[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7328-S7332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DISCLOSE ACT
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have two issues I wish to discuss
today. The first one is one I have spoken about before, which is the
DISCLOSE Act, which we are going to be voting on probably tomorrow. The
last time I talked about the DISCLOSE Act, I raised the issue of the
film that was made in the 2004 campaign by Michael Moore. This was an
effort, very clearly, on the part of Mr. Moore to influence the
election. No one could have seen that film without realizing it was a
serious attempt to make sure Americans did not vote for President
George W. Bush.
Well, Citizens United, a group that has political views different
from Mr. Moore's, believed that the film violated the law, and they
filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission because they
said it was clearly a political document, not just another movie, and
it was filmed for the purpose of trying to affect the election.
At the time, Michael Moore had this to say about Citizens United and
their complaint:
That's the difference between our side and their side. Even
when we disagree, we are respectful of freedom of speech, but
when they disagree, they try to shut you down. Well, it's
unAmerican and it's wrong and people are not going to stand
for it. People in this country don't like to be told they
can't watch something or see something.
I can argue with Mr. Moore about whether our side really does hate
freedom of speech, but the interesting point is that he insisted we
have more opportunities to watch rather than less opportunities to
watch and that any other position was, to use his term, un-American.
What did Citizens United do? They decided that rather than fight
Michael Moore, they would join him, and they made a movie and they ran
the movie in the 2008 election. Immediately, they were attacked for
making this movie because, unlike Michael Moore, Citizens United as a
group happens to have a corporate charter. They are a corporation by
definition, and the complaint was, you are entering the campaign and
violating the law which says corporations cannot contribute to
political parties.
Citizens United took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and
said: But we are not contributing to a political party; we are not
violating the law against corporate contributions. We are exercising
our first amendment right to make a movie and tell people what we
happen to think about Hillary Clinton. Their views about Hillary
Clinton were no more generous than Mr. Moore's views about President
Bush.
I haven't seen either movie. I don't particularly care to at this
point. The issue is, does Citizens United have the same right to
freedom of speech that Michael Moore does or is the technicality of the
fact that Citizens United happens to be a corporation and Michael Moore
is rich enough to make his movie by himself, without a corporate form
and without shareholders, mean that he can speak and they cannot? The
Supreme Court said: No, we won't support that idea, that he can speak
and they cannot; and as long as they are not making a direct
contribution to a party--that would be a violation of the law--they
have the right to make a movie and they have the right to distribute
it.
Well, that is what the DISCLOSE Act attempts to do something about.
We have heard complaints on this floor: Oh, it is evil and improper for
corporations to speak, unless, of course, they happen to be the New
York Times corporation--they can speak all they want--or the Washington
Post corporation. They can speak all they want. But if a group of
citizens get together, and they have some shareholders, and say, we
want to speak in the political arena, they are told, no, no, no, you
can't, except by the Supreme Court, which says, yes, yes, yes, you can.
That is why I support the Supreme Court decision.
All right. We get the DISCLOSE Act to say that the Supreme Court made
a terrible mistake but we will do everything we can to try to rectify
that mistake. We are told over and over again that we are not limiting
their freedom of speech; we are just going for disclosure. Then there
are all kinds of aspects of the bill that go beyond disclosure, and we
are treating everybody alike, except for those groups we have carved
out of the terms of the DISCLOSE Act, so they won't have to comply with
the DISCLOSE Act, and those happen to be the kinds of groups whose
support is necessary for the people who voted for this bill in the
House.
All right. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are
things in the Supreme Court decision that do need some legislative
attention. Why, then, don't we have some hearings? Why, then, don't we
have the bill open for amendment? I am the ranking member of the Senate
Rules Committee--the committee that would receive the jurisdiction on
this bill--and we have not seen it in the Rules Committee. It has not
been referred to committee. There have been no hearings. There has been
no opportunity for amendment. There has been no opportunity to
sandpaper some of the rough places and make the bill more acceptable to
people who are currently opposed to it. It is simply: It passed the
House in this fashion; let's bring it to the floor of the Senate the
way it passed in the House and prevent the Senate from having any
impact on the way it is worded or structured.
