[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5066-S5072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I believe we have a number of speakers
who are coming over from the caucus lunch to discuss the upcoming vote
on the DISCLOSE Act. I wanted to take the time that is available until
a speaker shows up to continue to report the previous support for
disclosure from our colleagues and from other Republican officeholders
and officials.
I think where I left off in my previous listing was Senator Lisa
Murkowski, who wants Citizens United reversed and has said:
Super PACs have expanded their role in financing the 2012
campaigns, in large part due to the Citizens United decision
that allowed unlimited contributions to the political
advocacy organizations.
She said:
However, it is only appropriate that Alaskans and Americans
know where the money comes from.
My friend Senator Jeff Sessions, a ranking member on the Judiciary
Committee, at one point said:
I don't like it when a large source of money is out there
funding ads and is unaccountable. . . . To the extent we can,
I tend to favor disclosure.
Senator Cornyn said:
I think the system needs more transparency, so people can
more easily reach their own conclusions.
Senator Collins has been quoted:
Sen. Collins . . . believes that it is important that any
future campaign finance laws include strong transparency
provisions so the American public knows who is contributing
to a candidate's campaign, as well as who is funding
communications in support of or in opposition to a political
candidate or issue.
That is from the Hill.
Senator Scott Brown has said:
A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include
increased transparency, accountability and would provide a
level playing field to everyone.
Senator Tom Coburn has said:
So I would not disagree there ought to be transparency in
who contributes to the super PACs and it ought to be public
knowledge. . . . We ought to have transparency. . . . If
legislators were required to disclose all contributions to
their campaigns, the public knowledge would naturally
restrain legislators from acting out of the current quid pro
quo mindset. If you have transparency, you will have
accountability.
As I reported earlier today, the Republican Senate support goes to
people who have left the Senate as well. I would remark again on the
extraordinary editorial written in the New York Times by Senators Hagel
and Rudman.
House Speaker Representative Boehner has said:
I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full
disclosure, full disclosure of all the money we raised and
how it is spent. And I think sunlight is the best
disinfectant.
Representative Eric Cantor, the majority whip, I believe, has said:
Anything that moves us back towards that notion of
transparency and real-time reporting of donations and
contributions I think would be a helpful move towards
restoring the confidence of voters.
Newt Gingrich has called for reporting every single night on the
Internet when people make political donations.
Mitt Romney has said that it is ``an enormous, gaping loophole . . .
if you form a 527 or 501(c)(4) you don't have to disclose who the
donors are.''
Well, this is a chance for our colleagues to close that enormous,
gaping loophole their Presidential nominee has pointed out.
One of my favorite comments is by Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee said:
I wish that every person who gives any money [to fund an
ad] that mentions any candidate by name would have to put
their name on it and be held responsible and accountable for
it. And it's killing any sense of civility in politics
because of the cheap shots that can be made from the trees by
snipers that you never can identify.
The cheap shots that can be made from the trees by snipers that you
never can identify. Let me give an example of that.
I am going to read parts of an article from this morning's New York
Times.
In early 2010, a new organization called the Commission on
Hope, Growth and Opportunity--
With a name like that, you know it has to be bad in this
environment--
filed for nonprofit, tax-exempt status, telling the
Internal Revenue Service it was not going to spend any money
on campaigns.
Weeks later, tax-exempt status in hand as well as a single
$4 million donation from an anonymous benefactor, the group
kicked off a multimillion-dollar campaign against 11
Democratic candidates, declining to report any of its
political spending to the Federal Election Commission,
maintaining to the I.R.S. that it did not do any political
spending at all, and failing to register as a political
committee required to disclose the names of its donors. Then,
faced with multiple election commission and I.R.S.
complaints, the group went out of business.
The editorial continues:
``C.H.G.O.'s story is a tutorial on how to break campaign
finance law, impact elections, and disappear--the political
equivalent of a hit and run,'' Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics . . . wrote in a new report.
A cheap shot from the trees by a sniper you can never identify, and
to this day no one has ever identified the $4 million donor.
I see the Senator from New Jersey. I am delighted to yield to him so
he can make his remarks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday we witnessed quite a sight.
