Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Authorization Act--Motion To Proceed--
Madam President, back in 2012 the people of Montana stood up against the influence of corporations and big money in elections. By a 3-to-1 margin, they called on their congressional delegation to introduce a constitutional amendment…
Madam President, back in 2012 the people of Montana stood up against the influence of corporations and big money in elections. By a 3-to-1 margin, they called on their congressional delegation to introduce a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. That ruling paved the way for more secret money in politics. It allowed corporations to make contributions to political campaigns on the grounds that corporations should have the same right to freedom of speech as any individual.
In response to the overwhelming vote by the people of Montana, I proudly introduced this amendment, which affirms what we all know: Corporations are not people, and they do not have the same rights as you or I.
Two years later Americans are realizing that Montanans were pretty forward-looking. That is because in Montana we value independence. We value our individual rights. And we don't think a faceless entity should be able to tell us what to do. We don't like it when secretive, shadowy groups try to tell us how to vote, and we don't like it when corporations dictate our health care decisions. But that is exactly what happened with last week's Hobby Lobby decision. The Supreme Court decided corporations can limit their employees' health care options, thereby restricting our individual freedoms. That is un-American. Affording corporations the same constitutional rights to speech--and now to religion--that Montanans and all American people cherish is the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is not freedom. It is a slippery slope to granting large corporations greater power over everyday Americans' lives.
With the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court found that corporations can hold religious-based objections to providing insurance coverage for certain medical care. The corporations do not have religions; people do. The First Amendment was meant to protect individuals' religious freedoms, not those of corporations. Now, the religious beliefs of corporations will dictate the health care options of people. It starts with contraceptive care, but where does it end?
It is clear that the Supreme Court is putting the rights of corporations over the rights of people. So much for treating all Americans equally. If you are a corporation with money, you could influence our elections to a far greater extent than ever before. Now, if you have a corporation, you can influence our access to health care too.
Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent:
The decision would deny legions of women who do not hold
their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.
Let me say that again. These are Justice Ginsburg's words:
The decision would deny legions of women who do not hold
their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive care.
Where will this end?
Being a woman cannot be a preexisting condition. Contraception is basic health care, and 99 percent of American women currently use or have used birth control at some point in their lives. But now a manless, faceless corporation can stand between women and their access to this basic care, all because an activist Supreme Court thinks corporations have the same rights as people.
This Supreme Court continues to redefine individual rights as corporate rights: freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have to ask ourselves, where will this end? It seems as if anything is possible when it comes to this Supreme Court, where five men can determine a woman's health care. But it doesn't need to be this way. My constitutional amendment makes it 100 percent clear that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are meant for the American people--real folks who work day in and day out to put food on the table--not corporate entities.
My amendment also allows the American people to once again regulate corporations through the representatives they elect in State and Federal government.
I encourage all my colleagues to join me and Senators Murphy, Begich, Walsh, Markey, and Whitehouse in supporting this commonsense step. But it is going to take a comprehensive approach to make sure real people, not corporations, are in charge. Whether it is elections or health care, people should be free to make their own choices without the undue influence of corporate entities.
Montanans voted in 2012 to limit constitutional rights to individual people, but it was 100 years earlier that we also voted to limit corporate influence in elections after wealthy mining companies bought influence and even paid for a U.S. Senate seat. We recognized the negative impact wealthy corporations were having on our electoral process. But this Supreme Court, using its Citizens United decision as justification, overturned our century-old law just 2 years ago, creating the same kind of election-spending free-for-all in Montana that we are witnessing nationwide.
Before the Hobby Lobby decision, the fight against corporate influence was mainly about making sure real people and their ideas were in charge of elections. But now it is no longer just about a democracy; it is about keeping corporations out of our private lives, out of our bedrooms, and out of our religious decisions. It is an even bigger fight now.
If you don't want to find out where corporate influence and the Supreme Court will go next, I would encourage you to join me and fight back with smart, responsible measures that will put real people back in charge of our lives. Our democracy has been under attack before but never to this extent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I would suggest the absence of a quorum.