testimony a couple of examples, but if you look at the 2010 cycle and look at 2008 with President Obama, I think we have reached a point where these government programs are no longer necessary for people to be able to run 

and be successful in raising money and to be competitive with 

small donations. And I would just urge you to take a step back and 

look at the system that has been created quite outside the government. 

And one last point. This bill does not ask federal contractors to 

support the system. It mandates federal contractors to fund this 

proposed system. Under current law, it is illegal for a federal contractor to make a voluntary contribution to a candidate that he or 

she supports. But this bill would mandate that a federal contractor 

must support a system which can end up funding a candidate with 

whom they thoroughly disagree. I do not know how that possibly 

passes constitutional muster. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Even with those potential sources of 

money, however, isn’t there a reality here that the imbalances of 
15 

funding can be so disparate and the appearances are so corrosive 

to trust and confidence in the democratic system? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, every time anyone comes with a campaign 

finance proposal, with a lobbying reform proposal, it is always, 

‘‘This is going to restore the faith of the American people in the 

system.’’ I happen to believe very strongly that it is my right as an 

American citizen not to like Congress. I am entitled to that. And 

there is no law that you can pass to make me like Congress. And 

I think the most important thing to do in analyzing these proposals 

is to apply First Amendment principles. 

What the Citizens United Court said was that just because people organize themselves into a corporate form does not render them 

unable to speak. And what we saw was exactly what I thought 

would happen. I represent a lot of conservative issue groups. You 

know, I always say my practice is I am the consigliere to the vast 

right-wing conspiracy. And what we saw was that they did not 

raise money from corporations. These are not-for-profit corporations 

that raised money from individuals and were able to spend it out 

of their corporate treasuries. That was the impact of Citizens 

United. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I do not view this proposal as an attack on corporations or corporate contributions, nor do I view it as 

an effort to make people like Congress, but perhaps trust Congress 

a little bit more. 

My time has expired, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, I am sorry I was not here for the testimony—hi, Alan—but I did read it last night. 

Ms. Mitchell, I was struck by a number of things that you found 

amusing, and in my old business, anybody who found anything 

amusing was good. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. And you are easily amused. 

This thing about the public would be upset—Myth Number 3: 

The public would be upset to know how much time Senators have 

to spend raising money. And you say there is nothing wrong with 

Senators having to go out and mix among the people. There is a 

little difference, you know, mixing among the people, going to town 

meetings, going to floods like I did this week, talking to different 

community groups, and doing fundraising. You know that, right? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well—— 

Senator FRANKEN. You do not? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I mean—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I find that amusing. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Those are two different kinds of events, but I also 

believe very strongly that the last link that requires Senators to do 

something that they do not want to do is to have to go out and ask 

people for money and to say, ‘‘This is my job. I hope you like the 

job I am doing. I hope you will help me stay here.’’ I do not think 

there is anything wrong with that. I think it is un-American to 

suggest otherwise. 
16 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry. God, I did not think I was unAmerican. And I did not think Alan Simpson was either. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, but you and I know too much about each 

other. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 

You say that you have to go out—you compared yourself to a 

Senator in this. You say, ‘‘If I am to be able to have a paycheck 

to support my family, I have to not only be able to do my job as 

an attorney—knowing the substance of the law, doing my work, 

taking care of my clients’ needs . . . but I also have to market my 

services, ask people to hire me, get paying clients . . . and then I 

have to keep track of my time, prepare and send invoices, collect 

receivable and generally run my business.’’ 

Do you think that Senators should find people to pay us? Do you 

think that we really should not be paid by the government but that 

we should really do that—— 

Ms. MITCHELL. No. 

Senator FRANKEN. No? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, that seems to be—see, I find that amusing, because in your testimony you seem to suggest that. 

Senator Simpson, did you find what Ms. Mitchell said convincing 

about going out to ask people to give you money, doing fundraisers, 

calling people on the phone is the same as just going out and meeting your constituents? 

Mr. SIMPSON. No. But I think the people should know, Senator, 

that you and I did a few shticks together, both members of the 

Screen Actors Guild, and I do not know why I ever appeared on 

your program, ‘‘LateLine.’’ It was the goofiest thing I ever enjoyed. 

