[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.

                          ____________________