aisle who are willing to try, and we need to be given that opportunity, madam president. each and every member in this body cares about individuals who are working two jobs, who may have two minimum wage jobs because they're trying to support their families. i think that we could come together, but we can't come together unless we are allowed to offer alternatives, to fully debate the issues and to bring forth ideas to >> and to bring forth ideas to improve job training programs and encourage the creation with better paying jobs in what remains a very anemic economy. thank you, madam president.

>> coming up tonight, the senate rules committee heres from john paul stevens and then senate obama remarks on the minimum wage bill and then we bring you the debate on the minimum wage bill. wednesday the senate rules committee held its first hearing on campaign finance in response to the supreme court's ruling strike down limits on individual political contributions. john paul stevens joined current and federal election commissioner representatives at this two-hour hearing. >> i am deeply worried about the future of our democracy. for over a hundred years we have struggled with the issue of

money and politics always looking for the balance between freedom of political expression and the corrosive influence of unchecked money to public officials. we have had scandals and corrections. we have had new laws and new ways to abade those laws. but we have never seen what is happening today. court poins, clever political up operatives have created a new political landscape where candidates are compelled to raise more and more money and have to contend with unlimited spending by shadow entities representing nameles donors. what has occurred in the last

five years is revolutionary not evolutionary change in the way campaigns are financeed in america. these are changed i view as a threat to undermine the fundamental principle of democracy. one person, one vote. they are well-intentioned people that believe restrictions on who can give to campaigns and how much they give trespass on freedom of speech protections. others, and i am among them, are worried the elimination of modest limits on campaign contributions combine would a byzantine system that says who is giving and allows the so-called dark money into the process has the very real potential to corrode the integirity of the system itself.

it rest on three pillars. regulation of amount, sources and disclosure. recent decisions have severely restricted ourb ability to control sources and amounts. but in those decisions, and i am referring of course to citizens united ruling and mccutcheon, the court has invited congress to utilize disclosure in these situations. justice kennedy and robert site disclosure as the reason the limitations don't have to be upheld. unfortunately the disclosure requirements they mention in those opinions as the bull work against abuse and corruption don't exist. for example, according to a new

study by the center for response of politics, total expending totals $7 million to this point in 2014. nearly three times what was spent in 2010. that is the point i want to emphasis. this isn't a gradual growth of a change of a few dollars here and there. we have an explosion of this with not only outside spending but spending we don't know the source. we have created a parallel universe of campaign finance. the traditional candidate base system with limits on sources and amounts and strict disclosure requirements and the independent system with no control of systems, no limits and no disclosure.

this troubling new world of finance affects how we interact with the process. the amount of money that elected officials need to be made. and an average u.s. senate running for reelection has to raise something on the order of $5-$8,000 a day every day 365 day as year for six years in order to accumulate the funds necessary to run for reelection. and i can tell you ( at this rate you very quickly run out of friends and family. my concern here is the system. this isn't a democratic or republican issue and the country isn't benefiting from this arm's race of contributions.

what we are allowing is having affects. the eerosion of confidence in te system and in us as stewards of the country. we need to find the balance between the freedom to exercise our political voice and the public's interest of safeguarding the political process and to restore that balance in what feels like an unbalanced system. i welcome our witnesses today and look forward to the important contributions. senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to be here on this very important subject.

and i brought my own chart. we the minority don't have enough money for another display unit so i would ask consent to put our chart up where you had your chart. >> without objection. >> chart bears the text of the first amendment of the constitution of the united states. and i believe that is what we are talking about today. the rights of citizens to express themselves and make their views known on the issues that affect their daily lives or pocket book or any other issue. the first amendment protects those rights and prevents the government from restricting them. the exercise of those rights doesn't threaten our democracy. it is the attempt to restrict these rights that we must fear. we are living today with the

consequences of the failed attempt to restrict them. this failure wasn't hard for r foresee. it isn't the fault of the court or the federal election committee and it is the direct consequences of the poor actions of congress when they passed the goldstein bill. i opposed that bill because it would prevent people from being in the political system. it would not get money out of the system but divert it to other avenues. supporters of the bill denied it. it should be clear who is right and who is wrong. now they have new regulations because the courts found much of the last effort to be

unconstitutional they have proprosed new regulatory guidelines under disclosure. they don't like freedom of speech and try to impede on it. as we consider suggestion for ways to improve the system, the last people we should be asking for advice are those who help write the law that created the problem in the first place. let's stop this fool's errand of speech regulation. let's stop trying to prevent people from criticizing us and demonizing citizens that exercise their first amendment right. and let's stop pretending how this peach threatens democracy. we have nothing to fear from a free market place of ideas. we do need to fear a government

empowered to investigate its own citizens for investigating their rights. the irs has shown this to be a real danger with targeting the republicans and this is a real danger. we hear a lot about corruption when this is debated. it is amazing how for years george has been spending millions to promote liberal and progre progressive causes and now that the koch family is spending money on free enterprise we are supposed to think our democracy is at risk. corporati corporations have long exercise exerciseed rights to express

themselves if they were media cases. the citizens united ruling changed that. the supreme court said congress doesn't get to say who gets to speak and the only consequence now is that more voices are heard. and i know some in this body don't want those voices to be heard. and they are doing everything they can to silence them. our majority leader who has a fixation with the koch family takes to the floor on a daily bas bases to attack them. i think it is because he fears they hold the majority. that is why the first amendment begins congress shall make no law. the first amendment doesn't allow us to silence those who

oppose us and that applies to everyone. let's stop trying to do so, mr. chairman. let's stop trying to impose regulations designed to deter and harass opponents. let's admit the mistake we made when we tried to regulate political speech. let's allow those that want to contribute and engage to give money where they want as long as they follow the law. everyone in this country has the right to express themselves, mr. chairman. even people that don't manage to get themselves invited to appear on television shows or testify at senate hearings. people. all people. individually and as groups have every right to make their views known. instead of trying to stop them let's reinvigorate our system.

new restrictions and regulations are not going to improve the system. getting ready of those who already have will. that is the course we should take, mr. chairman. simply. let's just do it. thank you for your time. >> senator? >> thank you for the invitation. i think mccutcheon is a real debate about money in paul politics. it says it allows anyone to spend any amount of money in any way. mccutcheon carried to it's

extreme will get rid of individual limits, limits on corporations and will just allow money to totally envelop the system. it is frightening. and the reason we have this hearing is not because of some new ads. the koch brothers have been doing ads for years and years. but because of the mccutcheon decision and the implications for the demomeracy. the bottom line is simple. i respect my colleagues fidelity to the first amendment. but amendment is definite. most everyone believes you cannot falsely stream fire in a theater. that is a limitation on the first amendments.

we have many different laws that pose limits on the amendments because through 200 some odd years of jurisprudence the founding father and the supreme court have realized now amendment is absolute. we have noise ordinances. if you allow one person to the 7, 112 add on television the first is absolute but in other areas it isn't. you have to ask why. and why many on the other side of the aisle don't support disclosure which is an enhancement of the first amendment one wonders why.