So I am going to vote against the DISCLOSE Act for two reasons: No.
1,
[[Page S7329]]
I happen to believe that the Supreme Court got it right and that
Citizens United has every bit as much right to produce a movie that
attacks a political character as Michael Moore does. The technical fact
that he does it as an individual should not change the importance of
the dialog that should take place in the public square. No. 2, even if
the Supreme Court decision does need some kind of legislative fix, it
should be handled in regular order. We should have seen it in the Rules
Committee. We should have had an opportunity to amend it, to debate it,
to hear witnesses on it, to question those witnesses and have an
understanding of it. For those two reasons, I intend to vote against
it.
Tax Policy
Turning my attention very quickly to the issue the Senator from
Arizona was discussing which has to do with tax policy, I wish to call
to the attention of my colleagues an article that appeared in the Wall
Street Journal on September 21 with respect to capital gains taxation
and the impact of seeing the capital gains tax rate go up on the
economy. The headline of the article is ``Cap Gains Taxation: Less
Means More.''
I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. I will highlight only one portion of this article in the
interest of time. It is the point that is made as the final point in
the article where it says:
Higher capital gains taxes will not substantially reduce
the deficit.
They point out--we have all seen it--that the higher the capital
gains tax goes, many times the lower the capital gains tax revenues.
Why is that? Because if you have an investment in a business or a piece
of real estate and the cost of getting out of that investment is
inordinately high because of a capital gains tax rate, you won't be as
motivated to get your money out of that investment and put it into a
more productive one as you would be if the capital gains tax were low.
We have all known that. The economic information on that has been
around for a long time.
But there is another aspect to this I want to highlight; that is, the
impact on jobs. The figure they use in this article is that if the
capital gains tax rate went to zero, the loss to the Treasury, in terms
of income, would be $23 billion a year. Oh, you may say, that is a lot
of money. We can't afford to lose $23 billion a year coming into the
Treasury. What impact would that have on the deficit? We would lose $23
billion a year that we need.
All right. Let's assume that the $23 billion comes in. What does this
administration propose to do with it? They want to put it in the
stimulus package to create jobs. They would spend the entire $23
billion as rapidly as it came in. It would go out in a stimulus effort
to create jobs. The point made in the article is that by not taking in
that $23 billion and leaving it in the economy, we are giving the
economy itself and those people who are in the business of creating
jobs $23 billion in incentives to create jobs. If I can quote the last
paragraph:
A capital gains tax reduction to zero produces new jobs at
the cost of $18,000 per worker--far less than might occur
from any other proposals.
In other words, if the government took in the $23 billion, and then
spent it in incentives to create jobs, they would spend more than
$18,000 per job than would happen if we simply left that money in the
hands of the people who know how to create jobs. I am not suggesting a
capital gains tax rate of zero, but I am saying let's leave it where it
is, because it is the most efficient way to create new jobs in this
economy, rather than have it come into the government and have the
government hand it out in ways that are proven to be less effective in
the creation of new jobs than the reality of the economy working on its
own.
Those are my two messages, and I appreciate the opportunity of
sharing them today. No. 1, let's defeat the DISCLOSE Act. No. 2, let's
leave the tax program where it is, because that is the most efficient
and effective way to create new jobs, and new jobs is what we want and
need in this economy more than anything else.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 2010]
Cap Gains Taxation: Less Means More
(By Allen Sinai)
Congress is deliberating on what to do about the ``Bush tax
cuts''--the reductions in income, capital gains and dividend
taxes legislated in 2001 and 2003--currently set to expire at
the end of this year. The recession may officially be over,
but what Washington does on tax policy still matters for an
economy that's creating very few net new jobs and is stuck
with an unacceptably high unemployment rate and record-high
federal budget deficits of over 9% of GDP.
Capital gains taxation is one area in which lawmakers can
help jump-start the economy. Capital gains tax rates for
taxpayers in the top four income brackets are set to move
higher in a few months. My new study, ``Capital Gains Taxes
and the Economy,'' published this week by the American
Council for Capital Formation, shows that the net effect of
lower capital gains taxation is a significant plus for U.S.
macroeconomic performance.
