Transcript of Pelosi Remarks at the Introduction of Constitutional Amendment To Limit Money in Politics

"Thank you, Congressman Deutch, for your kind introduction, [but] more importantly for your great leadership on this subject – your persistent, determined and relentless leadership – to come to terms on an amendment that we all agree to as we go forward.  It is my pleasure to be here with these distinguished House Members – all of whom have played a role in one way or another to make us what we are: a democracy; a government of the many, not a government of the money.

"Our Founders sacrificed their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor – in their own words – to establish this democracy.  What you see before you are some of America's patriots – here to fight for that democracy.  Some of the things that we have to do to restore confidence in our democracy is to reduce the role of money – it has a suffocating impact; suffocates the airwaves with confusion, not knowing what the source of the money is; special interests from who-knows-where.  And that's just not right.  Mr. Sarbanes is here, and he has a solution to that, to empower small donors and all of it.  So I'm proud to be with all of them here.

"Of course, John Larson is Chairman of our House Elections Task Force, and he has been relentless in the four areas of the D.A.R.E. that I have put forward: Disclose, [Amend, Reform, and Empower] – Mr. Van Hollen has that legislation – disclose.  It passed the House two times when we had the majority, and never could get that 60th vote in the Senate.  Disclose where this money's coming from – not only disclose where it's coming from, but in real time to see it, when ads go up, who paid for this.

"Amend the Constitution: thank you, Congressman Deutch, for your leadership in bringing so many folks together on this.  Amend the Constitution.  Reform: thank you, Mr. Sarbanes, for the reform bill – Government by the People legislation – that empowers small donors.  And Empower: because with that empowerment, we can remove all of the obstacles to participation that the Republicans want to put up throughout the country.  And they are doing that.

"But the suffocation of the airwaves does more to discourage voting, because it confuses the issue.  And this is really important, because not only are we restoring confidence in our democracy, but we're restoring confidence in our economy – that decisions are made for the American people and not for the special interests.  What happens, as Walter Reuther said, at the ballot box cannot be separated from what happens at the bread box.  There is a direct relationship.

"So if we want policies that are more for the American people, for strengthening the middle class, lifting people who aspire to it into the middle class, we have to have policies that do that.  And if we want those policies, we have to have an electoral system that makes all parties, all people running, aware of the fact that people are paying attention – that they are voting and that these are issues they care about.  And what they do care about is being in the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

"What we're seeing happen here today to mitigate for the damage done by the courts is, again, an act of patriotism.  And I'll salute my colleagues for their leadership on this.  And it is now my pleasure to introduce a person who's been relentless in this pursuit, Mr. Larson.  He has had endless meetings - endless in length and endless in number – on the subject.  He has been persistent, and not only in this, but in going into the next phase, which is commission redistricting and issues like that, as well – all of it to empower the American people, all of it honoring the vision of our Founders and a way to have a better future for our children: Mr. Larson."

Q:  Can you comment on what the strategy is for advancing this?  You have the support from most of the Democrats in the House it seems unlikely that you'll have Republican support you need for the Speaker to bring it up for a vote.  What can you do to advance this at this point?     

Leader Pelosi.  This, as always, Lincoln spoke very clearly: "Public sentiment is everything."  This is where the public is – Democrats, Republicans, no party affiliation – people believe that the Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the ability to put endless special-interest secret money into campaigns was wrong.  We in California – I was very pleased being out there – we have one of our Party meetings this weekend – and the state legislature has just passed legislation waiting for the Governor's signature to put on the ballot the overturning of Citizens United.  We think that will slide through the electorate in our state.  But, as we mentioned, 16 other states have registered their concern about this.

But this is something about the outside, and it's tough.  And, as Congresswoman Edwards said, this is going to be difficult.  But I will tell you, there is fertile opportunity out there because the public understands that this is not what our Founders intended.  Mr. Deutch referenced how the Court does its own with its absolute corruption quid pro quo and the rest.  Well, whether there's corruption or not, there's a corrosion of our democracy in this decision.  And there's a diminution of confidence in our democracy.  And that skepticism and that corrosion are not healthy things for our democracy and they're certainly not a model to the rest of the world as they undermine what was intended for country.

So this is a fight.  I'll tell you, as you travel through our country – I don't care what the audience is, where you are whether it's a university campus or if it's a – wherever you are,  if you say: "We are for overturning Citizens United," you will get a standing ovation.

Any of my colleagues want to speak to that?

Rep. Deutch.  I'd only add two things: One, there is a large coalition of interest groups and their members who are wholly supportive of what we're trying to accomplish here today.  And I just make the point again, all of those elected officials – the city council members, the county commissioners, the state representatives and state senators around the country who represent millions of Americans – they're constituents are the same constituents who are represented by Members of Congress.  And just as all of those citizens have reached out and supported and endorsed the efforts at a local level for them to advocate for a constitutional amendment, so, too, they will be heard in advocating for Congress to move forward with this constitutional amendment.

Leader Pelosi.  And they were largely responsible for our success in California – those outside groups.

Q:    Madam Leader, there seems to be a growing chorus of Democrats who are saying that the issue of changing the 2008 anti-trafficking law should be put off for another day and Congress should just focus on the emergency border – 

Leader Pelosi.  I'd be happy to take that question at the end, but I would like to stay focused on this for the moment.

Any other comments our colleagues may have on the previous question or anything that you heard here?  Any other questions on the subject?  We gathered to talk about this.

