[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 129 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7383-S7388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISCLOSE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3628,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3628, a bill to
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit
foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit
government contractors from making expenditures with respect
to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure
requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is agreed to, and the time until 2:15 p.m. will be equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Taxpayer Assistance Act of 2010
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R.
4994, taxpayer assistance, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate
consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the
text of the Baucus substitute amendment, the text of Calendar No. 572,
S. 3793, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the substitute amendment be
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, will the
Senator from Washington modify her request to substitute a Thune
amendment regarding extenders, the text of which is at the desk?
[[Page S7384]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Washington modify her
request?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am sorry. I was distracted. Is there a
UC request pending before the Senate at this moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.
Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask, who is propounding the unanimous consent
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is offered by the Senator from Washington.
The Senator from South Dakota has asked for her to modify this request.
Mr. BAUCUS. I object to the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business
for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus, who has been a true champion in helping us
get some critical tax extenders passed. I am deeply disappointed that
the Republicans have again objected to us moving forward.
Middle-class families in my home State of Washington are struggling.
I have heard from so many of them who have lost their jobs, who have
seen their life savings disappear, who told me they were doing
everything they can to pay their bills and keep their homes and get
their lives back on track. And they are asking for just a little bit of
help. So it is for these families and many others across Washington
State that I come to the floor today.
Over the last few months, we have tried to pass legislation that
would extend critical tax cuts for our middle-class families across the
country who are struggling today and need some support. But every time
we try to pass this bill, as we just tried to do, Senate Republicans
block it. They said no to a commonsense proposal that will cut taxes
for innovative companies that expand and create jobs. They just said no
to a bill that will help our clean energy companies compete and expand.
They said no to our plan to extend the critical sales tax deduction
that would put more money into the pockets of families in States such
as Washington. They said no despite the fact that these tax cuts are
fully paid for.
So, Madam President, I want to focus on a few pieces of this
legislation that middle-class families and small businesses in my home
State of Washington are counting on us to pass.
First of all, I want to spend a few minutes on one of the tax credits
that has just been blocked that is truly a matter of fundamental
fairness for families in my home State of Washington. As all of my
colleagues know, State and local governments across the country use a
number of different tools to raise revenue. Some have income taxes,
some use the sales tax, others use a combination of both. Families who
pay State and local income taxes have long been able to offset some of
what they pay for by receiving a deduction on their Federal taxes. But
until 2004, taxpayers didn't have the ability to deduct their State
sales tax, which meant families and small businesses in States where
that was their main revenue source were paying more than their fair
share. That was wrong. Back in 2004, I fought hard, along with Senator
Cantwell and others, to change that provision and finally level the
playing field for Washington State.
I am proud to say that change saved families and small businesses in
my State hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Unfortunately,
however, the State sales tax deduction is due to expire this year.
Unless we act--and we were just blocked from doing so--families across
my State are going to suffer. They are going to have less money in
their pockets, and they are going to have more uncertainty in the Tax
Code.
I have heard from a lot of my constituents who have told me they are
now holding off making major purchases simply because they are not sure
if that tax deduction will be there for them. They are putting off the
purchase of cars, of home appliances, and that is hurting our State's
business climate, just as our small businesses are struggling to
recover.
So this is not just about removing a bias in the Tax Code that is
fundamentally unfair to States such as mine, it is also about
encouraging spending and boosting our economy, helping our small
business owners, and providing some long-awaited certainty so taxpayers
in my State can plan for their financial future. In other words, it is
about helping middle-class families and supporting Main Street
businesses.
I also want to talk about another tax credit that just got blocked. I
recently visited a clean energy company in Seattle, WA, called Propel
Fuels. This business has been fighting to market domestically
produced--domestically produced, right here--low-carbon biodiesel, but
they depend on a critical biofuels tax that expired. The bill I just
attempted to pass--blocked by Republicans--would extend that critical
provision.
Propel Fuels represents the future of our economy. They are the kind
of company that will help make sure our country remains at the
forefront of innovation and growth. It is a company working to drive
our economy forward and create new 21st-century careers. But they can't
do it alone. After years and years of subsidies and tax breaks for the
oil industry, companies such as Propel Fuels depend on the clean energy
tax credits in this bill to be able to compete on a level playing
field. These credits support companies that are working on new,
innovative, and renewable energy sources, and they will help them
continue their work to unshackle this economy, tap the creative energy
of our workers, and create good, high-paying jobs in my home State of
Washington and across the entire country.
