[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.

                          ____________________