the first amendment protection of free speech is part of what makes america great. so is the concept of one person one vote. when a small group of people, 700 in this case who were aff t affected by mccutcheon, have so much more power to influence the political process, than our democracy is at risk. that is the problem here. there is a balancing test. and there are many concepts in the constitution. the concept of having a somewhat level playing field so that those who have overwhelming wealth and chose to spend it, whether they be on the left or right, the laws we are proposing affect the koch brothers and george sorros and should.

and because now legislation that could bring disclosure but will not stop the path mccutcheon is on senate democrats are going to vote this year on my colleague's tom udall's constitution amendment that would allow congress to make laws to deal with the balance between equality and the first amendment. not what the five meb members of the supreme court said: no balance. we will bring that amendment to the floor and we will vote on it. i will work with senator udall and harry reid and hopefully

bring it to the floor this year. when the supreme court or any of my colleagues say that the koch brother's first rights are being deprived and not heard it defies common sense and logic. and the same applies to some liberal person who puts on 10,000 ads. the ability to be heard is different than the ability to drown out every point of view using modern technology simply because you have more money than someone else who has an equally valid view. i hope senator udall's amendment will attract support and draw to a fine point where we are at and that is that the first amendment is sakeerate -- sacred -- but

absolute and by making it absolute you make it less sacred. we have to bring balance to the political system. if people lose faith in the system, which they are doing because they feel correctly people with a lot of money have far more say in the political dialogue they do, this great democracy could falter. we don't want to happen and best way to stop it is to show the supreme court or limit the supreme court and show them their absolute spew is wrong and support the amendment like senator udall's. >> for the information of senator ted cruz and udall. i am invite justice stevens to speak and each of you will be asked to provide a statement if

you wish to do so. justice stevens if you would join us at the table. justice john paul stevens is a retired justice of the united states supreme court and was aopponented in 1975 by gerald ford. the third-longest sitting justice. my eye was caught by a headline in the paper over the weekend that says pope to move john paul for sainthood and i realized later it wasn't the same john paul. but in any case, we are delighted to have you here today. >> senator king, chairman schumer, ranking member roberts, and distinguished members of

this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of campaign finance. when i last appeared before this body in december 1975 my confirmation hearing stretched over three days. today i shall spend only a few minutes making five brief points: first, campaign finance is not a partisan issue. for years the court's campaign finance jurisprudence has been incorrectly predicated on the assumption that avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption is the only justification for regulating campaign speech and the financing of political campaigns. that is quite wrong. we can safely assume that all of our candidates for public office are law abiding citizens and that

our laws against bribery provide an adequate protection against misconduct in office. it is fundamentally wrong to assume that preventing corruption is the only justification for laws limiting the first amendment rights of candidates and their supporters. elections are contests between rival candidates for public office. like rules that govern athletic contests or adversary litigation, those rules should create a level playing field. the interest in creating a level playing field justifies regulation of campaign speech that does not apply to speech about general issues that is not designed to affect the outcome of elections. the rules should give rival candidates - irrespective of their party and incumbency status - an equal opportunity to persuade citizens to vote for them. just as procedures in contested

litigation regulate speech in order to give adversary parties a fair and equal opportunity to persuade the decision-maker to rule in their favor, rules regulating political campaigns should have the same objective. in elections, the decision-makers are voters, not judges or jurors, but that does not change the imperative for equality of opportunity. second, all elected officials would lead happier lives and be better able to perform their public responsibilities if they did not have to spend so much time raising money. third, rules limiting campaign contributions and expenditures should recognize the distinction between money provided by their constituents and money provided by non-voters, such as corporations and people living

in other jurisdictions. an important recent opinion written by judge brett kavanaugh of the d.c. circuit and summarily affirmed by the supreme court, bluman v. federal election commission,1 upheld the constitutionality of the federal statute that prohibits foreign citizens from spending money to support or oppose candidates for federal office. while the federal interest in preventing foreigners from taking part in elections in this country justified the financial regulation, it placed no limit on canadians' freedom to speak about issues of general interest. during world war ii, the reasoning behind the statute would have prohibited japanese agents from spending money opposing the re-election of fdr

but would not have limited their ability to broadcast propaganda to our troops. similar reasoning would justify the state of michigan placing restrictions on campaign expenditures made by residents of wisconsin or indiana without curtailing their speech about general issues. voters' fundamental right to participate in electing their own political leaders is far more compelling than the right of non-voters such as corporations and non- residents to support or oppose candidates for public office. the bluman case illustrates that the interest in protecting campaign speech by non-voters is less worthy of protection than the interest in protecting speech about general issues. fourth, while money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. speech is only one of the activities that are financed by

campaign contributions and expenditures. those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself. after all, campaign funds were used to finance the watergate burglaries - actions that clearly were not protected by the first amendment. fifth, the central error in the court's campaign finance jurisprudence is the holding in the 1976 case of buckley v. valeo2 that denies congress the power to impose limitations on campaign expenditures. my friend justice byron white was the only member of the court to dissent from that holding. as an athlete and as a participant in jack kennedy's campaign for the presidency, he

was familiar with the importance of rules requiring a level playing field. i did not arrive at the court in time to participate in the decision of the buckley case, but i have always thought that byron got it right. after the decision was announced, judge skelly wright, who was one of the federal judiciary's most ardent supporters of a broad interpretation of the first amendment, characterized its ruling on campaign expenditures as "tragically misguided."3 because that erroneous holding has been consistently followed ever since 1976, we need an amendment to the constitution to correct that fundamental error. i favor the adoption of this simple amendment: neither the first amendment nor any provision of this constitution shall be construed to prohibit the congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money

that candidates for skelly wright, money and the pollution of politics: is the first amendment an obstacle to political equality? public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns. i think it wise to include the word "reasonable" to insure that legislatures do not prescribe limits that are so low that incumbents have an unfair advantage or that interfere with the freedom of the press. i have confidence that my former colleagues would not use that word to justify a continuation of the practice of treating any limitation as unreasonable. unlimited campaign expenditures impair the process of democratic self-government. they create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of non-voters who provided them with money than to the interests of the voters who elected them.

that risk is unacceptable. thank you. >> thank you very much for your remarks. thank you. you are excused. in accordance with the process that we discussed at the beginning, i am now turn to senator cruise. >> i would like to thank justice stevens for being here. prior to my time here i spent time advocatiadvocateing for th. justice stevens often disagreed with my clients and there was no

justice's whose comments were more friendly and more dangerous than justice steven. he would ask council wouldn't you agree with this small thing that if you said yes would unravel the entire position in your case. it is very nice to have the good justice with us. and i want to thank the witnesses here for the second panel as well. this topic is a topic of importance. this is a foundational right of every right protected of citizens. and i will say within the issue of campaign finance reform this is perhaps the more m misunderstood issue. it is pitch as let's prevent

corruption and hold people accountable and they do exactly opposite. every thing is designed to protect incoming politicians and it is good at that. there are three speakers in the political debate. there are colleagues of mine in both parties who will stand up and say these pesky citizen groups keep criticizing me. that is the nature of the democratic. and there are 300 million americans that have a right to criticize you all day long. i am one who defends the rights

of our citizens to speak out. rather i agree with their speech or not. the sierra club has a right to defend their views as does the nra. planned parenthood has a right to defend their views as the national right to life. that is the way the system operates. and campaign finance reform is about lower the limits and restrict the speech. and what happens is the only people inning elections are incum b incumbant politicians. if you don't have the army of thousands of thousands you cannot effectively challenge an in cumbant and that is not the unintended effect of these laws. it is the intended effect.