Not a single Republican was willing to stand up to oppose secret money
and elections. Today they will have another chance to announce their
support and tell their constituents whether they would prefer that
secret money buys the politicians or does it take their constituents'
votes to get people in place who care about where this country is
going.
[[Page S5067]]
Republicans will have a chance to show Americans where they stand:
with millions of individual voters or the few billionaires who seek to
drown out the voices of our citizens by using secret money.
Yesterday, I came to the floor to present the identities of two of
the biggest supporters of secret money in politics, David and Charles
Koch. They are joined by somebody we read about yesterday in the papers
and heard on the news by the name of Sheldon Adelson, whose brain money
was earned from Chinese gamblers in Macau to buy American politicians.
That is some deal.
The Koch brothers are putting together a secret group of wealthy
friends who will spend $400 million to manipulate the upcoming
election. This effort is one of the egregious examples of the flood of
big, secret money into our politics, and this unaccountable money is
spent with a clear goal of determining our laws and deciding our
elections and the policies this country will follow in the future. The
Koch brothers are set on picking their preferred politicians. Too bad
that with a country of over 300 million people these two fellows want
to decide who should run this country of ours.
Koch Industries controls oil and chemical companies that do business
around the globe. So what do the Koch brothers and their anonymous
friends want from politicians who benefit from their secret money? They
want laws that benefit the companies like the ones they own even when
those laws come at the expense of millions of other Americans. I think
the reason is clear. They want people in office who will put their
special interests above the public interest.
These brothers run Koch Industries, which is a giant international
conglomerate and one of the largest privately held companies in the
world.
The Kochs' secret money organization, Americans for Prosperity, has
opposed EPA's new mercury pollution standards. These historic standards
will prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and up to
11,000 premature deaths. Americans for Prosperity, funded by secret
money, opposed the rule that will save these lives. They would rather
have the money. We know what millions of people who live near
powerplants want. They want the plants to clean up their acts and stop
poisoning them and their neighbors.
The Kochs and industry lobbyists argue that these standards just cost
too much. What is the value of a life to these guys? Let them answer
the question publicly. Turn in the secret money and let the people
across our country decide who they want in the Senate, the House, and
the White House.
How much poorer is our society when children are born with
developmental problems? A child born with pollution in their body is
set back from day one. That child's potential is stunted before they
have even taken their first breath.
Polluters just ignore the costs to American families. They think
their right to pollute is more important than the average person. The
children in our country have the right to breathe. It is foul play if
we have ever seen it. Put your money up, take fresh air away from young
people, and create problems that mercury in our environment does.
Secret money in politics makes it possible for polluting companies to
spend millions of dollars influencing elections, and the American
public is kept in the dark. So I say to my Republican colleagues: Let
your conscience rule your decision. Let's tell the truth.
I wish the vote could say: Yes, I want secret money to continue being
sent. They dare us to use that language. Come on. There are good people
over there. Let's shine some light on who is pulling the strings in
this country. Is it the people or is it the money that makes the
difference in the way this society functions?
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when I have
used 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand we will have a set vote on
the DISCLOSE Act. It got 51 votes previously. We need 60 votes to move
forward to pass this bill. It is not likely to happen. Our Democratic
colleagues were down here last night into the midnight hour talking
about the DISCLOSE Act, which is something that is political and
campaign-related that we have a significant difference of opinion
about, and it is not going to pass.
I would like to ask my friends and colleagues what is it we ought to
be disclosing? Is it the amount of money some individual American made
honestly and spent or maybe there are some other issues we ought to
disclose. I would say this Senate ought to disclose to the American
people what its budget plan is for the future of this country. We
haven't had a budget in 3 years. Senator Reid said it would be foolish
to bring up a budget--foolish because we don't have time. We had time
to spend all night last night debating this bill--or half the night--
and we are having a second vote on the same bill again today. Why don't
we spend some of that time on something important such as dealing with
our $16 billion debt. Why don't our Democratic leaders disclose to us
what their plan is to deal with this surging debt, a debt that is
increasing at $1.3 trillion a year. It is unsustainable, as every
estimate we have ever been told and every witness has testified to
before the Budget Committee and other committees--unsustainable. Yet
they refuse to even lay out a plan for how we are going to confront
that.
