[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7325-S7327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DISCLOSE ACT

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I come to floor today to tell a sad, 
sad story of hypocrisy. It is not the first time we have told stories 
of hypocrisy around this Capitol Building, but this one is a 
particularly sad story of hypocrisy because right now, the ending is 
ugly.
  In America, we like nice endings. This story of hypocrisy has a very 
bad ending. The name of this story is, Who is trying to buy your 
government? There are folks out there right now trying to buy your 
government. The saddest part of this story is that we have no idea who 
they are. So why is it a story of hypocrisy? Well, we can start with 
how we got here.
  I have heard so many times--I cannot count how many times I have 
heard my colleagues in the other party talk about the evils of an 
activist court: Well, we have to make sure we do not have activist 
judges. Well, no, I am not opposed to this nominee because he is 
appointed by a Democratic President; I am opposed to this nominee 
because of activism, evil activism. We have to watch out for activism.
  So along comes the Citizens United case. If you looked up ``judicial 
activism'' in a reference book, you would find the title ``Citizens 
United.'' This Court went off the tracks. They created precedent out of 
whole cloth in an effort to turn our democracy into a race for the 
highest bidder.
  I think it is hypocritical for people to come before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and be eloquent--because these are all smart 
people--very eloquent about the evils of judicial activism and then 
proceed to dismantle a system that is all about the public's right to 
know.
  There is another part of this that is hypocritical, besides the 
notion that somehow conservative people are not judicial activists. 
They are not judicial activists when they are active for something you 
believe in. Then it is not activism. In other words, judicial activism 
is in the eye of the beholder. I can think of a lot of Supreme Court 
cases that could back up that assertion.
  The other thing that is so hypocritical about this is the ridiculous 
notion that so many people in this body have talked about transparency 
like it is so near and dear to them. We must have transparency. We must 
have an open door. We must have sunlight. Let me read a few quotes. 
This is rich:

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited . . .

  Think about that term, especially when we realize where it came from.

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what 
     is appropriate.

  Good, old-fashioned common sense. That is from the leader of the 
Republican Party.
  How about this one:

       I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full 
     disclosure, full disclosure of all the money we raise and how 
     it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best 
     disinfectant.

  That came from the leader of the Republican Party in the House.

       I think the system needs more transparency so people can 
     more easily reach their own conclusions.