But I just thought I would throw that in so they knew. And then 

I invited you to Harvard. You remember that. You set them on fire 

there. 

Now, the question is: All I know about me, I felt used when I 

had to go raise money. I was embarrassed. I thought it was ugly. 

I thought it was demeaning. My staff kept saying, ‘‘You got to go 

do it.’’ I said, ‘‘I do not like it.’’ And then they would say, ‘‘The Republican Eagles are coming to town, and you are going to make a 

call. And then Presidents night is coming up, and you get a 

Rolodex and you get to go outside the building for a whole day and 

dial numbers of jerks you have never heard of in your whole life 

to get money out of them.’’ 

I said, ‘‘I will not do that.’’ They said, ‘‘Well, you have to. It is 

for the party.’’ I said, ‘‘When they come to town, I will go speak to 

them at lunch, not to raise money, just, you know, if they wanted 

to see me or talk, that was great.’’ But I tell you, if you talk to the 

gut of any guy who is in public life who tells you he just loves to 

go beg for money, especially after he has just finished one election 

cycle, you are talking to a delusional person. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Let us get into—Ms. Youn, in your testimony you said there are only—not only are third-party groups 

spending more on elections, they are disclosing less about who is 

bankrolling spending. Now, Ms. Mitchell writes, ‘‘Other than members of labor unions whose dues are mandatory and who are not 

allowed to withhold amounts that might be spent by their labor 
17 

unions for political purposes, generally speaking in America, campaigns are funded from the voluntary after-tax contributions of the 

citizens.’’ 

If I am giving to—if I own stock in a corporation that is giving 

money to this third party and I do not know it, they do not disclose 

it, aren’t I contributing? 

Ms. YOUN. Yes, you are contributing, and I think that the best 

example of that that people know about is maybe from your home 

State of Minnesota with the Target example, where Target spent 

$150,000 of its shareholder money in support of a candidate whose 

views many of the shareholders of Target simply did not agree 

with. 

Now, the ironic thing about the Target example—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And that was only because Minnesota had a 

disclosure law, and we in the U.S. do not have a disclosure law, 

even though Republicans have said this, who then subsequently 

voted against disclosure: ‘‘Clearly the American public has a right 

to know who is paying for ads and who is attempting to influence 

elections. Sunshine is what the political system needs. We can try 

to’’—these are different Republicans who are around. This is what 

they said during McCain-Feingold. ‘‘We can try to regulate ethical 

behavior by politicians, but the surest way to cleanse the system 

is let the sun shine in.’’ 

I do not like it when a large source of money is out there funding 

ads and it is unaccountable. Why don’t you continue, Ms. Youn? I 

am sorry to interrupt you. But I just want to—there is a lot of hypocrisy here about just disclosure. 

Ms. YOUN. Exactly, because at the same time these statements 

are being made in favor of disclosure, new organizations, new strategies are being set up, you know, particularly to avoid disclosure. 

The super PACs that we discussed earlier set up their own arms 

that are nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors. And 

we have found this just escalating, and more and more money is 

going dark. 

Senator FRANKEN. And now in 2010, only 34 percent of these 

groups made these disclosures. Is that right? 

Ms. YOUN. About a third, yes, exactly, of the groups specifically 

engaging in campaign ads. 

Senator FRANKEN. So it would be really inaccurate to say other 

than members of labor unions. 

Ms. YOUN. Yes. I do not know where that—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Wouldn’t that be just inaccurate? 

Ms. YOUN. That seems inaccurate to me. What we know and 

what everyone knows is there is a lot of money out there that is 

paid for by Americans Who Love Children and Puppies, and we 

have no idea that Americans Who Love Children and Puppies is actually some corporate-backed interest or some special interest. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think there was a corporation that makes its 

money crushing puppies that was behind that. 

Well, I have run out of time, and I am needed back at the Energy 

markup, so thank you very much. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, could I just correct one thing that 

was referenced with regard to my testimony? That reference that 

you made from my testimony had to do with contributions, not ex-
18 

penditures, and as in reference to S. 749, which is a contributions 

bill. It not an expenditures bill. It has to do with contributions. 

