[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5383-S5384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              DISCLOSE ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as I stand here this morning, House 
Democrats are desperately trying to round up the votes they need to 
pass Congress's latest effort to do what the first amendment 
specifically says it cannot, namely, to make a law abridging the 
freedom of speech.
  The first thing to say about the so-called DISCLOSE Act is that it 
was authored behind closed doors without even a flicker of sunlight. In 
other words, a bill that is purportedly about bringing transparency to 
the electoral system was written without any. Just yesterday, a 45-page 
amendment was proposed to the bill without any public oversight.
  The second thing to say about this bill is that it was written by the 
House Democrats' campaign committee chairman, who has been out 
trumpeting it as a ``response'' to the Supreme Court's recent decision 
in Citizens United.
  As I noted yesterday, Democrats have done this before with free 
speech rulings they have found to be politically inconvenient. In the 
mid-1990s, they did not like Justice Breyer's decision in Colorado 
Republicans, so the Clinton administration and Elena Kagan set about 
finding ways to benefit Democrats at the expense of Republicans. So 
past is prologue.
  This bill is not about preserving any principle of transparency. It 
is about protecting incumbent Democrat politicians. As for the 
substance, a brief review of the bill itself shows that the DISCLOSE 
Act is about as ill-named as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 and ensures as much freedom as the poorly named Employee Free 
Choice Act. But, of course, House Democrats have said they do not care 
what they pass. They just want to pass something. Now that is quite the 
way to legislate.
  Supporters of the bill say it is needed to deal with special 
interests. But the loopholes Democrats wrote into it show that they 
view some interests as more special than others. Take for example the 
spate of new speech prohibitions that did not exist prior to the 
Citizens United decision.
  That is right, this bill goes far beyond what the court held to 
muzzle the speech of some while granting a pass for others.
  Expansive new restrictions on government contractors and TARP 
recipients, but not their unions or government unions.
  Expansive new speech restrictions on domestic subsidiaries which 
employ Americans who pay American taxes, without restricting unions at 
these same companies or international unions.
  And that is just in the first few pages. Over the next few weeks I 
will highlight more of these ``winners and losers'' provisions 
Democrats are advocating in this bill.
  If there were any doubt that this one-sided bill is not about 
principle but about changing the rules to the political game, just look 
at the special treatment House Democrats have been shopping around for 
weeks in an effort to sell this bill. They have engaged in a game of 
special interest carve outs which is the legislative equivalent of a 
game of Twister.
  For example, in drafting a bill that House Democrats say is designed 
to deal with special interests, they have deliberately exempted what 
they have long called one of the biggest special interests of all: the 
National Rifle Association.
  So in writing a bill that is supposedly about diminishing the 
influence of special interests, Democrat leaders cut a deal to allow a 
chosen few to operate unfettered by its restrictions, thereby enhancing 
the power of those chosen few. Apparently they did not learn their 
lesson from the reaction they got to the Cornhusker Kickback or the 
Louisiana Purchase.
  What is transpiring in the House right now with this bill turns the 
first amendment on its head. Incumbent politicians are intentionally 
protecting some large groups so they can muster the votes to restrict 
many more citizens groups that have less political clout but whose 
participation in the political process the incumbent politicians find 
inconvenient.
  Let me be clear. I support the second amendment, and I support the 
NRA's vigorous exercise of its first amendment rights in order to 
defend the second amendment rights of its members. But this is not 
about the Democrats' affinity for the second amendment. If it were, 
they would have carved out an exception for the Gun Owners of America 
as well. As it is, the GOA vehemently opposes this bill. Why? Because 
they know it restricts first amendment rights.

[[Page S5384]]

  This bill is opposed by over 350 groups ranging from the Sierra Club 
and the ACLU, to the Chamber, the NFIB, and National Right to Life.
  That is right, Democrats have done a unique thing here: they have 
united the left and the right in opposition to the effort to take away 
political speech from some and enhance it for others. These 
organizations, standing on firm first amendment principles, have been 
vigorously opposing this effort to stifle their speech.
  And I stand with them in asking each and every one of my colleagues 
to join me in honoring the oath we took to protect and uphold the 
Constitution of the United States of America, and, in particular, the 
first amendment to free speech.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________