This is exactly what our economy needs right now--jobs right away and
a strong investment for the future. That is why it is so important the
biodiesel tax credit be extended, along with the R&D tax credit and
other tax cut extensions that are in the bill I just offered to move
and which was blocked, once again, by Republicans. These companies want
to expand, they want to create jobs, and they were just told no.
This should not be a partisan issue. It is common sense. We put
together a bill that would extend tax credits to individuals and to
small businesses--tax credits that have been supported in the past by
Democrats and Republicans alike. It is a bill that will provide
incentives for clean energy companies to expand and create jobs, and we
need that badly now. It would allow families in my home State of
Washington to deduct their local sales tax from their Federal returns,
and that would support companies that are innovative and creative and
helping our economy get back on track.
It is fully paid for, as this country has told us we must do. It is
responsible, and it is the right thing to do.
In my home State of Washington, families are hurting. Many of them
are fighting every day just to stay on their feet. This bill isn't
going to solve every problem overnight, but it will put money back in
their pockets and help our local businesses expand and create jobs so
we have hope for the future. It pays for those tax-cut extensions
responsibly by closing corporate loopholes.
So Senate Republicans have again opposed this, as they have in the
past, and the question is, Are they going to stand with middle-class
families and innovative businesses such as Propel Fuels to cut their
taxes; or are they going to continue to stand with large corporations
to protect their unfair tax loopholes?
Mr. President, I hope Senate Republicans have a moment to pause and
think about the impact they are having on jobs and families--middle-
class families and businesses that are trying to create new jobs and
expand for the future. I hope they remind themselves before we head
home this is good politics. It is good politics to help our families
and our small businesses. It is good politics to help our clean energy
companies.
Right now, when our economy is trying to recover, we should not go
home without extending these tax cuts, and I am going to keep working
to stand up for our middle-class families and our
[[Page S7385]]
Main Street businesses and keep working to try and pass this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had a lot of conversation about
the DISCLOSE Act. I am a member, indeed the ranking member, of the
Rules Committee where the DISCLOSE Act, if it had been referred to
committee, would have come for consideration. Unfortunately, the
DISCLOSE Act was not referred to committee. We in the committee have
had no opportunity to amend it, no opportunity to hold hearings on it,
no opportunity to hear from witnesses who may have differing opinions
from the version that passed the House. It has been brought to the
floor in such a manner that the committee has simply been bypassed.
For that reason, therefore, any objections we might have with respect
to the way the bill is currently worded have to be raised on the floor.
Any concerns we have as to the inequities in the bill have to be raised
on the floor. It has made the whole thing more contentious than it
needs to be.
The DISCLOSE Act, by name, suggests that all it is is disclosure. It
doesn't address any other issue than how people who are going to
exercise their rights under the first amendment do so, the specifics of
how they do that, and the specifics of who is behind the advertising
that takes place in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.
I pointed out in the past and repeat as a reference that prior to the
Supreme Court's decision, it was possible for Michael Moore to produce
a movie that would attack George W. Bush and be completely acceptable,
completely legal. But it was not possible for the people who formed
Citizens United to produce a movie that attacks Hillary Clinton and
have that be legal. The difference was Michael Moore was acting as an
individual. These people were acting collectively. Because they chose
the corporate form of organization for their collective action, the
previous law said: You cannot do this.
The Supreme Court ruled--I think accurately--that if Michael Moore
has a right to make a movie, so does Citizens United. If Michael Moore
has a right to attack George W. Bush, Citizens United has the right to
attack Hillary Clinton. I frankly think Michael Moore's movie probably
had more to do with moving votes than the Citizens United movie did.
But be that as it may, neither one of them seems to have had that
much impact on the body politic.
But that is not the point. The point is, the Supreme Court ruled
freedom of speech means freedom of speech, and if it is OK for one
movie to be made under one set of circumstances, it is equally OK for
another movie to be made under a slightly different set of
circumstances.
There are those who say: No, no, no; this opens up the world for
corporations to fund advertisements to distort and destroy and affect
our elections.