And what I said was our system today is funded—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Excuse me, but how does—— 

Ms. MITCHELL [continuing]. With voluntary—— 

Senator FRANKEN. How does it expend money that is not contributed? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, Citizens United dealt only with expenditures. It did not deal with contributions. 

Senator FRANKEN. How does a corporation expend money without 

you having money to spend? And doesn’t the people who are contributing to that effort include the stockholders? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, the Supreme Court rejected the—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Please answer my question. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, the corporation, the publicly held corporation you are referring to that makes contributions to a not-for-profit corporation—is that what you are referring to? The not-for-profit 

corporations are the ones that have made expenditures in 2010. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am saying—yes, yes. I am saying that if a 

corporation gives to a party that makes expenditures, the corporation is contributing to the third party that is making the expenditure. They are contributing, and the people that are contributing 

include the stockholders. And since they are not disclosing that 

they are making this contribution, then they fall in the category of 

someone who is unknowingly contributing to something and has no 

choice because they do not know. 

Ms. MITCHELL. And that would be similar to the labor unions, 

correct? 

Senator FRANKEN. So am I confused then? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. How am I confused? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, because my testimony was referring to the 

system that we have of funding campaigns, which is voluntary 

after-tax contributions to PACs and to candidates, which is the 

only source, and all of this talk about the corporate—I am really 

interested to hear this solicitation of corporate contributions is a 

problem for Senators because actually that is illegal. 

Senator FRANKEN. The present systems includes, though, 

where—you do not say just candidates. You say causes. So isn’t 

this a cause? Wouldn’t you call it a cause, these third parties? 

Aren’t they causes? 

Ms. MITCHELL. They are, and I—— 

Senator FRANKEN. So then I think you are confused, actually, 

about your own testimony. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I think that we should have a confuse-off. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think we did, and I think I won. Thank you. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do not. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, that is good. Now let us—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Franken and Ms. Mitchell. 

If I could clarify, a lot of your testimony, Ms. Mitchell, relates to 

the Presidential campaign financing system? 
19 

Ms. MITCHELL. Correct. 

Chairman DURBIN. And you say only 8.4 or 8.5 percent of taxpayers contribute to it. I would say it is largely a confusing system. 

When I read your testimony, I called the accountant who did my 

tax returns this year and said, ‘‘Now, you did check the box where 

I am giving the money to Presidential’’—he said, ‘‘I never do.’’ I 

said, ‘‘I want it checked.’’ So some of these things are not necessarily conscious decisions by taxpayers. Some of it is just pure 

confusion about who is paying for what. But 70 percent of the 

American people say they do support Presidential campaign financing. And in terms of whether or not there is popular support—you 

talk about the April 15th referendum. For the record, both Maine, 

a purple State, and Arizona, a red State, the voters in those States 

voted for a public financing system paid for by taxes. So they made 

a conscious decision they would rather clean up the mess in their 

States and pay a little bit more in taxes than continue what they 

thought was a corrupting system. I think that is a matter of record. 

Ms. Youn, can you comment on whether or not the Fair Elections 

Now Act, what we are talking about, a voluntary system of individual candidates who will decide to only take small donor contributions and be matched and receive some discounts for media, 

how that stacks up against the Citizens United case, whether or 

not you believe that it addresses any of the elements that have 

been raised by that decision? 

Ms. YOUN. Well, Ms. Mitchell is right to say that Fair Elections 

does not directly address the Citizens United decision. The Citizens 

United decision is the Supreme Court. It is the law of the land. 

What the Fair Elections Act does, however, is it enables candidates to translate popular support into viable campaigns—campaigns that can survive even in the face of independent expenditure attacks. We have seen, for example, Arizona Governor Janet 

Napolitano, who was a publicly financed candidate, successfully 

withstand a $400,000 independent expenditure campaign launched 

against her. We have seen the State of Maine, which has been the 

target of massive independent funding by the National Organization for marriage, among other groups, also have its publicly financed candidates who constitute the vast majority of both parties 

of its legislature withstand those attacks. 

So what we are saying is that, you know, if you are willing to 

say, ‘‘I am accountable to the people and not to special interests,’’ 

then as long as you have viable funding, you are able to stand up 

even against the tide of special interest money of recent elections. 