we have superpacs and paulitations that play game and say who will rid me of this troublesome cleric and a group speaks up and you hope the group supporting you bears some resemblance of what you believe but you are not allowed to talk to them. a far better system would be to allow individuals unlimited contributions to candidates and require immediate disclosure. as john stewart mill said look the idea of people operate. i will note there are a series of canards that discussed in this and the number one is money is not speech. we can restrict money because it has nothing to do with speech.

that statement is objectively false. money is and has been used as a critical tool of speech rather publishing books or putting on events or broadcasting over the airways. and i would suggest to each witness ask yourself for every restriction that members of congress are advocates put forth, ask yourself one question, would you be willing to apply that same restriction to the new york times. and let me note the new york times is a corporation so everyone that says corporations have no rights. fine. some say let's restrict political speech within 90 days of an election and would you be willing to say the new york times can't speak about politics before the election. mccutcheon says you cannot tell

how many politicians they can support. if you think mccutcheon is wrong would you tell the new york times you can only speak about nine candidates. or only candidates in new york. those restrictions are all obviously unconstitutional and i would ask you why does the corporation like the new york times or cbs or any other media corporation in congress' view enjoy greater first amendment rights than other citizens. politici politicians in both parties hold to know the imcumben encumbency. i agree with hugo black who said with regards to the first amendment the words congress shall make no low abridging the freedom of speech means exactly

what it says. no law means no law and we should be vigorous, protecting the rights of individual citizens to be engaged in the political process and to hold everyone of us on both sides of the aisle accountable. if is the only thing that keeps our democratic process working. >> senator udall. >> thank you very much. thank you for holding this important hearing. and i want to thank the witnesses i know i going to be here later to discuss what i think is an important topic. and chairman, i appreciate your statement about the vote on the constitutional amendment. i think it is time. we had several votes. one in '97 and one in 2001 but these rulings by the supreme

court have gone so far that we are ripe for having a vote and trying to coales around something. i know justice stevens left but i want to say the words i had in my statement to him. as the author of the descent and citizens united ruling, you wrote that quote the court's ruling threatens to undermine the integirity of institutions across the nation and i find myself agreeing with him. four years after citizens united ruling the damage condition. mccutcheon was one more step in dismantling our campaign finance system. it is now crystal clear an amendment to the constitution is necessary to allow meaningful campaign finance rules. as i heard chairman scumer of it

being absolute. that is what we with -- we are talking about. most americans get one vote and support one candidate that represents their district or state. but for the wealthy and super wealthy mccutcheon says they get more. it gave them a green light to donate to an unlimited number of candidates. now a billonaire in one state gets influence the election in 49 other states. under mccutcheon one donor with dole out 3.6 million every two years just like that. consider this: an american citizen working full-time making minimum wage would have to work

239 years to make that kind of money. 239 years! the court is showing a willingness to strike down sensible regulations by a narrow majority and is returning the campaign finance system to watergate error rules. the same rules that fostered corruption and outraged voters and promoted campaign finance standards in the first place. but our campaign finance system was in trouble long before the citizens united ruling and mccutcheon. those just picked up the case. the court laid the ground work back to the case in 1976. the court ruled that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the first amendment to free speech.

money and speech are the same in in effect. this is tortured logic. elections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas. more about special interest and less about public service. we have a broken system based on a deeply flawed premise. that is why i introduced my bill that has 35 co-sponsors. it is similar to bipartisan resolutions in other congresss. it started with stevens and it is consistent with the amendment justice steven proposed. it would rescore the authority

of congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal and political campaigns. this includes independent expenditures and allow states to do the same. it would not dictate policies or regulations but it would allow congress to pass sensible finance reform that withstands constitutional challenges. in the federalist paper number 49 james madison argued the u.s. constitution should be amendmented only in great and x extrao extraordinary occasions should we amend. i agree with him. i agree we have reached one of these. this effort started decades ago. there is a long and i might add

bipartisan history here. many of the predecessors from both parties understand the dance -- dangers. ted stevens introduced an amendment to overturn buckley and in every congress from the 99th-108th bipartisan constitutional amendments have been introduced similar to fine. that was before the citizens united ruling and mccutcheon decisions. before things went from bad to worse. the out of control spending before the citizens united ruling has further poisoned our election. but it has ignited a broad movement to amend the

constitution. mccutcheon is the latest misguided decisionism it will not be the last. it is time for congress to take back control. chairman king and schumer. if the next panel takes a seat i will introduce you. norman ornstein is our second guest here.

thank you for joining us. i welcome your opening statement and if you have lengthy ones they can be submitted for the record. we look forward to hearing from you and we will discuss the issues.

>> per the committee's request i submitted a request filled with neil reiff. we are practitioners in campaign finance. although we have similar clients, we are not here to represent the views of any clients. one represents republicans, conservatives, and libitarians and the other represents democrats and liberals. recently we co-authored an article that was published that explained the views on the good, bad and ugly of the current l s laws. in our article that we have submitteded to the committee we expl explained that many can be traced back to the statute

itself. mccain-fi mccain law is taking a back seat. we suggest a different approach. in order for voters to be informed they need to hear from the candidates themselves and that ought to be the central voice in democracy. the parties are the best vehicle to assist with that goal. political parties are situated to echo the messages of the people. recall the playoffs -- plaintiff in buckley wasn't nominated by any of those parties. we care about the grassroots and local activity by ordinary citizens and believe the effort to change the culture of

washington, d.c. has reached too far into state and local politics and contributes to pushing local activist outside the party. the current law has federalized all state and local programs. the direct contribution limits remain at low levels that don't match the level pof inflation. the $10,000 state limit ought to be about $48,000 after inflation. and the cost of campaigning has sky rocketed particularly due to the cost of television advertising. those that limit the ability to party committees to assist candidates. it has gone away and been

replaced by super pacs. some claim more disclosure is the answer. separate of my work this isn't the answer. disclosure has a mixed record in the courts. whether one looks at the case in california, naacp versus alabama or davis versus fcc disclosure has limitations. as justice john paul stevens said quote this is a shield from the tyranny of the majority and shows the purpose of the bill official right and the first amendment particularly. john paul stevens said this extends among the realm and advocate may believe her to be more persuasive with they are