The House has. They laid out a historic plan. Congressman Ryan and
his team and the House has passed a long-term budget plan that will
alter the debt course of America and put us on a responsible path--not
so in the Senate, even though they talked about it in secret amongst
themselves that they had a plan. Let's disclose it. Why don't we have a
disclosure of it.
October 1 is coming up pretty fast, particularly since we are going
to be in recess virtually the entire month of August and it looks like
the entire month of October. By October 1, the Congress has a duty and
a responsibility to pass legislation that funds the government because
the new government fiscal year begins October 1. Senator Reid just
announced he is not going to produce a single appropriations bill. When
I first came here, we tried to pass all 13 every year, before October
1, when the year starts. We are not even going to attempt it.
I think the American people ought to ask: What do you plan to spend
your money on next year? The country is suffering substantially. Why
don't you disclose, Senator Reid, what the appropriations bills are
going to be, how much money you are going to spend on each one of the
items, and subitems and subitems and subitems, so we can examine it,
bring it up on the floor, and offer amendments, as the Senate is
supposed to operate. Why don't you disclose that? Isn't that important
for America?
I have to say, since I have been here, this will be the least
performing, most disappointing year of the Senate in our history. No
budget, no attempt to bring up a budget, no appropriations. Those are
the bread-and-butter requirements of any Senator.
Food stamps, the SNAP program. In 2000, we were spending about $17
billion on the food stamp program. Last year, we spent $79 billion. It
has gone up repeatedly. It is out of control. It needs to be managed.
It needs to be focusing more on helping people in need, not just
subsidizing people in need--helping them move forward to independence
and responsibility. Why don't my colleagues disclose a plan for that?
Isn't that important to America? I think it is.
There are a lot of other things that ought to be on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
There are a lot of other things on the table we need to be dealing
with and talking about and being honest about. It is time to disclose
what our financial plans for the future are. It is time to disclose
what we are going to do about this debt, what we are going to do about
wasteful spending. It is not being done. It is a disappointing year.
I thank the Chair and yield is floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, lest we get totally off track
and before the Senator from Alabama leaves the Chamber, I wish to thank
[[Page S5068]]
him and congratulate him. The system works when Democrats and
Republicans come together. The Senator from Alabama and I have worked
on many issues together, including the Nation's national security. Just
recently, the Senate showed how it can work together on the RESTORE Act
in the Gulf of Mexico when we added a provision directing the fine
money to be imposed by a judge in New Orleans and redirected that fine
money to come back to the people and the environment and the critters
of the gulf. That passed in this Chamber 76 to 22--a huge bipartisan
vote.
I have had the privilege of working with the Senator from Alabama on
many other issues, including the times the two of us led the Strategic
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee on some of the Nation's
most significant things, such as our overall strategic umbrella
protecting this country. There again, it was Democrats and Republicans
working together.
So to hear a lot of the rhetoric, someone outside the Senate would
think we are totally in gridlock. That has not been the case. However,
we come to a point of gridlock again because of the Senate rules
requiring 60 votes to shut off debate so we can go to this bill called
the DISCLOSE Act.
What the DISCLOSE Act does is common sense. It is common sense to
say, if someone is going to affect the political system by giving money
to influence the votes at the end of the day in an election year, all
the campaign laws say they have to disclose that money, and but for a
5-to-4 Supreme Court decision--which is contorted at best and is way
over the edge at the very least--its ruling says that because of
freedom of speech, outside the political system, one can make
advertisements, one can speak freely; in other words, by spending
money, buying ads, and one does not have to disclose that. Oh, by the
way, that whereas the campaign finance law prohibits in Federal
elections corporations from donating, this contorted Supreme Court
decision says that can be corporate money and it doesn't have to be
disclosed.
That is what we are seeing in abundance in that kind of political
speech right now in all these attack ads, and these attack ads are
going rapid fire. We look at who it is sponsored by. It is not
sponsored by the candidate; it is sponsored by some organization that
has a high-sounding name, but we don't know where the money is coming
from.