Chairman DURBIN. So I would get back to this point, Ms. Mitchell. I would think—I would stake my reputation on this. If I went 

to the people of my State, whom I know a little better than some 

other places, and said, ‘‘Okay, here is what I am going to offer you: 

shorter campaigns, more direct contact between candidates and 

voters, more disclosure and transparency about where my money is 

coming from that is being spent on my campaign,’’ I would ask 

them, ‘‘Do you prefer that over the current system? ’’ And my guess 

is overwhelmingly yes. Overwhelmingly yes. 

The trend in America is exactly the opposite. The campaigns go 

on forever. They inundate the airwaves with organizations we have 

never heard of before or since. Less likely to be the Democrat or 
20 

Republican Party than some other Committee for—fill in the 

blank—and fewer and fewer disclosures about where the money is 

coming from. 

It seems to me that what you are defending is not exactly what 

the American people are looking for at this point. Do you disagree? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do disagree, Mr. Chairman. I think that, first of all, every contribution to your campaign over $200 is already disclosed. 

Chairman DURBIN. To my campaign. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Correct. 

Chairman DURBIN. That is not the problem. The problem—— 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I thought you said you would go and offer 

them about your campaign. 

Chairman DURBIN. The point I am getting to is people want disclosure. They want to know, ‘‘Durbin, who is it that is supporting 

you? ’’ And they are going to ask the hard questions. ‘‘Now, you 

voted on such and such a day, and you received this contribution. 

Was there a linkage? ’’ They assume there is, incidentally. That is 

a fair question. They know that they can raise the question because 

I have disclosed. 

Now, if the Committee for the Improvement of America comes in 

and decides to campaign against me and they do not even know 

where the money is coming from, doesn’t that put the voter at a 

disadvantage? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, I actually have some proposed reforms that would address most of these problems. 

No. 1, if you think that it is going to make for shorter campaigns to raise money in $100 increments, I would beg to differ. And it 

would seem to me that the way to avoid the constant money chase 

is to raise the limits or remove the limits and make every contribution, starting with dollar one, disclosed. 

Chairman DURBIN. Does money equal time in campaigns? Yes. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes. 

Chairman DURBIN. And now you have just taken the lid off and 

said spend as much as you want, raise as much as you want. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Raise as much as you want. 

Chairman DURBIN. And I would say to you at that point it raises a serious question if, instead of a limitation of—what is it, $4,800, 

$5,200? I have forgotten what the number is. 

Ms. MITCHELL. It is $5,000: $2,500 primary, $2,500 general, this 

cycle. 

Chairman DURBIN. Okay. So now you say now you can take 

$50,000. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, and tell me who it is from and tell me that 

before the election. 

Chairman DURBIN. See, if I really thought that you were committed to transparency, I would wonder how you could defend the 

system now which each year is less and less transparent, less and 

less disclosure, more secrecy in terms of where the money is coming from. On the one hand, you are all for disclosure, but the current system is moving in exactly the opposite direction. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason for that. Because 

of the limits—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Citizens United. 
21 

Ms. MITCHELL. No, no. Because of the limits on contributions to 

candidates and political parties, it drives money outside the campaign system. If you remove—— 

Chairman DURBIN. Secret. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Exactly. 

Chairman DURBIN. Secret. 

Ms. MITCHELL. If you remove the limits—— 

Chairman DURBIN. That is the current system. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I am saying remove the limits on what you can 

give to campaigns. At least remove the aggregate limits. 

Chairman DURBIN. I have yet to have anybody in my State ever 

come up to me and say, ‘‘You know what the problem is? You are 

not spending enough money on your campaign. We want to see you 

more on television.’’ No. They say, ‘‘When are you going to get 

those darn ads off so we can get back to normal life? ’’ That is really 

what most people say in my State and I think in most other States. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. And I would agree. Whether 

you favor reform or not, most folks would rather see less of us on 

TV rather than more. 

But I want to ask you, Senator Simpson, if you could pick just 

two or three critical things to change about this current finance 

system, as a member of this body for many years and someone who 

has been a veteran campaigner and knows a lot more about it than 

I do, what would you change? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I think the biggest thing—and this is heresy perhaps—is that whatever amount you give, you have to disclose who 

you are and what you own and what shares you have in something. 