The study simulated reductions and increases in capital
gains taxes starting in 2011 and extending to 2016 to
estimate the effects on economic growth, jobs and
unemployment, inflation, savings, the financial markets and
debt.
Here are a few of the relevant findings:
Hiking capital gains tax rates would cause significant
damage to the economy. Raising the capital gains tax rate to
20%, 28% or 50% from the current 15% would reduce growth in
real GDP, raise the unemployment rate and significantly
reduce productivity. These losses to the economy outweigh any
gains in tax receipts from the increase in the capital gains
tax rate.
For example, at a 28% capital gains tax rate, economic
growth declines 0.1 percentage points per annum and the
economy loses about 600,000 jobs yearly. If the capital gains
tax rate were increased to 50%, real GDP growth would decline
by 0.3 percentage points per year, and there would be 1.6
million fewer jobs created per year. At a 20% capital gains
rate compared with the current 15%, real economic growth
falls by a little less than 0.1 percentage points per year
and jobs decline about 231,000 a year. Smaller increases in
the capital gains tax rate have smaller effects on the
economy, but the effects are still negative.
Lowering capital gains tax rates would help grow the
economy and jobs. My study found that when capital gains
taxes are reduced to below 15%, the after-tax return on
equity rises, stock prices increase, household wealth rises,
consumption moves higher, and capital gains can be realized.
Capital gains tax receipts to the government increase and
household financial conditions improve to provide a healthier
basis for future consumer spending.
My study also found that a reduction in the capital gains
tax rate to 5% from 15% raises real GDP growth by 0.2
percentage points per year, lowers the unemployment rate by
0.2 percentage points per year, and increases nonfarm payroll
jobs by 711,000 a year. Productivity growth improves 0.3
percentage points a year.
Taken to its logical conclusion, moving to a zero capital
gains tax rate would have an even bigger effect, increasing
growth in real GDP by over 0.2 percentage points per year and
approximately 1.3 million additional jobs per year.
Higher capital gains taxes will not substantially reduce
the deficit. The net impact on the federal budget deficit of
a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 0% is a decline
in tax receipts of $23 billion per year after the positive
effects of stronger economic growth on payroll, personal and
corporate income taxes are taken into account. This is
significantly less than the $30 billion per year static
revenue loss estimate, which does not include feedback
effects. A capital gains tax reduction to 0% produces new
jobs at a cost of $18,000 per worker, far less than might
occur from many other proposals.
The bottom line is that any capital gains tax increase is
counterproductive to real economic growth. To the contrary, a
reduction in the capital gains tax rate would be a pro-growth
fiscal stimulus that creates new jobs and new businesses,
funds entrepreneurship, reduces the unemployment rate,
increases productivity, and in the long run brings in more
payroll taxes. In the case of capital gains taxation, less
means more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about an issue
that came up frequently during my townhall meetings in Maryland in
August, and that subject dealt with campaign finance reform and what we
need to do to restore public confidence in our election system.
I must tell you, there wasn't a single person in Maryland who told me
that we needed more special interest corporate spending in elections.
There wasn't a single person who told me there is too much disclosure
of information as to where contributors come from. It was the reverse.
People in
[[Page S7330]]
Maryland believe there is too much special interest money in our
campaigns. They believe they have a right to know where all campaign
contributions and expenditures come from. They want true campaign
finance reform.
The interesting thing is that we know how difficult it is to pass
campaign finance reform legislation. I was part of the Congress that
passed, in 2002, the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It wasn't easy to
get it done, and it was a bipartisan bill. We made strong headway in
that legislation to restrict corporate money. I must tell you, I think
the public appreciated the efforts that were made, appreciated that it
was bipartisan, and knew we did make progress in limiting what
corporations can spend in Federal elections. Corporations can
participate. They can have their employees work for political action
committees. But it is very transparent, open, and it is limited, so
that we have some control of the amount of special interest money
coming into our Federal elections.
Then comes Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that reversed the
actions of Congress, that reversed the 2002 bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act. It was a decision--5-to-4--by the Supreme Court, where the so-
called--and I use this term gently--conservative Justices, who, in my
view are the most judicial activists, reversed precedent and
congressional action and expanded what corporations can do in Federal
elections.