This piece of legislation in front of us yesterday got 53 votes, and
we need 7 more votes to cut off the debate just to go to the bill. This
vote is coming at 3 o'clock. We are not going to get it. It is going to
be the same result--53 to 47. Why? Because these outside, unlimited
sources of funds that are not disclosed are affecting elections and
they are achieving the result and we know it. If we put enough money
into TV advertising, one can sell a box of soap, whatever the brand is.
That is the whole theory behind this. The undisclosed donors giving
unlimited sums elect whom they want, and that is going to completely
distort the political system.
We start from a basis of old Socratic ideas, going back to Socrates;
that in the free marketplace of ideas, the crosscurrents of those ideas
being discussed, that out of it truth will emerge and the best course
of action will emerge. It is upon those ideals that this country was
founded; this country, wanting a representative body such as this to
come forth and freely and openly discuss the ideas and hammer out
policy. Yet what we are seeing is that in bringing those elected
officials here, by electing them by overwhelming advertising from
unlimited sources, those elected representatives will be beholden to
those particular sources and will not have an independence of judgment,
will not have the Socratic ability in the free marketplace of ideas to
hammer out the differences of ideas and achieve consensus in order to
determine the direction of the country. So the very underpinnings of
the country are at stake.
Why is this being fought--something that ought to be like a
motherhood bill. One is for disclosure of those giving money to
influence the political system, just like all the Federal candidates
have to disclose; and, oh, by the way, are limited in the amounts of
contributions to each candidate. What is such common sense is being
thwarted. If this legislation were to pass and they had to disclose who
is giving the money, do we know what: Most of them would stop giving
it, and they would have to operate under the normal campaign finance
laws which say to report every dime of a contribution and they are
limited as to the amount they can give and the candidate is limited as
to the amount they can receive. That is fair, but it is more than fair.
It is absolutely essential to the functioning of the electoral system
in order to elect a representative democracy.
That is what is at stake, and that is what we are going to vote on
again. Unfortunately, we know what the outcome of the vote is going to
be: 53 in favor of disclosing and 47 against, and we are not going to
know who is giving all this money.
I can't say it any better. It is old country boy wisdom that says
this ought to be as easy as night and day, understanding the
difference. Yet that is what we are facing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have not taken an opportunity to
speak to the DISCLOSE Act, which is currently before us, or the holding
of Citizens United. I haven't come to the floor to address that, but
that does not mean this has not been a discussion of great importance
in the State of Alaska.
Alaskans are a pretty independent lot. I think they like to know what
is behind certain initiatives, certainly when it comes to the financing
of campaigns. They want to know where and when and how and why and that
it is appropriate. Our State legislature has enacted some campaign
finance reforms that I think have been good. Alaskans have looked very
critically at the Citizens United decision and its impact on the
campaigns in this country.
I have made no secret of the fact that I disagree with the holdings
of the Citizens United decision which makes it possible for individuals
and business entities to make contributions in any amount, at any time
to independent efforts to elect candidates at the Federal, State, and
local levels.
I think this decision not only overturned longstanding Federal law,
it also, to a certain extent, displaced State laws, including the laws
in my own State of Alaska which barred corporate participation in State
elections. It gave birth to a new form of political entity. We all know
it; we are all talking about it now, particularly with the Presidential
election--the super PAC, a vehicle for large donors. When we are
talking about large donors, we are not just talking about donors who
can put forth thousands of dollars. We are talking about donors who put
forth multimillions of dollars, and it is done to influence the
American political process in secret by contributing to organizations
with very patriotic names, but they lurk behind post office boxes.
There is an anonymity, there is a covering that I do not think the
American public expects or respects.
I believe strongly--I believe very strongly--that the Citizens United
decision is corrosive to democracy. At a very minimum the American
people deserve to know who is behind the organizations, who is funding
them, and what their real agendas are.
I think if we were to ask the average American out on the street: Do
you think it is reasonable that there be disclosure, full disclosure of
where the campaign dollars are coming from, I think the average
American would say: Yes. I know the average Alaskan is saying yes.
So when they see what this Supreme Court case has allowed--courts
have determined this is constitutional--I do not think anybody assumed
what it would lead to is an ability for an individual to give millions
of dollars to influence an election, and yet not be subject to a level
of disclosure that is fair and balanced.