And if you are the big donor, I do not care how big you get—and, 

actually, there should be some limits, obviously. But if there are 

none, I have always believed—and I tried it in the Wyoming Legislature—in total disclosure. Never got to first base because they 

said, ‘‘We are a small State and everybody knows what we are 

doing.’’ They did not know that one family is in railroads, trucking, 

oil, gas, trona, you name it. No one with any knowledge of all the 

things they were involved in. And I say if you are going to have 

anything, it has got to be totally, totally transparent from top to 

bottom, no hiding, certainly no anonymous—I mean, if you think 

that—the American people just almost barfed when they heard 

that people could put in money in this last campaign and not tell 

anybody who they were, and then you get the right—you get the 

extremists on both sides, you get the right and the left, you get the 

nut cases on both sides to gather up the money, and there was an 

ad—one of our fine Republicans who I think some of you served 

with, Craig Thomas, he finally had to call the Republican Party 

and say, ‘‘Get these people out of the State. I am not saying this 

stuff.’’ They said, ‘‘Well, they are on your side.’’ He said, ‘‘You 

would never know it by looking at it.’’ He said, ‘‘Get them out of 

here.’’ 

And so to me the singular thing is the absolute total transparency, who are you, what are you into, what is your octopus, how 

far do your arms reach in this great country of ours, so that you 

can go back to doing what you are supposed to do, which is to campaign, to have caucuses, to have hearings, to have markups, to 
22 

have floor debate—almost unheard of now—to have conference 

committees and craft legislation that is understood by the governed. That is the purpose of our craft. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Mitchell, do you disagree? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do disagree, because I think that it ignores the 

situation that could be remedied if the Congress would do a couple 

of things. 

If I am a wealthy person and I say, ‘‘All right, I am just going 

to support candidates. I am not going to give to outside groups. I 

just want to support candidates,’’ do you know how many candidates I can max out to in a given cycle? Eight. Now, there is 

something wrong, and the reason for that is the aggregate limits. 

Take off the aggregate limits. Let people give to the political—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But do you disagree with the point about 

disclosure? 

Ms. MITCHELL. If you do it through the candidates and the political parties, you will drive money back into the system to support 

candidates and political parties. Let political parties—right now— 

the example that Senator Simpson used about the outside spending. Senator Thomas calls the Republican Party and says, ‘‘Get 

those ads off the air.’’ Do you realize that right now most of the 

money that the RNC, DNC, DCCC, DSCC, the two Senate committees, do you realize that the bulk of the money that they raise, 

which is all disclosed, it has to be handed over at some point during the cycle to some consultants who go and make the decisions 

about the expenditures because of the prohibition, the limits on the 

coordinated expenditures that party committees can make on behalf of their nominees. That is a preposterous system. 

Remove those coordinated limits. Let parties coordinate with 

their candidates. Let the parties raise the money. Remove the aggregate limits so that donors do not have to choose between the 

RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC. Look, I do this for a living, and 

I know—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But I take it you do not disagree with the 

disclosure mandates, regardless of how the aggregates and the coordination is done. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do not disagree with the disclosure mandates, 

but we have disclosure today. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Even if there are corporate—— 

Ms. MITCHELL. We do not allow corporate contributions to candidates or political parties. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But if there are independent expenditures, 

as happens under Citizens United, do you think there should be no 

disclosure? 

Ms. MITCHELL. We have disclosure. We have—someone made the 

comment that there is no disclosure required under federal law. 

That is simply not true. There are disclosures required. The change 

in the disclosure laws was brought about because the unions did 

not want to have to disclose all their members’ contributions to 

electioneering communications. So that was changed. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Youn, do you have any comment? 

Ms. YOUN. There are some disclosure requirements that are easily evaded by sophisticated players. That is why the decline in disclosure for electioneering communications and independent expend-
23 

itures that I have detailed in my testimony has occurred in the 

past few cycles. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Well, I thank all of you for 

your participation, and I have learned something, and, again, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Before I recognize Senator Whitehouse, I find it interesting that 

we think it is corrupting for a corporation to give me money which 

I then use to buy ads, but not corrupting for the same corporation 

to buy its own ads through Citizens United. I do not understand 

that double standard. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I think that the effect of Citizens United on our electoral process 

is very pronounced and very degrading, frankly. The first thing 

that it does is it encourages the true party in interest, like an oil 

company or the insurance association, to disguise itself and to set 

up some kind of phoney-baloney entity with a name like Americans 

for Mom and Apple Pie, and then when you see the ad on TV that 

slams, you know, Senator Snooks for being the worst thing since 

who knows what, it is done on behalf of Americans for Mom and 

Apple Pie, and there is no timely way to get behind Americans for 

Mom and Apple Pie and find out actually that was Exxon. 