  I couldn't agree more. That comes from the Senator heading up the 
Republican effort to elect Republican Senators this year.
  I could go on and on. We have a Supreme Court decision that turns the 
section of the IRS Code, 501(c), into an open bazaar. What was supposed 
to be not political and not for profit is now a mushrooming industry of 
nonaccountable, unaccountable organizations that nobody has any idea 
where they are coming from, who is writing the checks, and what their 
motivations are. These groups have fallen into a regulatory nirvana. 
There is no regulation. There is nobody watching. There is nobody 
asking questions.
  These are social welfare organizations, 501(c)(4)s, like Crossroads, 
which is one that sprung up. It has been the top spender. It hasn't 
been the Republican committees or the Democratic committees. The top 
spender in the Senate races is a group we have no idea what it is or 
who is writing the checks.
  We have to realize they don't even have to file anything with the 
government, with the IRS, until February, March, April. How many people 
think these organizations are going to be around after November? 
Really? How naive are you? They have to find some excuse, right, 
because this is embarrassing that they are blocking our efforts at 
making campaign finance contributions transparent?
  One can't really say: Hey, we are going to change our mind about 
transparency because we have an election to win and we have a bunch of 
rich people out here who want to write big checks or big corporations 
that want to write big checks. So what do you do? You try to make it 
about the big, bad unions. These rules need to apply to unions too.
  Unions are doing ads right now. They should be saying what unions are 
doing them. We should know where their money comes from. We do know 
where their money comes from. It comes from their members. But we ought 
to know who is doing it. This law requires the same thing of unions 
that it requires of anyone else writing big checks.
  Who is going to buy your government? It could be like a game show. We 
could have a big wheel and spin the wheel and people could guess who is 
buying the government. I am worried about government contractors. There 
has been big money in government contracting. I have noticed from 
firsthand experience that when we start shaking the trees of these 
government contractors, they fight back. As I have tried to clean up 
some of the contracting messes that have littered the financial 
landscape of the Federal Government, I have run into an amazing amount 
of resistance from the underground power of these government 
contractors.
  Let's look at Blackwater. We know they have created dozens of fake 
names to do business with the government. Many of them are 
noncompetitive. Many of them are highly lucrative. They are hiding the 
identity of their company for purposes of contracting.
  Can colleagues imagine what they are capable of if they get to write 
checks to influence elections with nobody knowing it? I am in big 
trouble. I have gone after a lot of these big contractors. Now I think 
my picture is probably on a lot of their dart boards. Now they don't 
have to worry about throwing a dart. They don't have to worry about it. 
All they have to do is anonymously write big checks. Millions of 
dollars. Write a check for $10 million. Blow out an election in a 
State. Nobody has to know who did it.
  Foreign interests, yes; the Citizens United case created all kinds of 
loopholes that are actually delineated in the case. They explained the 
loopholes that are being created, if one reads the entire decision, for 
foreign corporations. It is like after that case we have fallen down a 
rabbit hole in terms of everything we should believe in in terms of our 
election processes.
  In the old days, they used to have the term, ``the bagman.'' The 
bagman was not exactly a positive term for people. The bagman was the 
guy who was in charge of carrying the money around in a bag. There was 
a time in this democracy where they actually did that. Big bags of cash 
were carried around and delivered to people's desks in every level of 
government in the country. The people in this great democracy rose up 
and said: We want to clean up this mess. We want candidates to have to 
report how much money they are getting.
  Some States said: We want to limit how much they are getting. We 
limit how much we get. I don't know why we are not honest about this. I 
don't know why they don't just propose an alternative bill that we do 
away with any kind of limits. Frankly, it might be a better tradeoff.

[[Page S7326]]

  If somebody put a gun to my head and said: You have to choose. Do you 
want all the money being spent on campaigns disclosed where it is 
coming from or do you want limits, I think I would take the disclosure 
because I trust the American people. If they know who is paying the 
bill, they can make a good judgment whether they trust what that 
commercial says or what that mailer says or what that robo call says.
  Trust is the great intangible around here. We can't do our jobs with 
dignity and with honor if we are hypocrites and if there is not trust. 
Does anyone imagine that the American people are going to trust us more 
when we have open season on elections by the highest bidder?
  I implore my colleagues, clean up this mess with us. Don't put the 
last nail in the coffin of bipartisanship. This should be a bipartisan 
effort. One rich guy who has a grudge against you can make unfair 
commercials and never be held accountable, regardless of whether you 
are a Democrat or a Republican.
  I am not as offended by the notion that wealthy people can spend 
their money however they want as I am by the notion that they can buy 
elections with it and not be held accountable. We have a very wealthy 
guy in St. Louis, Rex Sinquefield, who is spending millions of dollars 
influencing elections and issues in Missouri. I kind of admire the guy. 
He is up front about it. He is not handing checks off to Karl Rove 
somewhere. He is very up front.
  Trust is the great intangible. Everyone who blocks the effort to 
require full disclosure of money that is being spent on political 
campaigns does great damage to the most precious commodity we have in 
this country, and that is the strength of our democracy.
  I hope the American people, who are pretty cranky right now--and I 
get it; they are upset; they ought to be really mad about this--hold 
every one of us accountable. If you are not willing to support a bill 
that will require full disclosure of people who are spending money on 
political advertising, then I don't know how seriously we can take 
anything you say you stand for.
  Let's get the DISCLOSE Act up now. Let's clean up this mess. I 
guarantee my colleagues, it is going to have an ugly ending. This story 
will not have a good ending unless we change the plot.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, ``[c]learly 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.''

       We can try and regulate ethical behavior by politicians, 
     but the surest way to cleanse the system is to let the Sun 
     shine in.
       I don't like it when a large source of money is out there 
     funding ads and is unaccountable.
       I think the system needs more transparency so people can 
     more easily reach their own conclusions.
       I support campaign finance reform, but to me that means 
     individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure.
       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what 
     is appropriate.
       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.
       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?