I came to the floor very late last night after flying in from Alaska.
I left at 7 o'clock in the morning, and my plane touched down at about
10:15 last night. As I landed, I saw the lights of the Capitol on. I
knew somebody was still home. The flag that flies on the Senate side of
the Capitol was still up, meaning the Senate was still in session, so I
decided to come to the floor and see what was going on and to perhaps
listen to a little bit of the debate.
I was tired. I was tired from flying. But I was truly tired that as a
body,
[[Page S5069]]
when we have an issue that is important, is significant--whether it is
campaign finance or the tax issues we face, whether it is the
sequestration issue we will shortly be facing--we are once again in a
position where we are doing nothing but messaging. I am so tired of
messaging, and I think the folks whom we represent are tired of us
messaging.
I want us to have some reforms when it comes to campaign finance and
the disclosure that the American public thinks makes sense, where they
say: Good. This is not something where you are hiding behind an
organization, whether it is a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(3) or a super PAC,
or however we define it. We want to know that you are open and you are
transparent.
I did not stay too late last night to listen to the debates. But I
will tell you that the comments I heard from my colleagues were pretty
sound. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why it is appropriate that
the name, the address, the occupation of an individual who makes a
contribution of between $200 and $5,000 to Lisa Murkowski's committee
must be disclosed--that is what is required under the law. But somehow
or other there is a constitutional right for someone who gives $1
million, $15 million to an independent effort that either supports or
opposes an election can do so in secrecy. They can do so in a way that
is not subject to disclosure. I do not think that makes sense, and I do
not think it would make sense to anybody else out there on the street.
What is the difference?
But I would also suggest to you the converse is true as well. I do
not believe the membership lists--whether it is the Sierra Club or the
National Rifle Association or the NAACP--I do not think those lists
need to be public because an organization has made a relatively small
donation from its treasury funds to independent efforts. Those who
chose to affiliate with broad-based membership organizations deserve to
have their privacy interests maintained. So you have things going on
both sides here.
Again, what we should be doing in this case is trying to figure out
where there is a balance. Where is that fairness? Given that a $2,500
contribution to me as a candidate--the maximum that can be given to any
candidate for any election--has to be disclosed, I do not understand
why the bill that is before us, the DISCLOSE Act 3.0, sets the bar for
disclosure of a contribution to an independent effort at $10,000. That
does not make sense to me either.
So I guess where I am at this point in time--recognizing that in a
matter of minutes we are going to have yet another vote on DISCLOSE
under reconsideration--I do think that all these issues need to be
addressed in a DISCLOSE 4.0. Maybe we will move to that in the next
iteration, but that is not going to be happening here. Yesterday's vote
was decisive. As I mentioned, I was flying all day. I was not here at 6
o'clock when that vote was taken. But that vote was pretty clear. There
is no way we can reconfigure things, even with the support of Lisa
Murkowski, so that we could actually get to this bill and start making
those changes.
So we are sitting here at a point where we have precious little time
before us before we break for August and then come back. We have the
campaigns. We have a lot on our plate. I think we recognize that.
Saying that, I have already said I think this is a critically important
issue. But it is an issue we will not resolve today. It is not possible
to resolve today. So we should accept that fact and move forward. We
have a lot to do.
What I intend to do is to continue the work I began months ago with
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work to resolve some of
these issues, to work on a bipartisan basis on a bill that I hope we
can take up as a body. There are Senators who want to work on this. I
have met with them and we continue to try to figure out that path
forward. But that path forward has to be a bipartisan path. It has to
be a bipartisan path.
I hope we can put some kind of a vehicle to hearings and consider it
on the floor with an open amendment process, the way we can and should
do things around here. That is what I strive to do. That is my
commitment. I want to work with my colleague from Rhode Island. I want
to work with my colleagues from Colorado and Oregon and New York and my
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I think we all
recognize this is in the best interests of not only those of us in the
Senate but for those we represent--that there is a level of
transparency, openness, fairness, and balance when it comes to campaign
finance. That is my commitment.
