[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6266-S6267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISCLOSE ACT
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
allow debate on the DISCLOSE Act, a commonsense measure to fix just
some of the problems created by the Citizens United decision.
For a century, Congress has done everything it could to make sure the
American public has as much information as possible about the money
being spent in our elections. The first Federal campaign finance
disclosure law was passed in 1910, which scientists tell us was 100
years ago. It was strengthened in 1925. In the 1970s, it was replaced
with an even stronger system as part of the Federal Election Campaign
Act. Eight years ago, with McCain-Feingold, it was strengthened yet
again. So the Congress has been in the disclosure business for 100
years. And, in fact, at every major step, the Supreme Court has
actually affirmed Congress's power to pass these laws.
In 1934, the Court unanimously upheld the disclosure laws that
Congress passed a decade earlier. In 1975, they upheld the disclosure
provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 2003, they upheld
the disclosure and disclaimer provisions of McCain-Feingold. Just this
January in Citizens United--yes, in Citizens United--they voted 8 to 1
to uphold those same disclosure provisions again.
The disclosure provisions of the DISCLOSE Act are well in line with a
century's worth of Federal statutes and precedent, at least according
to the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, the Roberts Court, and the
Hughes Court. I bet some of you have not heard of the Hughes Court.
That was from 1934. So we can pass this law. We can do it. There should
be a will to do it.
Here are some excerpts from a few Members' floor statements from the
107th Congress, the Congress that passed McCain-Feingold:
Clearly the American public has a right to know who is
paying for ads and who is attempting to influence elections.
Sunshine is what the political system needs.
Another Member said:
We can try to regulate ethical behavior by politicians, but
the surest way to cleanse the system is to let the Sun shine
in.
Here is yet another:
Disclosure helps everyone equally to know how their money
is spent. [ . . . ] Disclosure is what honesty and fairness
in politics is all about. Why would anyone fight against
disclosure?
These are actually the statements of friends of mine across the aisle
who are still in this body who opposed McCain-Feingold and who opposed
it in large part because they said it did not do enough on disclosure.
In fact, a lot of them opposed it precisely because it did not do
enough to promote disclosure of the independent expenditures of
corporations and unions.
As my good friend Senator Hatch said in March of 2001:
The issue is expenditures, expenditures, expenditures; and
[ . . . ] the real issue, if we really want to do something
about campaign finance reform, is disclosure, disclosure,
disclosure.
I think he repeated it three times for emphasis.
This is what the minority leader said when he voted against the
McCain-Feingold bill, as amended by the House, in March of 2002. This
is the minority leader, Senator McConnell from Kentucky:
Reformers claim this bill will increase disclosure and
shine the light on big money and politics. This is, of
course, not true. Unions will continue to funnel hundreds of
millions of dollars of hard-working union member dues into
the political process without ever disclosing one red cent.
The protections my friends were waiting for are in the DISCLOSE Act,
and they boil down to this: If someone is spending a lot of money in
our elections, American voters will have a right to know whether that
person is a corporation, a nonprofit, a union, or a 527.
Before I close, I want to discuss a part of this bill that does not
have to do with disclosure, section 102.
Section 102 incorporates critical provisions of a bill I introduced,
the American Elections Act. It will make sure that foreign interests--
foreign governments, foreign corporations, and individuals--cannot use
American subsidiaries that they own or control to influence our
elections.
The fact is, after Citizens United, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
companies will be able to spend as much as they want in our elections,
even if they are under foreign control.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
[[Page S6267]]
Mr. FRANKEN. I ask for another couple minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, I ask that another couple
minutes be added to our time. If that is OK with the Senator from
Minnesota, I have no objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Senator from Texas. The fact is, after
Citizens United, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will be
able to spend as much as they want in our elections, even if they are
under foreign control. President Obama alluded to this in his State of
the Union Address, and Justice Stevens said it explicitly in his
dissent.
More and more American companies are coming under foreign ownership
and control. According to the Congressional Research Service, between
1998 and 2007, there was a 50-percent increase in the number of mergers
and acquisitions where a foreign firm acquired a U.S. firm. But our
laws are out of date. They do not protect against election spending
from those foreign-controlled companies.
There are basically only three restrictions on election spending by
foreign companies: One, you cannot be headquartered or incorporated
abroad. The subsidiary has to be headquartered here, such as BP
America.
You cannot use money you have earned abroad in our elections. You can
use money earned here.
You cannot let foreign citizens decide how to spend that money. But
the boards of these companies kind of know how, Citgo, say, might want
to spend its money. One company that could pass the test and spend
unlimited amounts of their money in our elections is Citgo, 100-percent
owned by Hugo Chavez and the Venezuela Government. Here is another
company that can pass the test: British Petroleum or, rather, its
subsidiary, British Petroleum America. This is unacceptable.
The DISCLOSE Act updates our laws and says that if a foreign entity
has a controlling stake in a company, as defined by most States'
corporate control standards--or if a foreign entity controls the board
of directors of a company, that company should not spend one dime in
our elections.
Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I yield back my
time. I have no time to yield back. I am done.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 32 minutes 23 seconds
remaining.
____________________