I was listening to Senator Bennett talk about how unfair it was that
a documentary was treated differently. Well, as Justice Stevens said in
that case:
Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited
nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to
give themselves an opportunity to change the law. There were
principled, narrow paths that a court that was serious about
judicial restraint could have taken.
They could have dealt with the issue Senator Bennett talked about.
But, no, instead they opened the door completely for corporations to
spend money in Federal elections.
Let me quote from Public Citizen Congress Watch. Their research
director Taylor Lincoln said:
The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on
corporate spending on elections.
That is moving in the exact opposite direction the people of this
Nation want us to move in, dealing with campaign finance reform--
reversing the actions of Congress and indeed their own decisions. This
wasn't the first time. I can give you a lot of chapter and verse how
the so-called, again, judges who are supposed to be conservative have
been judicial activists. They did that in the Lilly Ledbetter case. In
that case, they reversed previous precedent and made it virtually
impossible for a woman to be able to bring a case based on gender
discrimination in the workforce. We took that Supreme Court decision
and the Congress did the right thing. We made sure that the intent of
Congress was carried out. We passed a bill to give gender equity and
opportunity to bring an effective suit if one is discriminated against
in the workforce.
We need to do the same thing on campaign finance reform. The Supreme
Court has acted. I disagree with their decision. Now Congress needs to
act in order to restore some confidence with the American people. I
applaud Senator Schumer in his efforts to bring forward legislation--
the DISCLOSE Act--and this bill is consistent with the Supreme Court
decision. I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe
corporations are equal to individuals, as far as spending money and
contributing in a campaign. But we will debate that issue on another
day. That is not what this bill does. It does something I thought
virtually every Member in this Congress agreed on, which is that the
public has a right to know who is spending money in a campaign--to
disclose where you are spending money, where it is coming from.
If you, as a candidate for the Senate, put an ad on television, you
have to identify that it is your ad. The public has a right to know who
is responsible for the money being spent on the ad being put on
television. That is not true under Citizens United. Corporations can
now spend money without accepting responsibility for the ad, and
without the public knowing the source of the ad. That is plain wrong.
We have an opportunity to correct that, consistent with the Supreme
Court decision. This is not about trying to reverse the Supreme Court
decision. I would like to do that, but that is not what this is about.
This is about making sure the public knows who is spending money in a
campaign. I thought everybody agreed on this.
Let me quote from the leaders of the Republican Party in the House
and Senate. Senator McConnell said:
Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending
should be expected so voters can judge for themselves what is
appropriate.
Our Republican leader was right on that.
House Republican Leader Boehner said:
I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full
disclosure. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I can quote lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans. Quite frankly,
I don't know Members who are against disclosure. Yet some of my
colleagues will be voting against it. To me, it is hard to understand
why, when this bill is narrowly focused and its principal objective is
to make sure voters know who is spending money in an election. Does it
do other things? Yes. I didn't think there were objections to the other
provisions, such as making sure foreign corporations cannot contribute.
Well, you know, I thought that is what we all agreed on. Government
contractors--restricting what they can do. It is consistent with the
Supreme Court decision, where eight of the nine Justices acknowledged
that it would be OK for Congress to enact legislation concerning
disclosure.
So I come back to our responsibility. We are not on the Supreme Court
of the United States. That is not our responsibility. Our
responsibility is to enact laws. Our responsibility is to respond to
the needs of this Nation, to respond to what our constituents want us
to do. Quite frankly, our constituents want us to take up campaign
finance reform. They want us to do a lot more than just the DISCLOSE
Act, when it comes to campaign finance reform. I am one of those who
supports public financing of campaigns.
I think it would be far better for the people of Maryland and this
Nation to have less special interest money financing campaigns. I think
it would be better to have some public way in which they can know the
candidates running. I think we should require our networks to provide
air time for debates. That is not today's debate, but it is whether we
can move the ball forward on campaign financing that makes sense. In
other words, let's not move backward. Let us do what the Supreme Court
told us we can do in regard to corporate spending.
Let's do what Members of this body have said we should do, and that
is require that we disclose the source not only of those who contribute
to our campaigns but those who spend money on behalf of getting us
elected or defeated. We have a right, the voter has a right to know
that. Those who are responsible for the act should have the courage to
disclose the moneys they are spending and take responsibility for the
ads they produce.