With that, I know I have probably consumed more than my time. But I
appreciate the opportunity to work seriously and genuinely with my
colleagues on this issue.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on
the motion to proceed to S. 3369, the so-called DISCLOSE Act. Because
the bill is designed to protect entrenched Washington special interests
from ordinary Americans who want to exercise their first amendment
rights, I will oppose cloture.
Regulation of speech always raises significant constitutional
questions. The first amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy, and
the DISCLOSE Act would fundamentally remake the rules governing free
speech in American elections. It is intended not to promote
transparent, accountable, and fair campaigns, but rather to tilt the
playing field in favor of the Democratic Party and its constituencies.
Indeed, one of the chief sponsors of this legislation, Senator
Charles Schumer, has admitted that his goal is to deter certain
Americans from participating in the electoral process. The DISCLOSE Act
will make many businesses and organizations ``think twice'' before
engaging in political speech, Senator Schumer said in 2010. ``The
deterrent effect should not be underestimated.''
In essence, the Democrats have concocted a bill that would silence
their critics while letting their special interest allies speak. Nearly
every major provision of the DISCLOSE Act was designed to encourage
speech that helps the Democratic Party and discourage speech that hurts
it. For example, the legislation favors unions over businesses, which
belies the notion that it was crafted to prevent conflicts of interest.
If the true purpose of this bill were to promote transparency and
minimize the influence of political money on government, then unions
would face the same restrictions as businesses. But the true purpose of
the bill is to help Democrats win elections, and unions overwhelmingly
support Democrats, so they are given preferential treatment.
It is not the government's job to apportion first amendment rights
among Americans. Those rights belong to every citizen, period. I reject
any further erosion of a constitutional liberty that has preserved and
strengthened our democracy for 223 years.
I oppose the DISCLOSE Act and urge my colleagues to oppose this
afternoon's cloture motion.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE
Act.
It is important for Americans to know where the money is coming from
that supports the political ads appearing on their television screens
during election season.
This bill is a much needed response to the Supreme Court's decision
in Citizens United--a decision that is resulting in corporate money
drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court overruled decades of legal
precedent when it decided that corporations cannot be restricted from
spending unlimited amounts in Federal elections.
The decision was astounding, not just because it was a display of
judicial activism but also because it defies common sense for the
Supreme Court to conclude that corporations or even labor organizations
are citizens, as you or I am, in the eyes of the law.
As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, ``corporations
have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires .
. . they are not themselves members of `We the People' by whom and for
whom our Constitution was established.''
In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, special interest
groups known as super PACs with innocuous names like ``American
Crossroads'' and ``Restore our Future'' are primed to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars in the 2012 election.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Super PACs have raised $246 million in
secret
[[Page S5070]]
money so far in the 2012 election cycle--and we still have 113 days
until the election during which that total may double or even triple.
The New York Times recently reported that secret groups have
accounted for two-thirds of all political advertising spending this
year.
Unlike funds given directly to candidates and political parties,
which get reported to the Federal Election Commission and are available
for the public to review, funds given to super PACs are secret, leaving
voters with no knowledge of who is behind attack ads against political
candidates.
Right now the rules require that individuals who give $200 or more to
a candidate must submit detailed information about their identity,
their address, and their occupation. But Citizens United says that if
you give $2,000, $2 million, or $20 million to a super PAC, you don't
have to disclose a thing.
Former member of the Federal Election Commission Trevor Potter said
individuals ``can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the
campaign--and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC.''
At a minimum, voters in a democracy deserve to know who is
financially supporting candidates for public office.
Editorial boards in California and across the country recognize that
disclosure and transparency are essential for the integrity of our
democratic system.
The Sacramento Bee writes that ``reasonable people can disagree on
whether corporations should be able to donate to campaigns, or whether
the size of donations should be capped. But there should be no debate
about whether donations should be open and readily accessible to the
public.''
The Los Angeles Times writes that ``there is no cogent argument
against maximum disclosure. Nor is there any First Amendment argument
for secrecy . . . If those who seek to influence elections don't have
the courage of their convictions, Congress must act to identify them.''
The San Jose Mercury News writes that ``since the Supreme Court made
it all but impossible to regulate corporate influence on campaigns, the
only thing left is requiring swift and thorough disclosure.''