I have several reactions to that; the first one being, I have seen
political ads that have been funded by rich individuals through the
mechanism of a 527. If I were on the other side of the issue--and,
indeed, in many cases I was--I would like to keep those ads running
because the individuals who put up the money for the ads did not know
how to write an effective ad. They were exercising their freedom of
speech, but they were doing it in an amateurish kind of way, and under
current law--and the Supreme Court decision did not change this--they
could not give the money to the political parties that know what they
are doing. They had to express themselves on their own, and many of
them did not know how to do that very well.
So all of this excitement about the airwaves are going to be flooded
with tremendously persuasive advertisements from national corporations
that are going to distort our political process is making some
assumptions about the voters that I think are not true. They are making
assumptions about the ability of a corporation to enter this field and
do something very dramatic that I think is not true.
But missing from this discourse about how terrible it is going to be
if corporations start doing this--and we are not seeing any signs of
how terrible this is happening in the real world--is any mention of
another group that received exactly the same kind of green light from
the Supreme Court as corporations did, another group that is barred by
the same law that says corporations cannot contribute directly to a
political party that will benefit enormously, and a group that has
demonstrated it has the capacity to create a political advertisement
that is effective.
I am talking about unions. Unions have the same kind of freedom that
corporations have under this decision from the Supreme Court. Unions
can now spend money speaking freely about candidates and using their
names in ways that presumably they could not have done before.
Are we going to assume that the Supreme Court decision is going to
unleash a flood of millions and millions of dollars of corporate money,
but that the unions are going to sit quietly on the sidelines with
their hands folded across their chests doing nothing?
If, indeed, there is going to be an avalanche of political spending
coming as a result of this decision, I guarantee it is going to come
from the unions every bit as much as it is going to come from the
corporations. Indeed, it is my expectation it will come far more from
the unions than it will come from the corporations.
Think about the big corporations in America. How do most of them make
their money? They make their money by selling products to the American
people, and they are good at advertisements to sell products. If I were
on the board of one of these major corporations, and someone came to me
and said: All right, we want to spend corporate money to put together
an ad or put together a movie or put together any kind of political
speech and put our corporate name on it, I would say: Now, wait a
minute. Are you sure you want to run the risk of offending the
customers of our product who may not agree with our political position?
Let's be a little careful about this.
I think there are going to be some very circumspect conversations in
the boardrooms of America's largest corporations before they come
rushing in to the political arena in the fashion our friends across the
aisle are predicting.
On the other hand, do the unions care? Do the unions feel it will
damage their public image if they are seen advertising with tremendous
expenditures under the decision the Supreme Court handed down? No. They
do not worry about selling products to the American people. They exist
in many instances primarily because of favors they received from the
government. For those who talk about the DISCLOSE Act, saying this will
open the floodgates for corporations and never mentioning unions is to
demonstrate they are ignoring what the situation really is.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BENNETT. I would be honored.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I recall correctly, this is not the first election
under which independent groups have been extraordinarily active in
advertising in political campaigns. In fact, I recall quite precisely
that independent groups aligned with the other side of the aisle,
according to those who keep the statistics on this, spent twice as much
in 2006 and a similar amount in 2008 as outside groups that might be
typically aligned with Senators such as Bennett and McConnell. Where
was the outrage a couple cycles ago?
I would ask my friend, did Citizens United in any serious way change
the landscape, in any event?
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the leader for his question, and the leader's
recollection is entirely correct. I remember when we passed the
Campaign Finance Act we were told this will get big money out of
politics. I remember the first elections fought after the passage of
that bill saw the greatest amount of spending we have ever seen in
American history, and the amount of spending has only gone up.
All we did--and I am quoting from the minority leader's own comments
at the time in the debate--all we did was
[[Page S7386]]
redirect how the money was going to go. In my view, all the Supreme
Court did in their decision was to be fair in saying if a group gets
together and organizes themselves, as Citizens United, they have
exactly the same right to speak as Michael Moore had. If he makes a
movie, they could make a movie. The Supreme Court said both movies are
legitimate. I do not think we are going to see any kind of the
consequences of the sort we have heard.
Mr. President, I recognize the leader is on the Senate floor, and I
will yield the floor so he might continue whatever it is he has to say
on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before the leader speaks, may I pose a
question? What is the status of time in terms of the minority and the
majority on this issue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority is out of time, and the minority
has retained just under 8 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the
leader be allowed to speak for as long as he chooses and that I be
given 5 minutes after that to conclude for the majority, and the vote
be delayed until after that.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I do not need the Senator
from New York to intervene. I am happy to use my leader time, which may
be the solution to the time problem.