not aware of her identity. it will make it as a way that readers don't prejudge the message because they don't like the component. so where the identity of the speaker is important the most effective advocates opted for n anonymi anonymity. what was struck was the so called bi-annual limit that only allowed people to give to a handful of candidates. hopefully contributions will not longer be the province of a select few. the up start campaign al lie, the political party will not

have to compete any more. but this change doesn't fix what ills our finance. it must be revisit. thank you for the opportunity to present these views. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about this issue. i want to start by commending senator ted cruz for his full-throated support of disclosure. and i look forward to his for the disclose act when it comes up in the senate. >> i wrote that down myself. >> i also want to thank senator roberts for putting up the text of the first amendment which i read and reread and i am still looking for the word money in the first amendment. and i just have to say that if money is defined as speech, then the rights of citizens as equals

in this process gets blown away. those with lots of money have lots of speech. those with little money have very little or no speech. having said that, i want to talk about two larger concerns that are generated by the multiple recent moves that i believe would knock the pins out of the regime that has been operating for a long time. we go back to the 1830s as i reflect on this and the two things i want to talk about are the corrosive corruption that is caused when you remove the modest limits on money that existed. and second a focus of the hearing is the efforts to limit disclosure and enable the dark flow to enter the system without the accountable necessarily in a

democr democratic political system. the focus on corruption and concerns about money are not new. they go back to 1837 in an attempt to prohibit parties from shaking town government employees and giving contributions. as historian john lawrence notes lincoln warned that capital was enthroned in the system and worried about corruption in high places until the republic is destroyed. if lincoln were around i would believe he would be reinforced in that comment. in 1883, the corruption involving outside corporate influence on roosevelt that led to the tea party act skwch.

the abuse of federal employees that led to the passive of the hatch tact. the taft-heartly act. the watergate scandal spurring the federal election campaign act of 1974 that was revised by buckley of course. and through the abuses of soft money and other ways that brought about the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002. scandals that let to corruption let to change. all of that focus was turned on its head by citizens united ruling broad as a narrow decision and then broad broaden. i want to take comments

particularly about mccutcheon. what alarmed me the most about the mccutcheon decision was justice robert taking corruption out of theicati equation and deg corruption in the narrowist. as quid pro quo that would only be applicable in a case like the hustle variety when you have video tape and return for a favor in exchange of money. that is so far away from the real world. in particular now where elected officials can recruit big companies. this takes me back to an era where we had president's clubs and speakers club with a mean--w

menu of access. $25,000 was a one-on-one with a speaker. this is a trade of access of money and leads down a dangerous path that becomes more dangerous when we don't have disclosure of who is involved. the notion that mccutcheon would enhance disclosure was blown out of the water. and what we have seen happening after high price lawyers, some in this room, are working feverishly to make sure the contributions get channeled through committees so we don't have effective disclosure. let me end with recommendations of what congress can do. congress should make every effort to pass the disclosure act. second, the senate should hold

public hearings on the dysfunctional election committee and look to reform to it make it a functional body that enforces the law not thwart it. third, for every scandal at the irs that is trying to apply the law saying organization called 501-4 should be exclusively social welfare organization. we should have a meeting to clarify that. and the senate should amend the ethics code to make a violation to solicit organizations for funding. and i am delighted there is a vote on senator udall's constitutional amendment. we have a lot of work and heavy lifting to do. the next scandal will bring a

drive for reform but before that i fear thinks will get a whole lot worse. thank you. >> thank you, sir. mr. trevor potter. >> thank you for the opportunity tebow -- to be -- here and talk about this issues. i know you said you would like the focus to be on the mccutcheon case and the lack of disclosure. i would make two brief points about the mccain-goldfein law. i was pleased to see in the written testimony of the goal of prohibiting six and seven figure contributions in exchange for

access to executive branch personal as well as members of congress. i agree such huge contributions were and are corrupting and giving rise for corruption. and are bad for the democracy. i worry they will resurface after the mccutcheon for the people participating in joint funding committees. and i worry the supreme court's decision in citizen's united and mccutcheon doesn't share the same concern about the corruption inherent in congress or the executive branch selling access that i do. my second point about party committees under this bill is that they have done quite well financi financially. look at the picture of two elections.

2000. the last presidential campaign before this ruling and 2012 or most recent. in 2000, the two political parties and their presidential candidate raised and spent $1.1 billion in that election. a huge sum. today adjusted for inflation that would be $1.45 billion. compare to the amount by parties and candidates. 2012. $2.5 billion and up 80% in inflation justed dollars. it is true that outside groups spent significant sums in 2012 but the national parties and candidates were well resourced.

...

demonstrate how demint -- dramatically that public disclosure of funding has fallen . in 2000 for 98 percent of outside groups running campaign ads disclosed their donors. a few years later that number was down the 34%. it absolute dollars the amount spent on advertising, only 40 percent was disclosed as a source in 2012 by these outside groups. why is this a problem? let me turn to a justice kennedy's explanation and citizens united. he said, with the advent of the internet from disclosures can provide shareholders and citizens with information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. shareholders can determine whether their shareholders political speech advances the corporation's interest and making profits and citizens can see whether a elected officials

are in the pocket of so-called money interest. this closure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this allows the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper right to peace -- different speakers and messages. justice kennedy said the deal was full disclosure of funders. today we have only half the deal as justice kennedy says, speaking for eight justices, that is a problem for our democracy. how can shareholders hold their corporations accountable for the shareholder money spent in political campaigns if they have no idea what is being spent and for and against which candid it's? how can for rouge hold elected officials accountable if they do not know which monied interests are financing those officials

elections. finally, how can the electric, voters, make informed decisions and give proper weight to difference speakers and missed it -- messages, as justice kennedy says, something that the court says is important to the functioning of our democracy of voters to not know who is financing the constant rise of advertising run by these groups. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. car next panel member is ann ravel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member roberts, center. thank you for inviting me to testify today. as indicated, i am the vice chair of the federal election commission, but i am not testifying in that capacity

today, nor am i speaking for the commission. instead, my testimony concerns a case pursued during my tenure as chair of the california fair political practices commission to expose start money in a california election. i am going to use the word of the day, a byzantine story of campaign contributions being funneled all over the country in an apparent effort to avoid revealing to the public who is behind political campaigns. we discovered that networks of nonprofits anonymously injected millions of dollars into our elections by using shell corporate entities, wire transfers, and fun to swapping. this allowed donors to skirt

disclosure laws and cloak their identity from the public view. just a few weeks before the 2012 election the california political "-- action committee which was focused on supporting one and beating another ballot measure received an $11 million contribution. this was the largest anonymous contribution ever made in the history of california elections. the contribution came from an arizona nonprofit, americans for responsible for a rl, which had never before spent a dime in california. after a complaint was filed, we attempted to determine whether a rl abided by the requirements of california law to disclose the source of the contribution. we eventually had to seek relief

in court. the california supreme court ruled unanimously on an emergency sunday session that arl had ten and over its records. because of this a day before the election arl reveal that the sources of the $11 million word to other non profits, one based in virginia and another in arizona called cpb are. arl admitted that it functions solely as an intermediary to receive money from the nonprofits and bottle it to a california political action committee. this is a clear violation of the law that prohibits making contributions in the name of another. after the election, a full investigation found that approximately $25 million raised