And that is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act does.
It requires super PACs, corporations, and labor organizations that
spend $10,000 or more for campaign purposes to file a disclosure report
with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of the
expenditure. The organization must also disclose the sources of all
donations it receives in excess of $10,000. The disclosure must also
include a certification that organization's spending is in no way
coordinated with a candidate's campaign. These are carefully targeted
reforms to ensure that the American people are informed during the
electoral process.
Outside spending on our elections has gotten out of control in the
post-Citizens United world created by the Supreme Court.
Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, who gave $20 million to a super
PAC to prop up the Presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich, told Forbes
Magazine: ``I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or
influencing elections, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do
it.''
A super PAC affiliated with House Republican majority leader Eric
Cantor raised $5.3 million in the third quarter this year. Adelson is
responsible for providing $5 million of the total.
The super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney, ``Restore our Future,''
has raised $61 million so far. Most of this money came from just a
handful of individuals.
During the 2012 Florida GOP Presidential primary, Romney super PACs
ran 12,000 ads in that state alone.
A New York Times analysis of donations to Romney super PACs found
sizeable amounts from companies with just a post office box as a
headquarters, and no known employees.
A USA Today analysis of GOP super PACs through February 2012 found
that $1 out of every $4 donated to these Super PACs was given by five
individuals.
A US PIRG/Demos study found that 96 percent of super PAC
contributions were at least $10,000 in size, quadruple the $2,500
donation limit individuals are allowed to give specific candidates.
The Center for Responsive Politics found that the top 100 individual
super PAC donors make up only 4 percent of the total contributors to
super PACs, but they account for more than 80 percent of the total
money raised.
According to Politico, the Koch Brothers and their companies plan to
spend $400 million on the 2012 election, which would be more than
Senator John McCain raised during his entire 2008 run for President.
A super PAC called ``Spirit of Democracy America'' spent $160,000 in
support of a primary candidate in California's 8th Congressional
District. The super PAC has no Web site and provided no details prior
to the primary election to voters in the district about who was behind
their expenditures. The super PAC accounted for 64 percent of all the
outside money spent on the race.
A 21-year-old Texas college student used a multimillion dollar
inheritance from his grandfather to spend more than $500,000 on
television ads and direct mail in a Kentucky congressional election,
helping his handpicked candidate win the primary in an upset.
The American people are tired of these stories, and they are tired of
big money in politics.
Overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, they support disclosure
laws and contribution limits.
Because of the massive influence super PACs are having on elections,
earlier this month the USA Today issued a frightening prediction about
this fall's election.
They write that ``the inevitable result is that come November, voters
in many closely contested races will make their decisions based on a
late flood of ads of dubious credibility paid for by people whose names
and motives are unknown.''
The American people deserve to have a government that is always of
the people, by the people, and for the people.
The DISCLOSE Act will help restore the voice of the people.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of
S. 3369, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in
Elections, DISCLOSE, Act. I am proud to join 39 of my colleagues in
sponsoring this measure and urge the Senate to act now to pass this
transparent, commonsense piece of legislation.
Free, fair, and open elections, as well as an informed electorate,
are fundamental to ensuring that our government reflects the highest
principles of democracy, which is the foundation of this country.
What is at stake today is nothing short of our electoral system. We
must reinforce the right of Americans to make fully informed decisions
about the political candidates and parties that seek to represent them
in government.
More than 2 years ago, the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in
Citizens United set the stage for the emergence of super political
action committees, PACs, primarily underwritten by wealthy individuals
to finance unregulated and often anonymous attack political campaign
advertising. This decision effectively puts our elected positions up
for sale to moneyed interests.
The DISCLOSE Act would address problems caused by the Citizens United
decision by restoring accountability and transparency to our electoral
system. It would simply require labor unions, traditional PACs, super
PACs, and other covered organizations that spend $10,000 or more on
political campaigns to identify themselves by filing a timely report
with the Federal Elections Commission.
