[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1938-S1940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. 
        Wyden, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
        Cardin, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Webb, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Casey, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2219. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012, and we are informally closing DISCLOSE 2.0 in 
recognition of the original bill that Senator Schumer worked so hard to 
get passed a few years ago.
  The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal 
Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and 
special interest money in elections, bringing about an era where 
corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of 
voters in our political system.
  Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous so the public does 
not even know who is spending millions to influence our elections. Here 
is how my home State newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained the 
Citizens United decision:

       The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending 
     economic interests will determine who gets elected. More 
     money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. 
     Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their 
     voices will count for even less than they do now. They will 
     simply be drowned out by the big money.

  I think events have proven the Providence Journal correct. Senator 
John McCain recently described these events. He said:

       I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with 
     their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck 
     down [the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law], that there 
     would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparency, 
     unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening.

  If we look at the 2006 and 2010 congressional elections where there 
was not a Presidential race going on after Citizens United in 2010, 
there was a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other 
outside groups compared to what occurred in 2006, with nearly three-
quarters of that political advertising coming from sources that were 
prohibited from spending money in 2006--three-quarters of it.
  Also, in 2010, those 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations spent more 
than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. Anonymous 
spending rose

[[Page S1939]]

from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 47 percent of outside 
spending in 2010. Nearly half of the money spent through these outside 
organizations is anonymous and secret.
  If we look at the 2012 race that we are in right now, a Presidential 
race, and compare it to the last Presidential race, we are already 
seeing similar ominous signs about the influence of money. The Federal 
Election Commission predicts that over $11 billion will be spent on the 
2012 elections, about double what was spent in 2008.
  Super PACs, mostly linked to individual candidates, spent about $100 
million through the Super Tuesday contest in the Republican 
Presidential primary, again, about twice what was spent over the same 
period in 2008. In the two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside 
PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three 
times as much as the candidates themselves.
  Our campaign finance system is broken. Immediate action is required 
to fix it. Americans of all political stripes, whatever their 
persuasion, are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous 
corporate cash in our elections and by campaigns that succeed or fail 
depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their 
pockets.
  Editorial boards across the country decry this new pollution of our 
politics. Republicans, such as former Governors Mike Huckabee and Tom 
Ridge, have concluded that super PACs are, in Mr. Huckabee's words, 
``one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.''
  Seven in ten Americans, including a majority of both Republicans and 
Democrats, believe super PACS should be illegal. Countless Rhode 
Islanders are fed up with the influence of corporate money in 
elections. I hear them at my community dinners; I read their mail. 
Charles in Little Compton wrote to me,

       [I]t is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further, in 
     this instance solely because they have more money, should 
     drown out another person . . . [C]orporations have no problem 
     getting their views aired.

  Hope-Whitney in Bristol wrote,

       [J]ust the idea that a corporation is considered an 
     individual in regards to politics goes against everything 
     American to me. . . . [T]hey have become the Emperors as they 
     have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. . . . I'd 
     be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do 
     not agree with their political representation.

  Elizabeth in Wakefield wrote:

       Big business should not control our elections. It is bad 
     enough that they deeply influence our politicians through 
     lobbyists.