I could go on with additional information that we have--some of these
organizations that are organized under the Internal Revenue Code. I can
show you that we are not going to be able to have adequate enforcement
of that. One thing we can do, which I hope we can agree on, is to pass
the DISCLOSE Act so the public has the information to judge who is
getting involved in our campaigns, and then I hope that Democrats and
Republicans can join to make sure the integrity of our election system
is strengthened.
Confidence in government depends upon the people of our Nation
believing that our elections are open and fair. We spend a lot of time
in other countries making sure their election process is right. We need
to do a better job here in America. It can start this week by allowing
us to debate the DISCLOSE Act. Let's not hide behind the filibuster.
Let's bring it forward and have the debate on the floor, and let us
respond to our constituents. They have the right to know who is
spending money in this election.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
[[Page S7331]]
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my
distinguished colleague from Maryland, who has such great legislative
and elective experience and speaks with such passion and energy about
this issue. I share his concern, and I rise today to speak about a type
of corruption in the political arena. What type of corruption in the
political arena am I talking about?
I am talking about the corrosive and distorting effects of immense
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the
corporate forum and that have little or no correlation to the public
support for the corporation's political ideas, wealth that can unfairly
influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent
expenditures.
Sounds like tough talk to call that a type of corruption in the
political arena and describe it in those terms. But those are not my
words. Whose words are they? Those are the words of the U.S. Supreme
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said:
State law grants corporations special advantages--such as
limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of
the accumulation and distribution of assets--that enhance
their ability to attract capital and to deploy their
resources in ways that maximize the return on their
shareholders' investments.
That is what they are for, and that is what they should do. But the
Supreme Court continued:
These state-created advantages not only allow corporations
to play a dominant role in the Nation's economy, but also
permit them to use ``resources amassed in the economic
marketplace'' to obtain ``an unfair advantage in the
political marketplace.''
That was the law of the United States of America. That law was
precedent when our Chief Justice stood before our Senate Judiciary
Committee and promised, under his oath before that committee, that he
would honor precedent. Not only that precedent, but it relied on
earlier Supreme Court precedent.
This Court, Justice Marshall writing, quoted the Massachusetts
Citizens for Life decision, a previous Court, and said, as the Court
explained in Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the political advantage
of corporations is unfair because ``[t]he resources in the treasury of
a business corporation . . . are not an indication of popular support
for the corporation's political ideas. They reflect instead the
economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The
availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable
political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no
reflection of the power of its ideas.''
When Chief Justice Roberts, under oath before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, promised that he would honor the precedent of the United
States of America, this was not only precedent, it was precedent within
precedent. It was the established law of the United States of America,
that corporate expenditure in elections was a type of corruption in the
political arena.
But they could not resist. They could not resist, and by a 5-to-4
decision--one of an array of 5-to-4 decisions by which a narrow
partisan majority of our Supreme Court has taken the law and moved it
as far as it could--they changed the law of the United States. They
knocked down this standing precedent in order to open the floodgates of
American elections to corporate money.
Let me interrupt myself for 1 minute. When I say ``moved it as far as
it could,'' I mean these decisions on these massive issues--issues of
great importance to our country, issues of vast consequence in our
elections--do not need to be decided 5 to 4. A Court that had a real
interest in modesty, in conservatism, could look for a broader majority
to try to build consensus for the rule that it was announcing. Of
course, if they tried to build that broader consensus, they would not
be able to take as big a political leap. This is a Court that over and
over will take the big political leap at the cost of, I think in the
long run, the Court's credibility, but in the short run of building a
precedent that has lasting value because it has a significant majority
behind it.
Other big decisions of the Court--Brown v. Board of Education for
instance--were unanimous. Here, once they have their majority, that is
all--that is enough. Then they are willing to move.
Who did they open the floodgates to when they did this? Let's see who
has been opposing our bill to try to at least make public what
corporations are taking advantage of. Roll Call reported back in July
that ``the bulk of corporate outreach on the campaign finance bill''--
that is the bill we are trying to get to, trying to correct this
Citizens United decision, trying to protect our elections from being
flooded with corporate money--``the bulk of corporate outreach on the
campaign finance bill was done primarily by companies based outside the
United States but that have substantial operations here.''