So that is a real problem, I think, in addition to the sort of 

phoney-baloney—as if there is not enough phoney-baloney in politics, we now have to add an inducement to set up these phoneybaloney organizations. And then, effectively, we are encouraging 

people who have a lot of money and corporations that have a lot 

of money to basically money launder through the phoney-baloney 

organization and to hide their actual role in it. And none of that 

can be prevented unless we pass a statute that requires better disclosure and timely disclosure, more to the point, because everybody 

knows that it gets close before the election, and if somebody drops 

a million bucks’ worth of advertising in Rhode Island in the last 

week before an election and nobody sees it coming, you do not 

know that your client—your opponent has, you know, a million dollars left in their account. You know that they are going to spend 

it. You can sort of guess what is going to come. But if it comes in 

out of the clear blue sky, you have no idea, and the election could 

be over by the time the reporting is done as to who was the real 

party in interest. 

So it just helps make all of this so seamy and so sordid, and 

when the previous finding of the United States Supreme Court was 

that unchecked corporate spending in elections is, in fact, a form 

of corruption, and then this Supreme Court, or at least the five 

conservative members of it reversed that on no legislative record— 

because they did not have one. They actually sculpted the trajectory of the case so they would not have any legislative finding or 

record and they could operate with impunity. And then they make 

a finding of fact, which is what Supreme Courts are not supposed 

to do. They are supposed to leave fact finding to the lower courts. 

And the finding of fact is that this cannot have an effect, there is 

just no possibility that corporate spending in an election could lead 
24 

to or create a reasonable inference of corruption, which, as anybody 

knows who has ever been through an election, is just flat false. Not 

only is it an improper finding of fact, it is a complete falsity. It is 

just nonsense. 

So it is really a spooky thing that has happened in terms of the 

effect it had on the Supreme Court, in terms of the effect that it 

is going to have on our elections, and I would add that the scariest 

part of it is not going to be the advertisement that gets run against 

a Senator or a Representative or a Governor under the guise of 

Americans for Mom and Apple Pie. The scariest part of it is the big 

corporate coming into that Senator’s office and sitting down with 

them privately and playing the ad, saying, ‘‘Here is what you are 

going to see. We are going to put five million bucks behind this ad, 

and this is what it says.’’ And then on comes the horrifying negative attack ad. And then they say, ‘‘But we do not have to run that. 

You just vote right with us. You just vote right when the Wall 

Street bill comes up. You just vote right when the gulf clean-up bill 

comes up.’’ And away they go, and enormous damage is done by 

that threat, and nobody will ever even see that. You do not even 

know that there is a phoney-baloney Americans for Mom and Apple 

Pie that you can at least start looking into and later find out was 

really a big corporate. 

And so I just think that the Citizens United decision, in addition 

to reversing all the precedent and standing the facts on their 

heads, has really created enormous opportunities for mischief, particularly on behalf of the people with money. And for the life of me, 

I do not see why in a country in which we try to give one person 

one vote and we try to equalize as much as we can, we allow one 

particular privileged class, which is the chief executive officer of a 

corporation, to have a thousand, a million times the weight of anybody else by being able to direct corporate funding into a race in 

his official capacity and have an influence on politics that he or she 

could never have in their individual capacity. 

So I do not know. That is more of an expression of shock and 

pain and horror at what this opens up than it is a question, but 

particularly is there anything we can do to focus on the behind-thescenes influence, the threat of here is our five million, here is our 

ad, do what you are told or this is coming at you? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Senator, I have watched you and have enjoyed visiting with you during the Commission activities. I respectfully say you should have added unions to the same scenario that 

you just gave, and that is what is going to happen. It will be the 

union guys, too, who will walk in with the ad and say, ‘‘Here you 

are, Buster, and this is what we are going to do to you.’’ 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They do not have anything like the money. 