  But because of a 5-to-4 decision by the conservative Justices in 
Citizens United, Congress cannot prohibit super PACs from drowning out 
the voices of ordinary Americans in our elections. That leaves us with 
one weapon left in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of 
money from special interests. That weapon is disclosure, daylight, 
information.
  Today, along with 34 other Senators, I am introducing legislation 
that will shine a bright light on these powerful shadowy interests. 
With this legislation, every citizen will know who is spending these 
great sums of money to get their candidate elected. I am delivering 
this speech at a time that Senator Bennet, the distinguished junior 
Senator from Colorado is presiding. I am very conscious and aware as I 
deliver it of the immense amount of work that he has put in in the 
process of preparing this legislation, working on a strategy for going 
forward, working with our leadership to commence that strategy.
  I am grateful to him and the other Senators I will mention later. For 
now I will give the Presiding Officer the lead. In 2010, under Senator 
Schumer's leadership and guidance, we came within one vote of passing 
his original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous and 
unaccountable corporate money has become dramatically worse, and 
Americans are losing faith in our political system as a result.
  More and more people believe their government responds only to 
wealthy and powerful corporate interests. As they see their jobs 
disappear and their wages stagnate, and bailouts and special deals for 
the big guys, they lose faith that their elected officials are 
listening to them. For our democracy to remain strong, this trend 
cannot continue. We must redouble our efforts and pass the DISCLOSE Act 
of 2012.
  The bill we are introducing today has been trimmed down so it just 
does two simple things: One, if you are an organization such as a 
corporation, a super PAC or a 401(c)(4) group spending money in an 
election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you 
have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are 
spending it on in a timely manner. That should not be a controversial 
idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking special 
influence.
  If you are a top executive or a major donor of an organization 
spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, you have to take 
responsibility for those ads by having your name on the ad, and in the 
case of an executive appearing in the ad yourself. That is it. Two 
simple provisions. Disclosure and a disclaimer. These are reasonable 
provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans 
alike.
  The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, the DISCLOSE 2.0 Act, trims down the 
original DISCLOSE Act in another way. We have raised the threshold for 
donations that require disclosure from $600 to $10,000. It may sound as 
though $10,000 is a ridiculously high threshold, as though that is an 
awful lot of money, but when we look at what is happening in these 
super PACs, $10,000 in this particular world is no big deal.
  Ninety-three percent of money raised by super PACs in 2010 and 2011 
that can be traced to specific donors came in contributions of $10,000 
or more. So we will catch probably 93 percent of the money in this 
reporting provision, while leaving smaller donations and dues payments 
to membership organizations private.
  The act also does not require the disclosure of nonpolitical 
donations, affiliate transfers, business investments, and other 
transfers of money that have nothing to do with electioneering.
  At the same time, however, the bill also contains strong provisions 
to prevent the use of dummy organizations or shell corporations to hide 
their donations from public view. The way this bill is drafted, if 
somebody sets up a phony organization to take a contribution and, in 
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization and, in 
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization, before it 
finally lands in a super PAC that is benefiting a candidate, we will be 
able to trace that series of transactions.
  So it is a good law, a simpler law, an effective law. It only goes 
after high-dollar givers. Passing it would prove to the American people 
that Congress is committed to fairness, that we are committed to 
equality, and that we are committed to the fundamental principle of a 
government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''
  In closing, I thank Senator Schumer for his exemplary leadership and 
determination on this vitally important issue, as well as Senators 
Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom 
Udall, all of whom have worked very closely on this legislation. I also 
thank the act's other cosponsors--all 35--who, similar to myself, 
understand that the legitimacy of our democratic process and the 
integrity of our democratic elections are at stake.
  I look forward to working with any of my colleagues in the Senate who 
believe the voices of American citizens should be defended, and I hope 
all will join me in supporting this critical piece of legislation to 
restore integrity to our elections.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse, 
Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts 
to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by 
Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help 
to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the 
narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in 
Citizens United.
  Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices 
overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from 
corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to 
strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and 
ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from

[[Page S1940]]

direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and 
remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to 
corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process 
that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.
  Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations 
do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. 
Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal 
constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. 
Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow 
majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.
  When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's 
decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to 
mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that 
Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain-
Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that 
corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.
  Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act, 
preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having 
an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the 
DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy 
corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out 
the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in 
our elections.
  By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the 
flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and 
unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would 
continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks 
that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding 
precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American 
people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican 
primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead 
of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative 
advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to 
the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the 
time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of 
government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the 
decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the 
people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones 
would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is 
clear those concerns were justified.
  By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the 
effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and 
accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans 
know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward 
restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard 
and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate 
influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that 
Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable 
corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this 
important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the 
McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''
  Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate 
money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to 
corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and 
transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It 
would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend 
all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning 
board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those 
corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's 
hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all 
Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election 
Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic 
process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont 
refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of 
Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to 
each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate 
spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support 
the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure 
the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and 
fair elections.

                          ____________________