That is great. The lobbying on whether corporations get to control
our elections is being dominated by multinational corporations based
outside of the United States. American citizens' voices are going to be
drowned out by corporate money based on lobbying from corporations that
are not even American corporations.
Roll Call continues: ``According to Senate filings, large
international firms reported lobbying Members--or hiring others to do
so--on the DISCLOSE Act''--the bill we are on--``in recent months. . .
.'' They include Sony and Honda. How fortunate for General Motors to
have the electoral process controlled by lobbyists for Honda. The
financial firm, UBS, a Swiss bank--that is what we need. The views of a
Swiss bank are clearly important to American elections and should
certainly drive them and, therefore, let the corporate money flow. That
makes great sense. A Swedish drugmaker, Novo Nordisk--that is where the
money is behind this.
Where does it go? It goes to Karl Rove's group--like he has not
already done enough damage to this Republic--American Crossroads, which
hopes to spend $50 million in this election, according to the New York
Times, supported by the American Action Network, which is planning to
spend $25 million in concert with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which
is spending $75 million, all reported by the New York Times, along with
other groups: Americans for Job Security, the American Future Fund.
Let me ask, if you see an advertisement on television that slams a
political candidate, that trashes him on some issue, and it is brought
to you by Americans for Job Security or the American Future Fund, you,
as a citizen trying to evaluate that advertisement, what information
does that give you? I suggest it does not give you very much
information at all.
ExxonMobil could buy American elections. The entire Presidential
election between President Obama and Senator McCain, adding up the
spending on both sides, cost about $1 billion. ExxonMobil makes that
every week.
These big multinational corporations can drown out American citizens'
voices, and it barely makes a dent in their bottom line. They can buy
American elections through what the Supreme Court said, until this
active, radical group on the Supreme Court pushed this decision through
5 to 4, with the precedent of the United States, was a type of
corruption in the political arena. That was the law of the land, not
just in one decision but repeatedly. Now that can happen, thanks to
that decision. And American citizens will be swamped by these big
corporations.
Is it a coincidence that 85 percent of the spending so far in this
election has been on behalf of Republicans? There is a phrase in
politics: You are supposed to dance with the guy that brung ya. But I
tell you what, when you take the oath as a judge, that principle should
be dispensed with and discarded. You should take on new duties that go
beyond loyalty to any political party.
Nevertheless, this Court has opened the corporate floodgates so that
international corporations can come in, drown out American voters, buy
up American elections, and what was law before, a type of corruption in
the political arena and 85 percent of the spending by the big
corporations is on behalf of Republicans--I am sure that is just a
coincidence.
To the contrary, we often hear my colleagues on the other side say:
Unions do just the same thing. When you see that advertisement on
television attacking a political candidate, and it says at the bottom--
let's pick our most active union, the Service Employees International
Union--it says
[[Page S7332]]
Service Employees International Union, you have a pretty good idea who
that is. You can find them in the phonebook. You probably know somebody
who is a member. They are active in the community. It is no mystery.
But how about American Future Fund? The way this is set up right now,
ExxonMobile could take its billions of dollars and start laundering
that money through shell organizations and shell corporations. By the
time the slammer ad gets put on television attacking a political
candidate--it could be Americans for Peace and Puppies, as far as we
knew--and nobody would have the time in the hectic last days before an
election to figure out who it is who is really behind these attacks.
That is no way to run an election. That is no way to run a democracy.
That is not transparent. These corporations are not even humans. What
they are doing, involved in these elections on this scale, is
unimaginable. What it does is it amplifies the political voice of CEOs
dramatically.
The great thing about American democracy is that you and I and the
pages who are here, when they are old enough to vote, and the police
officers outside and the fellow driving by in the taxicab on
Constitution Avenue, every American has a vote that counts the same. If
you are the CEO of a big corporation, not only can you do your own
politicking, but you can take that amassed treasury of wealth with what
the Supreme Court called ``the amassing of large treasuries warrants
the limit on independent expenditures,'' and you can spend it to push
your own views and to drown out your neighbors, your friends, people
who oppose you--anyone--with immense amounts of anonymous political
spending.