Not even close. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They do not have anything like the money. 

It is not even close. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, they have got some, just little tidbits laying 

around perhaps. But, anyway, I would just say if we are going to 

go this way, then I am probably the only living Republican right 

now trying to help get this thing done. I always get in these marvelous causes. But the Republicans believe just as you have sug-
25 

gested, but let me tell you, on the other side of that coin is the 

union people sitting right in front of that guy saying, ‘‘We may not 

have what the big shots have, but we got a little kitty here and 

we are going to blow it on you, and here is the ad.’’ 

I mean, to leave out all aspects—the only way to get anything 

done here is a balance, and if we cannot get a balance in what we 

do here or what we did here, I think it is a mistake. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be happy to have it apply to both. 

I think the danger is less because the money is less. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not hear well. I do not hear well. What was 

that? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am sorry, sir. I said I would be happy 

to have it apply across the board. I used the corporate example because I think the danger is worse. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, good. I hear that. And I would just throw out 

the other example as a thought. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You take Exxon-Mobil’s last profits, and if 

I recall correctly, with five percent of their annual profits they 

could outspend both Presidential Candidate McCain and Presidential Candidate Obama, who collectively spent $1 billion in the 

last race. And for a really big issue that is going to affect their corporate bottom line, that is not a very big spend. So it creates these 

deafening voices in the public arena that no individual can compete 

with, no union even can compete with. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, we know that we will not make any progress 

if it comes down to the usual battering of all those things, the big 

versus the small, the class warfare and all that stuff. We will never 

get through where we are. 

Ms. YOUN. And that is, I think, why the simple removal of limits 

that Ms. Mitchell advocates is not sufficient. I mean, you can say 

to me, ‘‘Oh, you are free as a voter to make your voice heard. All 

you have to do is outspend the corporate treasury of ExxonMobil.’’ 

That is not freedom for me. You know, I am an American citizen, 

I am a voter. The elections are supposed to be about me. Elections 

are not supposed to be about these proxy fights between the 

moneyed middlemen. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to ask 

the—you have made reference to the Arizona law and the law enacted by the voters of Arizona voluntarily. In 2001, I did a study 

called ‘‘Who Is Buying Campaign Finance Reform? ’’ to trace the 

sources of funding of the campaign finance reform movement, and 

the amount of money that was spent promoting campaign finance 

reform vastly outweighs the other side. And one of the chapters of 

that study included a study and an analysis of the funding of the 

Arizona Clean Elections Act, which was actually funded by George 

Soros. And what I would like to ask is leave to add that to the official record of this hearing, that study. 

And I am fascinated, Mr. Chairman, that the hue and cry has 

come after the 2010 election. If one goes to the Center for Responsive Politics, a very strong supporter of campaign finance reform 

and probably supportive of this proposal, and just looks at the data 

for the last decade, one will find that in every cycle until 2010 the 

outside spending by the left, by liberal groups—and I beg to differ 

with Senator Whitehouse, but the unions have far outspent con-
26 

servatives and corporations in terms of independent spending for 

candidates and the political parties. And the left far outspent the 

conservatives in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008. And only in 2010, 

when conservative groups actually competed with the liberal 

groups, is there this hue and cry. There was no outcry about the 

secrecy of the Democracy Alliance created by George Soros after 

the 2004 cycle, which does not report any of its contributions and 

funds a number of groups. The SEIU has spent over $400 million 

that we know of since 2004. 

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, there are 26 States that allow corporate contributions to candidates: Missouri, Virginia, Oregon, to 

name a few. So I do think that the idea that somehow corporations 

can make independent expenditures but they cannot give contributions, I do think that is worth looking at, because half the States 

allow it. 

Chairman DURBIN. Ms. Mitchell, as your testimony noted, I introduced this bill several years ago. This did not come in after the 

2010 election. I have been in favor of public financing, and I still 

am. And I understand the value of incumbency. Most incumbents 

do not support reform—we do not have a single Republican Senator 

who cosponsors this legislation—because most incumbents believe 

we have an advantage when it comes to fundraising. And we do. 