Q: We're currently heading into the election; this is something that seems to come up in even years a little bit more.  How are you guys planning on using this on the campaign trail, and do you feel that this is your strong play?  Obviously this is a long-term project, but how do you see this working out?

Leader Pelosi.  I'm sure my colleagues have plenty to say on this.  John and Donna?

Rep. Edwards.  I'll just speak very briefly.  First of all, I think it is true what the Leader says.  It almost doesn't matter what constituency, what community you're in front of – when you talk about the corrosive impact of the Citizens United and then the subsequent decisions, people get that.  And this isn't about this next election; this is about our Republic and the health of our Republic.  And people at home understand that and they will make sure that Members of Congress understand that – whether that's in the context of 2014 election or it's simply in the context of  getting them to sign on as co-sponsors of the Democracy is For All Constitutional Amendment.  Because they get the fact that money is completely drowning their voices and no one wants to tolerate that anymore.

And so I have great confidence in the American people that they are going to convince Members of Congress to do what we might be convinced to do standing on our own.

Rep. Sarbanes.   I think this is going to be an issue that motivates the electorate in every single election until it's solved and so that begins with the 2014 election and it goes from there.  The intensity cuts across the political spectrum.  If you stand in front of the typical audience out there of the public, often times if you don't start with this issue – the influence of big money in politics and government and how the voices of everyday people are being drowned out – they don't hear anything else that you say.

So it's the way you do sort of the sound check on the [microphone] when you're talking to the public today.  And if you do that, then all the other issues that are important, all the other things that people want to see happen here in this Congress, in Washington, in our government, they become relevant to the conversation again.  But if you don't solve this problem, people don't think you can solve any of the rest of it.  So as a motivator – something to bring voters out – I think you'll find in 2014 and beyond that this is an issue, and it's an important issue.

Leader Pelosi.  Any questions on this important subject?

No?

Well, I do want to also say that I mentioned in the DARE –the Disclose, Amend, Reform, and [Elect] – John Lewis and Mr. Clyburn have that empowerment legislation to move obstacles of participation – one of those obstacles is big money in the political system.

Today, we've had meetings all day and early this morning.  We talked about certain business interests that don't want it to go forward.  The Speaker says that it costs jobs.  It hasn't in any of the states where it existed, and that's ending discrimination against the LGBT community.

Then we met on the subject of the Voting Rights Act, which is stalled.  You would think that that would be the first thing we would do.  We're celebrating the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and at the same time, ignoring the fact that the Court – again in its lack of wisdom – has done serious damage to the Voting Rights Act.  And this Congress has still not acted.

The next meeting we had on immigration reform: no action.  Raise the minimum wage: no action.  Unemployment insurance: no action.  Well, why do you think that is?  If the public's voice could be more firmly heard by the Congress of the United States, we would be responding to issues that have overwhelming support in the public and not dominated by the special interest in Washington, D.C.  Again, as Walter Reuther said: The breadbox and the ballot box cannot be separated.  They have a relationship and we have to make sure people have access to the ballot.  So, congratulations to all of you coming to agreement on this legislation.  Congratulations, Steve.

With your permission, I'll take that question if you want to go vote.

Q:  Do you agree with Mr. Hoyer with this issue of changing the law, the 2008 law and dealing with the kids from Central America should be put off for another day and the focus should only be on the appropriations?  A lot of opposition from your Caucus to this…

Leader Pelosi.  To changing the law?

Q:  …to changing the law.  Yes. 

Leader Pelosi.  Yes indeed there is.  As many of you know, the law that was – there were three; a law in the 90's, a court decision, Flores vs. Reno, 2002 law which was establishing the DHS, and the 2008 law – all have an impact on how immigrant, people coming into our country are treated.

The Wilberforce – more directly to children; unfortunately, all of its good intentions, one of its bad features was that it made a distinction between kids from contiguous countries – that would be Mexico and Canada and kids from Central America.  We'd like all kids to be treated equally.  The change in the law is to treat them equally in the bad way – not in the positive way – in the bill.  So that they don't have due process before they're turned back.  I think you're right; there is concern in our Caucus about changing that law.

But we do need to have the Supplemental.  It is absolutely urgent that we do, and any discussion of any changes to the Supplemental must include due process for these kids, so we treat them in a case-by-case basis – law enforcement, judges, and all the rest of it.  But also to minister to their needs as they come into the country.  Some of these are four, five, six year olds.  I saw them a week and half ago in Brownsville, Texas.  I just remind you that, in opposing that, we associate ourselves with the principles set forth in the National Catholic Conference of Bishops.  In theirs, they begin reminding us that the baby Jesus was a refugee fleeing violence.  And then they end by saying to send these children back would be like sending them back into a burning building.

Well, somewhere in between we must have due process.  We must be respectful.  And we cannot change the law unless there's such a mitigation within the law to give them due process in a shorter period of time.  But you're right.  There is a great deal of unease in our Caucus on this subject.  But again, we have to do what's right, in the best interest of the children.  That's the standard of the UN.  That's the standard of the bishops.  That's the standard of any country of values, which is certainly who we include ourselves to be.  And we also have to appreciate what it means to communities.  We have to manage the issue well, but we have to do it true to our values.  And as I said: just read the Bishops' report, or the UN report.  I think you will find it very much in support of our Members position of not changing this law.