from california donors who wished to remain anonymous went to the virginia nonprofit and then was transferred to the other nonprofit. there was an understanding that there would direct other funds back to california in the same amount or more through an intricate web of groups. after passing through multiple nonprofits around the country, $15 million was then returned to california, to the original political committees to spend on the ballot measures. 11 million was funneled through arl, and 4 million through an iowa nonprofit. because of the litigation that was pending, the remaining 10 million of million raised from the california donors was

not anonymously pumped back into the california elections. the fpcc, which is a bipartisan commission, unanimously levied a record-setting fine of $1 million also sought disgorgement of the recipient committees of $15 million and probably disclosed funds. the fpcc investigation demonstrates clearly that public officials from both parties can work together to uphold disclosure laws, but the story of fpcc verses arl also shows that dark money is a national problem that is best soft on the federal level. i will be glad that answer your questions about this case. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> thank you for joining

yesterday. finally, neil reiff. in. >> to mr. chairman, thank you for the of eternity to testify. i am here as a practitioner in campaign finance law. i represent over 40 democratic state parties. as a recent article explains mccain buying gold as had a profound effect, and i would like to provide a couple of examples that illustrate how the law has paralyzed most of the party activity in connection with state and local elections. it ought to be revisited. we agree that national parties and the limitation on solicitation by national party officers, federal candid it's command officers achieve the goals to address soft money practices of national level at the time of this passage. however, congress could have and should have stopped there. instead, little forethought to consequences they extended their reach to state and local party committees who unlike national orderly invested.

under mccain fine gold state parties have been subject to a labyrinth of regulations seeking to enter a out of their activities and forced them into the federal system regardless of whether they have any relation to federal elections or candid it's. federalizing all elections. federal election activity with subject to traditional motor activity. the limitation of this new concept has proven rocky. it was claimed to be a narrowly targeted measure. it minimizes the reach. after it was upheld, however, supporters changed their tune and argued the federal election commission was not reading the new mandates broadly enough. additional litigation ensued and courts instructed the fcc to broaden rules. for example, under the recently redefined definition of get out the vote essentially all

publications undertaken by state party committee, even those made totally independent of any candid involvement are subject to federal law. therefore the party committed -- committee wishes to air an ad that tells voters to go vote. federal law mandates this advertisement be paid for entirely or in part with federally regulated funds. today parties are governed by federal law whereas the nine party group could run the same advertisement free of such limitation. in addition under the get out of the definition if they send out a mailing and informs the butter on when the poll is open, the location, or how to obtain an absentee ballot federal law regulates and limits the funding of the mail piece based upon the provision of the information. even when it makes no reference

to any candidate. simply put party committees have been muzzled when it comes said inform voters of basic information. we cannot conceive any justification that would support this. that has had other detrimental effects. federalization of state parties has created a disincentive for state parties to run joint campaigns. prior it was commonplace for state parties to pay for communications that featured candid it's from the top to the bottom of the ticket. in addition, state and local candid it's that bypass party committees to the incompatibility of federal and state law. the current structure of the law has caused significant demise in state and it party.

it then may independently spend money without restriction on how the communications are funded and how much voting information they can provide. this has had serious implications for the american political system. they have played a vital in campaigning. historic the parties have been instrumental in delivering positive party messaging and increasing turnout's through grassroots voter contact methods what some may characterize, single mission outside groups have come and which are perfectly legal in sin to be exactly the opposite system of what was envisioned by opponents of reform. recently the association passed the unanimous in november of last year that calls on congress to reevaluate house, state, and local parties are regulated.

none of the proposals advocate for any contribution. rather they seek common sense regulation that balances the need to have vital party organization along with the need to provide safeguards against political corruption. we believe any common-sense steps would be helpful. i have a few examples. simplify the existing volunteer exemptions for grassroots activities to make them easier to use and consider expanding into other modes of grassroots activities. repeal the provision that needlessly federalized joint campaign activities undertaken by state party committees. in the alternative modify the current interpretation of the existing rules to scale back their expansive scope that essentially federalizes all party campaigning. finally, in debt contribution limits as these were inexplicably excluded from the

indexing provisions provided for similarly to the extent that party expenditures are still required. update -- update them. in a short time we have we can only recently touch upon the byzantine nature of the regulation that state parties are subjective. thank you for the opportunity to present our views. >> thank you. we will have seven minutes for questions. out would like to begin -- first, the term byzantine has been used a couple of times. this is a chart prepared by the center for responsive politics that is a chart of money in 2012. i think we are insulting the byzantine, frankly, by blanketing this to their conduct this will be available in larger form. it is illustrated of what is going on. i did a rough calculation. three or $400 million is flowing through all of these various

organizations. he had even come up with a name, which i think is a marvelous one, a disregarded entity. that is a kind of -- i don't know quite what that is. an oxymoron, would think. mr. norman ornstein, in preparing for this hearing, to coin a phrase, my conclusion was, it is worse than i thought. we've got a report just yesterday from the lesley ann and media project was it as interesting project which does not try to track contributions but tracks ads on television all over the country and it sure beats a value to them based upon -- an estimated value based upon the air time in the media market of course it is on the air time, it is not production or other cost. the startling thing, this is spending by nondisclosure groups cycled today. in other words, to april 209th , yesterday, what struck me as the gigantic growth

in these independent expenditures which is what i meant in my opening statement. this is not a incremental change but a revolutionary change. the same thing goes -- this is nondisclosure money cycled today. this is outside spending cycled today. these are the off-year elections. you can see, between 2010 and 2014 and enormous growth, almost ten times more. would you say that this is an accelerating problem, and that is one of the reasons we should have to address it? >> it is an exploding problem, mr. chairman. what we have seen as a set of very often explicit efforts to try to hide where the money is coming from. it is not only through these -- i want called in byzantine --

bizarre sets of arrangements, and i think described very well how this can play out across many state lines. i have only briefly alluded to the role of the irs in all of this. one thing we know is that moving toward 2012 there was another explosion which was applications for 501c4 status from groups that in many cases -- and we knew leading up to this -- were moving in to influence elections and were using that state is simply to hide the names of donors. we know that american crossroads created another entity, crossroads gps and basically the head of it said very clearly, this is for people who don't want to disclose. lots of groups are in there. the irs tried to deal with this explosion by using code words. of course, the reality is if you have a group that has the name party in it and say in their

application they want to influence elections, they should be registering under section 527. now the irs is moving to try to come up with common-sense regulations that keeps these sham groups that are not social welfare organizations in any way, shape, or form from doing what the law intended and are being attacked viciously. >> we all remember 2004. that was up five to seven. that require disclosure of donors. as i understand it, that vehicle as atrophied and is very rarely used, and now is the five fell one seat for which does not require the disclosure of donors . >> that is correct. and some others may be used as well. in to thousand congress did move to head to try and require more disclosure. it is important to emphasize what trevor potter but very eloquently in to his testimony,