We have got a stable of friends and contributors who can come to 

our side. But maybe I am off in some idealistic land here, but I 

would step away from that advantage and be willing to take on an 

opponent with a lot less money, flat out debate them as often as 

necessary, and let the voters decide. And I think at the end of the 

day we would have a healthier democracy. 

I do not believe that running these numbers up in the millions 

and millions, billions of dollars in campaign spending really informs voters that much. I am afraid voters are misled. 

And let me say in response to Senator Simpson, any rules that 

I would be for—and I think Senator Whitehouse would agree— 

apply to both across the board, right and left. So if it is corporations, it is unions, too. Same standard, same rules, no exceptions. 

And I think that is the way it should be. 

We also got another question of, you know, whether or not there 

would be a disclosure. One of the proposals we have on Citizens 

United is legislation that requires some disclosure at the end of a 

corporate-sponsored campaign ad as to who paid for it. Perhaps the 

CEO of the corporation will proudly stand up and say, ‘‘This oil 

company paid for it,’’ or ‘‘This bank paid for it.’’ So be it. I think 

the voters are entitled to know that. You know, we are not stopping 

the expenditure. We are just saying disclose, which, as I understand here, everybody is for. We could not get support for that reform when we offered it. 

So I thank you for coming. I enjoyed the conversation. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, may I just add one note? 

Chairman DURBIN. Of course. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You remember my friend Al Cranston. I think Senator Whitehouse would like to hear this. Al Cranston was a great 

friend of mine, and we chaired the Veterans Affair Committee alternately, and I was minority or I was Chairman. He left here in 
27 

a cloud because of what happened, and he had no knowledge of it, 

and it left him tarnished, and it was a shame. 

His scheduler forgot to check every day what the fundraising 

arm of Cranston for Senate was doing, and the media went into the 

stack and said, ‘‘We see that so-and-so gave 10 grand in May, and 

then they came to see you in June.’’ And he was eaten alive by that 

thing he knew nothing of. He said, ‘‘I did not know that the scheduler did not know what the fundraising campaign was doing.’’ And 

it appeared that if you gave the money, you saw Al within a week, 

and it brought him down. A very sad situation. 

It was a perception. Everything we do here is perception. There 

is no reality to what any of us do here. It is all perception. 

Chairman DURBIN. And I would say, Senator Simpson, I did not 

know Senator Cranston as well as you did, but this tangled web 

that we live in elected officials raising money, across the street, literally across the street from this building, is the Democratic Senate 

Campaign Committee. Why is it across the street from this building? Because we cross that street regularly to go over there and 

raise money for our campaigns and for our causes. 

I think America would be a better Nation if both political parties 

declared a truce on this fundraising run-up, this escalation, and 

said shorter campaigns, cheaper campaigns, more direct contact between candidates, let the voters decide, and transparency about 

where the money is coming from. I think we would be stronger, and 

that is what my bill is trying to achieve. 

Thank you for being here. The Subcommittee received written 

statements from more than 25 national organizations that support 

Fair Elections Now, including AFSCME, Alliance for Justice, Americans for Campaign Reform, American Sustainable Business Council, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Demos, Democracy Matters, NAACP, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, SEIU, 

U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and U.S. Action. 

Additionally, there are more than 120 former elected officials, 

civic leaders, and business leaders from major corporations that 

have endorsed this bill. They include Democrats like Senators Bill 

Bradley, Bob Kerrey, of course, permanent Republican line Alan 

Simpson, Warren Rudman, EPA Director Christie Todd Whitman; 

and business leaders like Bill Gates, Paul Volcker, Frank Carlucci, 

Lee Iacocca. 

[The statements appear as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. We will keep the record open for a week if 

there are additional materials from interested individuals, and 

questions may be directed to witnesses, which I ask them to respond to as quickly as possible. 

Thank you. The hearing stands adjourned. 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 
30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DICK DURBIN
31 
32 
33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PATRICK LEAHY
34 
35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON
36 
37 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLETA MITCHELL, ESQ. 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONICA YOUN
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRAHAM FOR CLETA MITCHELL, ESQ. 
74 

RESPONSES OF CLETA MITCHELL TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRAHAM

At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain responses to the written questions, the Committee had not received 

any communication from Cleta Mitchell. 
75 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 

Æ