Mr. SCHUMER. That would be fine with me, if that works. Does that
still----
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to proceed under my leader
time, and then Senator Schumer can ask his consent if it is necessary.
He may have enough time to close.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the past 2 days, Democratic leaders
have demonstrated once again their total lack of interest in the
priorities of the American people.
At a time of near double-digit unemployment and skyrocketing debt,
Americans would like to see us focus on jobs and the economy. Yet for
the past 2 days, Senate Democrats have forced us to return once again
to a debate we have already had on a bill the Senate has already
rejected--a bill that focuses not on creating jobs for the
American people but with saving the jobs of Democratic politicians in
Washington.
That is what this debate is about. Our friends on the other side
would have the public believe this bill is about transparency. It is
not. Here is a bill that was drafted behind closed doors, without
hearings, without testimony, and without any markups--a bill that picks
and chooses who gets the right to engage in the political process and
who does not; a bill that seeks, in other words, to achieve an unlevel
playing field; a bill that is back on the floor for no other reason
than the fact that our friends on the other side have declared this
week ``politics only'' week in the Senate.
The only thing transparent here is the effort this exercise
represents to secure an electoral advantage for the Democrats. So this
is a completely distasteful exercise.
At a time when Americans are clamoring for us to do something about
the economy, Democrats are not only turning a deaf ear, they are
spending 2 full days working to silence the voices of even more people
with a bill that picks and chooses who has a full right to political
speech.
Let's face it, what our friends on the other side want is what they
have always seemed to want: more government control. They want the
government to pick and choose who gets to speak in elections, and how
much they speak. That is why they are also pressing at the same time
for taxpayer-funded elections--something the assistant majority leader
called for once again just yesterday.
So Democrats have spent the past year and a half taking over banks,
car companies, insurance companies, the student loan business--you name
it--and now they want the taxpayers to foot the bill for their campaign
ads as well.
Earlier today, the House Committee on House Administration marked up
a bill that would stick taxpayers with a bill for House elections
nationwide. Think of that: taxpayer money for attack ads, for buttons,
for balloons and bumper stickers.
Have they no shame? Have they no shame? Our cumulative debt now the
size of our economy, and they want to spend tax dollars on political
campaigns.
I mean, even if they do not agree with the principled arguments
against this kind of an effort, I would submit that in a time of
exploding deficits and record debt the last thing the American people
want right now is to provide what amounts to welfare for politicians.
Think about it. One recent estimate puts the annual cost to taxpayers
of funding every Federal election at about $1.8 billion each year. That
is $1.8 billion more that taxpayers would have to shell out than they
already are. For what? For what? For politicians to throw campaign
events and run ads that taxpayers may not even agree with or which they
find downright outrageous.
One of the groups that supports this scheme calls it ``an incredibly
good deal for taxpayers.'' Well, I strongly suspect that most taxpayers
would not share that view. Americans want us to stop the wasteful
spending. Another $1.8 billion on balloons and bunting is not their
idea of a step in the right direction.
So why are Democrats doing this? Why are they proposing taxpayer
financing of political campaigns and the DISCLOSE Act right now, at a
time when Americans want them to focus on jobs and the economy?
I think it is pretty obvious. This is pure politics--pure.
After spending the past year and a half enacting policies Americans
do not like, Democrats want to prevent their opponents from being able
to criticize what they have done. After spending a year and a half
enacting policies the American people do not like, they want to silence
the voices of critics of what they have done. They want to prevent
their critics from speaking out.
So here we are, 2 days debating this partisan, political, dead end
bill that does not do one thing to help the economy, reduce the
deficit, or create a single job.
Americans deserve a lot better. Americans are speaking out. But
focusing on this bill shows that Democrats in Washington still are not
listening. So, once again, I will be voting no on this legislation, and
I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate once again has an opportunity to
defend the public's confidence in our democratic system. In July, we
missed this opportunity by failing to approve a motion to proceed to
the DISCLOSE Act, a vital step in preserving the transparency and
integrity of our elections. I urge my colleagues not to repeat that
mistake. We should take up, debate, and pass the DISCLOSE Act.
Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court discarded decades of precedent
and concern for the health of our democracy when it decided on a 5-4
vote to eliminate regulations on corporate expenditures on elections. I
strongly disagreed with that decision, but it is now the law of the
land, and we are left with the task of trying to preserve the ability
of individual Americans to be heard in a political process that could
be swamped by a flood of corporate money.
The DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, unions, or advocacy
organizations to stand by their advertisements and inform their members
about their election-related spending. It imposes transparency
requirements, requires spending amounts to be posted online, and
prevents government contractors, corporations controlled by foreigners,
and corporate beneficiaries of TARP funds from spending money on
elections. I am an original cosponsor of the act because I believe it
is essential to protect public confidence in the integrity of our
elections.
By establishing these requirements, we will not prevent corporations
from engaging in the activities the Supreme Court has allowed. We are
simply giving Americans the ability to see how these companies, unions
and other groups are seeking to influence the political process. This
should not be an issue of Republicans and Democrats.
[[Page S7387]]
We should all agree that our democracy is best served when its election
campaigns are conducted transparently.
The American people are depending on us to defend the integrity of
the political process. We should not fail to uphold that
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to debate and adopt adopt this
vital legislation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and
I believe the Senate should be allowed to consider it. I am pleased to
see this bill get such strong support from my colleagues on the
Democratic side, and I urge my Republican colleagues to think long and
hard before again blocking it even from coming to the floor. I have a
long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not
interested in campaign finance legislation that has a partisan effect.
This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators
from both parties.
As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It
aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related
advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision
in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have
the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads.
That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise
the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote.
It is no secret that the Senator Schumer and I, and all of the
original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the
Citizens United decision. We don't agree with the Court's theory that
the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold
elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe
that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope
that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and
overturn it.
But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along
with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act
is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to
address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the
Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage
left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can
constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it.
In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not
constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related
speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also
specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations.
The Court stated:
"[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide
shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold
corporations and elected officials accountable for their
positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether
their corporation's political speech advances the
corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can
see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so-
called moneyed interests.
The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with
free speech:
The First Amendment protects political speech; and
disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the
speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This
transparency enables the electorate to make informed
decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and
messages.
The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required
to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It
specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that
held that such requirements are constitutional.
The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer
requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do
not violate the first amendment. For years, opponents of campaign
finance reform have argued that all that is needed is disclosure. Well,
in a very short time we will find out whether they were serious,
because that is what this bill is all about.
If the Senate is allowed to proceed to the bill, there will be time
to discuss its provisions in more detail, and perhaps to amend them.
One amendment that obviously will need to be made is to the effective
date. Any bill that passes at this point is not going to apply to the
upcoming election, and we should amend the bill to make it applicable
only to elections beginning in 2012. But I do want to comment on one
provision that has caused controversy, which was added in the House--
the exception for large, longstanding groups, including the National
Rifle Association.
I am not a fan of exceptions to legislation of this kind. I would
prefer a bill, like the one we introduced, that does not contain this
exception. But the fact is that the kinds of groups that are covered by
the exception are not the kinds of groups that this bill is mostly
aimed at. Knowing the identity of individual large donors to the NRA
when it runs its ads is not providing much useful information to the
public. Everyone knows who the NRA is and what it stands for. You may
like or dislike this group's message, but you don't need to know who
its donors are to evaluate that message.
The same cannot be said about new organizations that are forming as
we speak to collect corporate donations and run attack ads against
candidates. One example is a new group called American Crossroads. It
has apparently pledged to raise $50 million to run ads in the upcoming
election. Can any of my colleagues tell me what this group is and what
it stands for? Don't the American people have a right to know that, and
wouldn't the identity of the funders provide useful information about
the group's agenda and what it hopes to accomplish by pumping so much
money into elections? Even Citizens United, the group that brought the
case that has led us to this point, is not known to most people. Why
shouldn't the American people know who has bankrolled that group, if it
is going to run ads and try to convince people to vote a certain way?
Disclosure is the way we make this crucial information available to
the public. But if a group is around for 10 years, has members in all
50 States, and receives only a small portion of its budget from
corporations or unions, there is less reason for the kind of detailed
information that the DISCLOSE Act requires. So while I would prefer
that this exception wasn't in the bill, I understand why the House felt
it was necessary, and I don't think it undermines the bill's purpose or
makes it fundamentally unfair.