which is some much of the problem here is not based on the law or the court which is very much in favor of disclosure. it is the federal election commission which has tried to read the fine -- take pat moynihan's term of defining disclosure down to make it even more difficult which is the root of some of the problems here as well. >> as i look back and it was clear that the whole holding was based upon a premise of vigorous disclosure. that was out the court's justified those two ports justified eliminating the limits they posit a disclosure regiment that does not exist. is that correct? >> one of them -- as an outsider, one of the mysteries to the supreme court decision in citizens united is the very strong language by justice kennedy where he says, until today we have not had a system

with on limited corporate spending but full disclosure. now that we have corporate spending allowed in federal elections and full disclosure, and then he goes on, citizens will be able to figure out who is spending the money. the question is, why did justice kennedy say that. the answer is pretty clear. he is looking at the law. he is looking at mccain-fiengold which requires the disclosure of sources of advertising if someone gives money to the group's doing it or done through a separate group is set up for that spending. >> before my time expires, the issue about disclosure is, as i have heard it articulate it, that if donors' names are disclosed they will be subject to intimidation and threats.

my old colleague from virginia law school who i know has nino scalia said requiring people to stand up in public for their political ax foster's civic courage without which democracy is doomed. in maine we have town meetings every spring. no one is allowed to have a bag over their head. if they're going to make a speech to have to acknowledge who they are which is part of the information the voters need. what do you make of this argument that disclosure will lead to reactions and intimidation and threats? >> i agree with justice scalia very much. i must say, as i have been watching the pictures from ukraine and you see these pictures with masks over their heads, it made me think about this a little bit, that there are societies where they try to hide identities. that is not what america is

about. some of the discussion which goes back to a case involving the in acc is really not a very good parallel. it is one thing if you have threats of death and the like, but in a democracy where there is rough and tumble and did something that of senator robert santa cruz talked about, the nature of democracy, if you're going to be involved in this process someone will criticize you for it. there is nothing wrong with that you have to have some reasonable limit. if you do have direct intimidation, but there are laws that guard against that already. >> thank you. senator roberts. >> i would just like to reserve that no one spending money exercising their first amendment rights to my knowledge is endorsing a 9 feet or noise

pollution. i suspect, however, that many on both sides of the aisle have characterized their opponents as stating noise pollution. the other thing i would say, the exercise of free speech that one disagrees with is not pornography, although we all know it when we see it. when we put on our partisan glasses. nor is it necessary to label repeatedly those with whom you disagree as unamerican. mr. norman ornstein, the irs is not moving to promulgate the regulations that were in place, the exact regulations that were in place that some of us believe caused the problems with the irs trampling on the rights, the first amendment rights of some

conservative groups, primarily that tea party. we have received over 200,000 comments, and buy lots you have to go through them. we suggested to the new commissioner of the irs that it might be a good thing to withhold the riding of regulations until the finance committee and united states senate race guarantees in the house and the inspector general would get done with investigations. problems like every investigation with redaction, but we are persevering and trying to do it in a bipartisan manner, more especially with the senate finance committee. they have held off right now, and i think that is a good idea. once we finish the investigations we can determine what actually happened. i have some feeling as a way that really came from, and i think it came from more than a

number of senators basically to the irs stating that they felt the activities of various groups were not in keeping with what they envisioned the provision to call for, but that aside, i just wanted to mention that you referenced the hatch act. yesterday it was announced that an sec attorney resigned. according to council the employee posted dozens of partisan political tweets including many soliciting campaign contributions to the president's 2012 election campaign, despite the restrictions that prohibit the sec and other employees from such sectors the. the employee also participated

in a huffington post live internet broadcast the away but cam as an sec facility criticizing the republican party and the candidate, the republican at that time, mitt romney. and need you to understand why reports of this nature make republicans somewhat wary of the fec. are we to believe that there are not others to share these views but have not been caught expressing them? i mentioned to you, norm, but really that question is directed to mr. ann ravel. >> as i indicated, senator robert, i cannot speak on behalf of the fec, but i will tell you that the fec responded very quickly to that issue when it came to the attention of people within the agency. i understood that it was totally

inappropriate behavior on behalf of an employee and further, there has been an investigation internally, and there is no reason to believe that this is extensive work goes beyond anybody except this one individual who has since been terminated. >> that was my next question, and you have already answered it my question was, in your experience at the commission any negative views of the republican party widespread among the employees there are members of the fec? sitting around, having coffee, saying, my god, what are those crazy republicans doing now. >> senator -- [laughter] i have never heard your name mentioned at the fec. >> at least i am not part of that dark money.

>> no. as i indicated, was speaking on behalf -- relating to an incident, the case of the fpcc. in my six months at the fec i have never heard any partisan communications by either employees or commissioners while we all are appointed based on our party. >> that must be one agency that is an island in the sun. what do you think about this, donald mcgahn? should we view this as an isolated incident or evidence of a broader problem? >> i saw the news and was very troubled by it. the fec has that issue, and i think it is very serious. it calls into question what many of the reform claudius have sold for years, the idea of a non-partisan staff that can

exist divorced from politics and provide advice. that being said, what i can say is, most of the folks at the fec play it straight commercial upon time, do their job well, are committed, don't have an agenda. there are folks who seem to get carried away with themselves from time to time, and i think that is troubling. the cure for this is, one, the hatch act, too, keep in mind what the fec is and what it isn't. it is six persons appointed by the president, confirmed by the president. under the statute in order for the commission to take action it takes at least four of the six commissioners to confirm. ish basket of little carried away that is not good, but in my view the commission, this is a reason why commissioners need to remain

vigilant. the idea that commissioners want to delegate, i have never been a big fan of that, and i think the unfortunate release that came out yesterday is evidence that my view of the law is sound and that really it shows the wisdom of the original system of the fec where the commissioners have to act in a bipartisan manner to avoid one party targeting the other party. >> i appreciate that. my time has expired. >> thank you, senator senator tom udall. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologize for getting here now , but i think this is an incredibly important topic. i think you for holding this hearing. i think justice stevens for his testimony in support for the

constitutional amendment and my colleague, senator tom udall for his work in leading the constitutional amendment of which i am a co-sponsor. i am troubled by recent supreme court decisions extending the damage for -- citizens united caused in my mind. i looked back cleaning up a back room in my house last week and found a bunch of things from my campaign where, mr. chairman, we had a $100 limit on contributions in the off election years and 500 in the election years. i found letters where we return to $10. i then thought of my first days, found a bunch of stuff from the 2006 senate campaign where i knew no one task money from. and naturally went through my entire rolodex and remember raising $17,000 from ex-wife

friends. those days are behind us, as we head into this new era. i am incredibly troubled by these decisions when you can have a few thousand people be able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars. i just think it destroys our campaign finance system. i guess i will start with you, mr. trevor potter. there has been a lot of discussion of what though real-world impact of citizens united has been. can you describe what trains or major shifts you see in campaign finance says the ruling and how mceachern will impact in the future? >> yes. thank you, senator. the first trend which was noted in the chairman's question a moment ago is that contrary to what the supreme court said in citizens united we are seeing secret spending. the court assumption was that although we would have new sources of spending, corporations, unions, it would

be disclosed and that shareholders and citizens would know who was speaking and could evaluate that speech. that is what is not happening now. because of the fec position on what has to be disclosed, this proliferation of tax-exempt groups that did not disclose donors we have ended up with a parallel avenues of spending so that essentially if someone wants to influence an election, if they are being solicited for money the first question is, am i willing to have my spending disclosed or not? if not, you look at all of these vehicles that are available to spend the same money to run the same man's but not have it be a matter of public record so that -- >> if i remember, the $99 contributions.