I do not think that is right. I think that is a mistake. Justice
Stevens had it right in his dissent in the Citizens United case. He
said this:
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the
common sense of the American people, who have recognized a
need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government
since the founding, and who have fought against the
distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering
since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Justice Stevens continued:
It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While
American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of
the court would have thought that its flaws included a dearth
of corporate money in politics.
So if you want the government of the United States of America--this
great and sovereign Nation, this light of democracy in the darkness of
this world, this government of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, of
Roosevelt, of Lincoln--controlled by the same people who brought you a
30-percent interest rate on your credit card, well, the DISCLOSE Act is
not for you because they will not be able to do it anonymously if this
bill passes.
If you want the government of our country controlled by the insurance
companies that took your child off the insurance when he got sick, that
wouldn't provide coverage because he had a preexisting condition--if
those are the people you want controlling the government--you don't
want this bill because you want them to be able to fund these anonymous
organizations with no consequence, with no transparency.
If you want our government controlled by the people who brought you
the gulf oilspill and who are polluting our atmosphere with carbon day
in and day out in ways that are changing our world as we watch it, this
bill ``ain't'' for you because this bill wouldn't allow them to do it
sneakily, anonymously, unlimitedly.
If you want this government controlled by the big corporations that
are taking American jobs and making the American worker pack up the
machinery they have worked on into shipping crates to be shipped
overseas, where a foreign worker will be hired to make that same
product, which will then be brought back into America--if they are the
folks you want controlling our government, anonymously, through money
and expenditure--the DISCLOSE Act is not for you.
But let me tell you, if you are a regular American, who thinks
everybody should have a fair voice at election time, who doesn't want
to see our American elections drowned out by lobbyists for
international corporations, by huge corporate expenditures that aren't
even traceable back to the corporation but that come through phony-
baloney organizations with names that sound like ``The Make America
Great Foundation''--if that is the kind of politics you want to put an
end to--if you want to see real issues debated by real people, this
DISCLOSE Act is important.
This isn't just about fairness in one election. This isn't just about
a Supreme Court that handed to one political party a gigantic corporate
checkbook that had previously been illegal and tells them: Get out
there and spend, it is fine. Get out there and spend anonymously, it is
fine. If you are an international corporation--if you are not even an
American company--get out there and spend, we don't mind. Every day we
make choices about whether corporations or people are going to have the
upper hand in this society. Our Supreme Court just gave corporations
the upper hand, and we have to fight back because it is not just about
who wins this election, this is about a democracy that has been through
over 200 years of stress and strain. This is about an idea the Founders
put together that was unheard of at the time. It was radical, it was
exceptional, and it created a society that has shown a light in this
world that is brighter than any other government in the history of
humankind.
This government has lasted through Civil War and world war, through
depression. It has lasted through every kind of stress. Its value is,
as probably our greatest President said, very simply, that it is a
``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Our
purpose is that it not perish from this Earth. This is not a government
of the CEOs, by the big corporations, and for their shareholders. It is
not an anonymous government where you don't know who is on the air with
millions of dollars in advertisements slamming away. It is not a
government where a candidate would be embarrassed to have a big
corporation on their side that laundered their money through corporate
screens so when it finally appeared in the waning days of the race it
was all phonied up with a name such as ``Americans For Peace and Love''
or whatever the group is going to be called. That is not what America
is all about.
So this may seem like a small issue about reporting of corporate
expenditures, but I would submit that when corporations make more in a
week than an entire U.S. Presidential election costs and they can throw
that kind of money around, there is a lot at stake in trying to make
sure American elections are honest and honorable ones. To allow the big
corporations, even the international corporations, to continue to spend
unlimited amounts of money in our elections, with no reporting
requirement, with the ability to launder through phony-baloney shell
organizations before people see it, the risk of damage is very great.
So I know it is easy for me to say, because the money is coming in 85
percent against Democrats and for Republicans, and it looks like this
is what that is about, but it is not. It is about making sure that a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people does not
perish from this Earth.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
____________________