  Those are all excellent points. The fact is, they were made by seven 
different Members of this body, all from my friends on the other side 
of the aisle. They were made either on the floor of this body or to the 
press.

  So let there be no doubt, for a long time, disclosure of election 
spending has been a robustly bipartisan issue. But suddenly each of my 
friends has changed his or her tune. They now oppose legislation called 
the DISCLOSE Act--disclose, disclosure--the DISCLOSE Act that would 
force companies, nonprofits, and unions to disclose the money they 
spend in our elections, both to the Federal Election Commission and to 
the American people.
  Here is one reason why they may have changed their tune. Thanks to 
the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which Senator 
McCaskill just spoke so eloquently about, corporations today have more 
power to spend in our elections than they have had in our lifetimes. In 
that decision, the Roberts Court broke with a century of precedent, 
overturned two Federal laws, reversed two of its own decisions, and 
nullified 24 State laws, including a 20-year-old Minnesota law. The 
Supreme Court did all that to allow corporations to spend as much money 
as they want, whenever they want, in our elections and not just Federal 
elections--State elections, county elections, school board elections.
  Here is another reason my friends have changed their tune: Those 
corporations are using their newfound power to disproportionately 
benefit my friends across the aisle. Since August 1, Republican 
interest groups have outspent Democratic interest groups 5 to 1, and 
these corporations are funneling millions upon millions of dollars into 
our elections without anyone knowing where that money came from.
  It is no accident they are so eager to influence elections and to do 
so anonymously. You know why? Because Congress has finally stepped in 
to protect consumers from abuses by big businesses that have been 
allowed for far too long to write their own rules. So big businesses 
are giving money anonymously.
  Corporations will not spend money on just any election. They are 
going to spend it when we, the Congress, try to pass laws that are 
tough on Wall Street or on health insurance companies. They are going 
to spend it when your city council debates whether to allow a new toxic 
waste dump that wants to come to town. They are going to spend it when 
anyone tries to pass consumer and environmental laws that protect our 
families and our homes. The best part of it is, they do not want anyone 
to know they are doing it.
  That is why we need the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act will allow 
Americans to know how and which corporations and unions are trying to 
influence elections. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we do not need a 
permission slip from big business to run our communities.
  Let me repeat what it will do. First and foremost, the DISCLOSE Act 
is about disclosure; hence, the DISCLOSE Act. That is why it is named 
that. It will force CEOs, union heads, and leaders of advocacy groups, 
along with their top contributors, to be identified in the ads they pay 
for. These same groups, corporations, nonprofits, and unions would be 
required to disclose their top donors to the Federal Election 
Commission.
  If a company has shareholders, they are going to have to disclose 
their expenditures to those shareholders in periodic reports and on 
their Web sites.
  Some of my friends across the aisle are saying the DISCLOSE Act is 
not just about disclosure, it has some other stuff in there. You know 
what? They are right. It has a few other things in there. What are 
they? Well, a prohibition on spending by companies receiving taxpayer 
money in the form of major government contracts--the Senator from 
Missouri talked about that as well--or companies that have received 
TARP funds they have yet to pay back.
  What else? A prohibition on expenditures by companies where a foreign 
individual or company or nation has a controlling share, as it is 
defined by Delaware and 30 other States--that is, at it is defined by 
31 of the 32 states that define a controlling share with a number. This 
is a provision I authored and that Senator Schumer included in this 
piece of legislation. This provision will prevent CITGO, owned by 
Venezuela, from using the Citizens United decision to pour money into 
our elections.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate these provisions. I welcome it. 
So far, some of my friends will not allow that debate to happen. No 
debate, and the American people will continue to suffer for it.
  So I urge all my colleagues to allow debate on this important bill. 
Allow debate on this bill. It is about the future of our democracy. 
Allow debate.
  Before I conclude, let me quote again a prominent friend on the other 
side of the aisle:

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what 
     is appropriate.


[[Page S7327]]


  Let me repeat that: ``Public disclosure of campaign contributions and 
spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is 
appropriate.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________