i know that, but this is taking it to a different level. there is no disclosure. i guess the other question, you took this a step further when you talked about how the definition of corruption is so narrow in the supreme court case and that we can only regulate the nation's to prevent a quid pro quo bribery. why do you think this is problematic? >> first of all, that the say you are a great attorney. beyond that, anybody, i think, who has been around the political process at all those what happens when you have money and is checked with our. in many ways, and direct and analyze, that you get corrected influences. i have had some of your colleagues tell me in the aftermath of the corrosive

speech that created the explosion of the super packs say that there are visited by somebody who says i am representing americans for a better america and have more money and got. pouring in $10 million in the final weeks of a campaign to destroy someone is easy. they really want this amendment. i don't know what will happen if someone opposes them, but that is the reality. they leave. human beings are going to think, it is one amendment or, better raise 10 million. not just what i need for my campaign, but as an insurance fund just in case because i cannot do that in the final weeks of a campaign. that is one set of examples. i can imagine a bunch of people coming in and waiting checkbooks and saying, each one of us has checks that can total almost $4 million will give to the

hundreds of committees. spread it around. of course we will have candid it's. we prefer the notion that this will keep the individual limit is out the window. we will write these checks, but there is one thing and we want in return. you don't have to say it directly, and it will be on videotape. this is corrupting. we saw it in the gilded age. what is been done is they opened up a new keel that date. >> you being a political scientist, not just a campaign expert, i understand one of the problems is, we have had people so polarized. one of the things i am worried about as i look at this decision even more than the independent expenditure decision is that it will just play to the polls and make it harder for people to do things in the middle where they have to compromise and be able to go in the face of some of the

people from their own base, from their own party if they will be punished in a big way from major donors. >> i think when it comes to a big donors there may be four categories of people. to that represent the polls and a trying to use the money as electoral magnets. >> a good analogy. >> a third type are those who may not have made deep ideological interest but pecuniary interest and will use money to make money. i, frankly, am surprised we don't have more spending by big, corporate interest in washington because the best investment you can make cannot put in $20 million that goes into funding of campaigns. maybe you will get $8 billion contract out of it. we will see more of that, and i think we are heading down a slippery slope. maybe you have a category of those who are just looking out for the broader public interest, but i think that is a much

smaller category. >> the last thing i would race, no question, this issue where even when you are making a decision as an elected official to do what you consider the right thing for your state, you think it is the right thing for the country, i think with this lack of trust with all these big contributions people still will now not get it even though you know when your heart you made the decision for the right reason and to see you got money from these interests. even when you do it for the right reason it's completely breaks down trust from the public about why you are doing things which is one of the major problems. >> thank you. a couple of follow-up questions. in listening to this and thinking about these organizations that are essentially designed to disguise the identity, the term identity laundering comes to mind. that is what is really going on.

it is a reverse on money-laundering. that is essentially exactly what was going on in your case where they were donors in california where the money went to virginia , to arizona, back to california all about wandering the identity about that contribution. >> yes, mr. chair. the initial request for the money in california was, if you want your identity to be no you can give directly to a pack. if you do not want your identity to be known and remain anonymous it can go to this virginia nonprofit. the money that went to the virginia nonprofit was specifically for the purpose of not revealing the identity, and it was then moved through all

the other nonprofits for the same reason. >> thank you. that is exactly the way that it appears. one of the situation says, whenever you try to do something about an issue like this -- and i really enjoyed this morning. when you try to do something everyone thinks of it in partisan terms. this data i refer to indicates that the gap, the red alarm more conservative leaning groups, blue are more liberal, and the gap between them is diminishing significantly. it was 85 or 90 percent conservative back in 2010, as you see here. it is still a bake disproportion in 2012. the gap is now 6040.

hopefully both sides will realize that this is a danger. this is not a partisan issue. this not disclosed monday is a danger to and the public no matter who it favors. as the old testament says, if you so the wind you reap the whirlwind. i am afraid that people my saying, right now, today, this benefits my party. next year or the year after that it could benefit the other party which is why we need to make change. >> it is interesting that to the floor mccain-fiengold you have had bipartisan consensus on the need for more disclosure. when congress was considering requiring more disclosure of 527 groups we had overwhelming bipartisan majority support it. one who did not was the senate republican leader. what he said at the time was

committee did not support it because it did not require enough disclosure. including a requirement for disclosure from these nonprofit groups, now what we think of as 501(c)4. we have a very different attitude. it has become more polarized, and i don't see what is closures should be a partisan issue at this point. i don't see why we can't cut through that, and i do think that this is something that are now that there are more avenues for money, people that have interests which includes the polar opposites will start to pour more and more money into it. in many cases they will try to hide where the money is coming from. it will often use inappropriate vehicles, a 501(c)3, to then give grants of money to of the groups that can go to of the groups that can go to other groups that finally end up in a 501(c)4 that does not get

disclosed. there are so many opportunities to hide money. how can voters figure out when a message is coming, who is providing that message which is a requirement of context? >> one of the interesting data points is that voters tend to put more credit stance that come from these groups and they do from the candidates even though they don't know who the groups are. it may be americans for greener grass. they tend to think it is not a candidate and. they don't know who is funding. finally, i am in favor. >> one of the things as well, we have talked -- justice stevens talked about a level playing field. one of the things that concerns me is the level playing field is moving very much away from the candid it's a both parties. candidates have to raise money

and $2,600 increments. groups that now can spend untold amounts that can pour in at the end of a campaign when there is not an opportunity to answer the messages have now, i think, and over the meaning influence. it is not that that money will necessarily be spent. the threat of spending unless something is done is enough. in many cases we will see action taken by government behind closed doors or by changing the amendments that no one will know about without a dime being spent as anonymous groups applied at that. it is not a good way to run business in a democracy. >> i felt one of the most interesting moments today was when senator ted cruz said unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure. react to that concept. >> i think there are two different issues. one is the idea of full and

immediate disclosure, which is the one senator ted cruz talked about, i believe, in the context -- in fairness to senator ted cruz, in context to candidates. the other is the issue of how much candidates should be able to accept as contributions or party committees which are comprised of candidates without citizens thinking that they have been bought. that has been that debate really sense certainly watergate. >> if you have full disclosure citizens can make that decision. >> that is where we were in the early 70's when there were million dollar contributions to the nixon reelection campaign. the reaction was, something is

being sold or something is being bought for a million dollars. the supreme court said it is not irrational. it is common sense that people will believe that huge contributions are intended to buy access, influence, results, and that people who take him or in some way be bought. that is why the court said it makes perfectly good sense to limit the size of contributions to candidates and party committees because of the perception, danger and perception that there is transaction. if you have an unlimited contributions it is fully disclosed you still have a million dollars coming in. the question, i think, will be, what about people who don't have a million dollars? they just don't get to by accessing or influence?