Most of the complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are coming from
interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens
United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections
for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that
the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure
requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the
old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.''
Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from
New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to
pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the motion for
reconsideration and vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I would simply note that the bill
before us has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns; it
simply has to do with disclosure.
I rise today in support of DISCLOSE, the Democracy Is Strengthened by
Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
This bill is in direct response to Citizens United v. FEC in which
the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts and its activist
majority, overruled almost a century of law and precedent and held that
corporations have the same first amendment rights as people. As I have
said before, because of this decision, the winner of every upcoming
election won't be Democrats or Republicans; it will be special
interests. And it will come at the expense of the voice of the ordinary
American. The Court's decision lifted well-established restrictions on
corporate and union spending in elections. This created a loophole in
which these entities can now create anonymous groups to serve as a
conduit to anonymously funnel money. The intent is to deceive the
public and hide the real motives of those spending on these ads.
[[Page S7388]]
We have worked within the contours of the Court's decision in order
to draft the DISCLOSE Act.
I ask those who support sunlight in campaign spending to work with us
to pass this bill.
You think we are using this bill as a political tool to influence
elections? OK. We will change the effective date to January 2011 so it
won't apply to this November's election. We will welcome this change
and encourage Republican amendments and debate on this bill because it
is essential to the health of our democracy. We are also willing to
consider paring the bill down, per the suggestion of my colleague,
Senator Snowe, in her statement, and limiting it to the core provisions
regarding enhanced disclosures and disclaimers.
Both disclosure and disclaimer were proclaimed to be constitutional
and effective ways to regulate corporate and union spending by eight of
the nine Justices in Citizens United and were upheld in a later
decision, Doe v. Reed. The Court specifically stated that disclosure
requirements ``do not prevent anyone from speaking''--do not prevent
anyone from speaking--and found that there was strong governmental
interest in ``providing the electorate with information about the
sources of election-related funding.'' The Court also concluded that
``disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech
of corporate entities in a proper way'' and to ``give proper weight to
different speakers and messages.'' To be clear, disclosure does not
chill speech. We do not want to chill speech. We merely want the
American public to have details about who is speaking. These disclosure
and disclaimer provisions allow the American public to know exactly who
is bankrolling campaign advertisements. The American public deserves
nothing less.
I would note that a strong majority of the American public--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--disapproved of the Supreme
Court's opinion in Citizens United and support disclosure and
disclaimer provisions.
In removing the restrictions on corporate and union campaign
spending, the Citizens United decision has opened a door for the
creation of shadow groups whose spending is not clearly regulated.
Neither the IRS, which has jurisdiction for nonprofits, nor the FEC
provides oversight for these groups. That is a scary thought. In fact,
one such group, American Crossroads, the leader in campaign spending in
the Senate, was created by Karl Rove, who pledged to spend $50 million
on just the 2010 election cycle. In fact, since our last vote on this
issue, it has been reported that these shadow groups have raised $20
million.
A former Republican FEC Commissioner, Michael Toner, stated on the
front page of the New York Times this week that, from his personal
experience, ``the money is flowing.'' It is clear to us that the money
is flowing; we just aren't permitted to know from whom it is coming. It
is clear that this money isn't coming from the average voter. These
groups are created, funded with secret donations, and then they
disappear just as quickly as they appeared, all with no real
disclosure. They are not created to be a voice of the people. It has
been reported that the vast majority of American Crossroads funding is
from four billionaires. Why are we letting the voice of these four
people drown out the rest of America? This is outrageous.
In conclusion, the American people deserve to know what each and
every one of us in this Chamber truly believes. Are we for openness,
transparency, and giving the voters information they need to make their
choices in the voting booth or do we really believe, despite our
rhetoric, that it is OK for special interests to spend freely on all
kinds of political advertising but keep the voters in the dark about
who is paying for it?
The Supreme Court's decision this year has made it imperative for us
to act now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act.
Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Claire
McCaskill, Patrick J. Leahy, John F. Kerry, Byron L.
Dorgan, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Roland W. Burris,
Robert Menendez, Jack Reed, Joseph I. Lieberman, Tom
Udall, Kent Conrad, Mark Begich, Robert P. Casey, Jr.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3628, a bill to amend the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal
elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures
with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure
requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--39
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Hutchison
Murkowski
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion on reconsideration is rejected.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
____________________