that has been that justification for that contribution limits. the debate has been what size they should be. the assumption has been that those contributions will be disclosed. as far as we know they are. the independent expenditures that the court allows which the court said were not going to be corrected because they would be totally, fully, completely independent of candidates would also be fully disclosed. we have ended up in the worst of both worlds. contrary to what the courts have said, they are not fully disclosed. secondly, they are not totally and completely independent of candidates either. the assumption was that cannot be corrupted because parties will have nothing to do with them. the reality is, we have seen that many of these super packs are created by former employees

of candid it's, relatives of candidates, in many ways tied together, they appear at events. so they are not totally independent, as the court expected. it is not -- in that sense they are not fulfilling their role that the court felt they would. >> we have used the word -- in this is a subject that has not come up today. we have used the word perception a number of times. i don't think there is much perception and poles to support this that this home money in politics is part of what is turning off the american people to the process, part of what is undermining the confidence and trust in the system which is ultimately what our system rests upon. i think it does not have to be a bribe. it just is unseemly. it may be one of the reasons that our collective approval

rating is below al qaeda. and it just strikes me as -- there has not been enough discussion of that has the underlying distaste for this whole system that is undermining trust and confidence in our government. senator, do you want to follow up? >> i was just listening. i am a big fan of transparency, but i do not think in any way it will solve all of the problems certain people given certain states, their entity or what they have done is unpopular and someone else will get money. they will find a way. with a disclosure law they will have to disclose, but i don't think it will fix the problem of the trusts that senator came just talked about as well as the

amount of money that can be spent between what is unseemly and almost a bribe disclosure is enough? >> as you point out, full disclosure, you know what is happening will people like what is happening? that is it different question. and it may well be that full disclosure leads the american public to say, only a limited number of people are being able to buy access. these campaigns cost someone said members have to spend time raising money and will spend it logically the people raising money. full disclosure does not get you everywhere. it is a start to a discussion of how we want to finance campaigns >> you think it is possible we need to do more than just as closure. >> absolutely. >> good. but i think that your argument

would be, if you have disclosure maybe that will more easily lead to other measures. >> my concern here going back to the discussion, the justices on the court are in a position where they are saying, congress, you cannot do more. we have said disclosure is fine. unless it is bribery it is okay. this intermediate area that the chairman talks about, which is it is unseemly and diminishes confidence in government used to be covered by the appearance of corruption, the notion that congress could legislate, as it did with soft money, not because there was proof of bribery with people going to jail, but because the unseen-of six and 7- figure contributions often solicited in terms of join the chairman's club, have a breakfast meeting with the chairman of the committee.

congress said, you cannot do that because it is bad for the institution and public confidence in congress. what i worry about is that the justices on the court are saying , too bad. you cannot fix or regulate that. if it is not out right bribery congress cannot prevent that sort of activity which seems to me to be a crisis for this institution and public confidence. >> senator, i want had a couple of points. when we think about corruption it goes both ways. one of the problems with removing the limits is the pressure on donors it can no longer say with an umbrella of protection, i have maxed out being pushed to give more and more or in some instances being told that if they give to the other side than mayhem will ensue upon them. it's another part of this that

is a very real problem. what i would also like to say if you will give me permission, senator ted cruz said none of these reforms have done anything except increase corruption. it is important to set the record straight. watergate led to a law that changed the way presidential campaigns were funded. to me it is incontrovertibly clear that for decades after we changed the presidential system so that voluntary spending limits, public grants. we had a much cleaner and better system. it fell apart because we did not adjust those numbers and it became a severed. there was not enough money. to be frank, there was not enough public support for public money in the campaigns. now, i think, you are absolutely right, center can. we have lots of polls that show the sense that the public believes that all of politics and particularly in washington

there is corruption, citizens don't have a say and other interests are prevailing. it has a career as the impact on the ability of a democracy to function with legitimacy. these two supreme court decisions pretty much pushed that aside, to me is a really troubling development. >> i am convinced it is not just a perception issue, which it is. i think in minnesota where we have had some very strong limits of the local and state level, it made a difference. it makes a difference in the kind of politics, civility, at the outcome. it gave us governor jesse ventura because we had the public mind, but it gave the citizens to say, and we had the highest voter turnout in the country. a lot of that is, i think, because people have trusted the government.

you were talking about virginia and arizona, and the case you worked on. one of the things that has been debated is the impact of these decisions on foreign entities. you can do this from state to state to state. do you think these decisions could make it easier for foreign entities to fund the united states elections? >> i don't think there is any question about that. one of the positive things about transparency and disclosure for all groups regardless of their status, tax status or how they are set up is that the public will know or prosecutors could know whether or not some of the contributions are made illegally which includes foreign money. >> just last, a trust issue.

under federal law super packs are not allowed to coordinate with their candidate campaign or coordinate activities. and already see you have a smirk on your face. there has been a lot of discussion of the fact that the organizers of some super pacs have had very close ties to candidates that they supported. what impact you think this has on the public trust in government? >> you have presumed independence, and then you see big funder is standing behind candidates as they give their speeches, appearing with them at fund raising efforts, riding with them on private planes and sitting right next to them. then we have the idea which is infused in citizens united that because they are independent these entities can give as much money as they want and we don't need to worry about corruption or the appearance of corruption. it is a big joke, frankly. so that we have to think, not

just citizens united but speech now. >> thank you very much. >> senator, since you brought up my colleague, jesse ventura -- >> is it true he once asked you to be his running mate for president? >> the answer to that is true. >> i thought we should get that on the record. >> if you would like to say no to jesse, you are welcome to. [laughter] it has been attributed to him, i think one of the most ingenious suggestions on this issue. he believes members of congress should have to wear jackets like nascar drivers with their sponsors and a jacket. only jesse would come up with a idea like that. >> trenchcoats, actually. [laughter] >> i want to bank of you on behalf of the rules committee for your input and testimony. i also want to thank the center for politics for their help as well as common cause for

responsibility and ethics in washington who helped develop a lot of that background. this concludes the second panel for today's hearing. before we adjourn i would like to ask unanimous consent that a supreme court brief written on this subject by senators mccain and white house be included in the record. without objection. also without objection, hearing record will remain open for five business days for additional statements and post hearing questions submitted in writing for our witnesses to answer. i want to thank my colleagues for participating in joining us in this hearing, sharing their thoughts and comments on this important topic. this hearing of the rules committee of the united states senate is now adjourned. ..