Opponents of the DISCLOSE Act claim that this bill would impede free
speech and discourage political involvement. I cannot disagree more. To
the contrary, the DISCLOSE Act preserves the right to express one's
opinions and ideas through contributions to political campaigns; it
only forces large contributors to identify themselves when making
influential contributions. Furthermore, it promotes civic involvement
by empowering voters to effectively participate in the electoral
process and make informed choices about their leaders.
We are all here to represent the voters in our States and districts
who have entrusted us to represent them. In
[[Page S5071]]
our system of checks and balances, elected officials remain beholden to
their constituents through elections; however, to allow this system to
work, voters need to have all of the essential information that could
influence their decision: who we are, who our supporters are, and how
much support we have received from various sources.
No democracy, including this one, can remain fair, successful, and
viable if wealthy individuals are allowed to spend unchecked sums of
money to anonymously influence the outcomes of its elections.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right for all Americans today and
pass this important bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
given 4 minutes, the Senator from Rhode Island be given 6 minutes to
conclude, and we vote immediately thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, I would just like to make one preliminary
comment, and then I would like to address what my colleague from Alaska
has said and this bill.
Fiscal Policy
On another issue, I just heard that Vice President Cheney came to
address the Republican caucus on our fiscal cliff. I would suggest that
the man who said deficits do not matter is not a very good teacher for
the Republican caucus when it comes to deficit reduction and the fiscal
cliff. They could get better teachers than that.
As for this issue, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska
for her heartfelt comments. She is what we need, somebody who cares
about this issue, somebody who has great reach across the aisle, and
somebody who is willing to work with us.
It is true, it is obvious we will not have the votes to win the
DISCLOSE Act. It is simple disclosure. We tried to make it--under the
leadership of Senator Whitehouse; I will address that in 1 minute--we
tried to make it as narrow as possible. We tried to deal with all the
objections we heard about labor unions and others. That is why there is
a $10,000 amount--far beyond the labor union dues of any union I am
aware of. We tried to make it as down the middle as possible for simple
disclosure.
But I understand where my colleague from Alaska is coming from. I
respect it, and I look forward to working with her. She might be the
bridge we need because, mark my words, if we do not do something about
this, we will not have the Republic we know in 5 years. It is that
simple. This great country we all love has been dramatically changed by
Citizens United. The failure to correct its huge deficiencies, to have
such a small number of people have such a huge influence on our body
politic--we have never seen it before. Oh, yes, we have read about our
history, and we know there were small groups that were powerful in the
past, the robber barons, et cetera. But never, never, never have a
handful of people had such awesome tools to influence our political
system in a way they choose without any accountability--never.
The robber barons were more accountable and more diffuse. The small
group that led America, supposedly, in the 1920s was more accountable
and more diffuse. The military industrial complex that President
Eisenhower warned about was far broader and more diffuse. To have a
small number of people--most of them angry people, most of them people
who do not even give any attention to someone who does not agree with
them--to give them such awesome power, which is the power to run
negative political ads over and over and have no accountability as to
who is running them, that is a true danger to the Republic.
It befuddles me that our U.S. Supreme Court does not see it. We want
our courts to be insulated from the vicissitudes of politics. But to
have a Court that is so insulated that it does not see, smell, hear,
touch what is going on in this Republic does not speak well of that
Court. I think it is the main reason its popularity has declined. I
hope our Justices will wake and realize what they are doing.
I would say again--first, I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has
been a great leader on this issue. I wish to thank all my colleagues.
We have been debating this bill for 10 hours--more than 10 hours, I
believe--and there has not been one quorum call, which means there has
been speaking time from about 6 last night until 1 in the morning----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, at least--at least--10 Republican
Senators are on record supporting transparency and disclosure in
election spending. Some of them are very significant leaders on the
Republican side.
Senator Mitch McConnell said this:
I think disclosure is the best disinfectant.
Senator John Cornyn, head of the Republican campaign operation, said
this:
I think the system needs more transparency so people can
more easily reach their own conclusions.
Other Senators, colleagues, and friends come from States that require
disclosure in election spending. The States they represent know this is
wrong. The arguments against this bill are few. Some of those arguments
are false. Others don't hold water. Huge majorities of Americans--
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--support cleaning up this
mess.
More than 700,000 Americans signed up as citizen cosponsors of this
bill in the last few days. The actual number, I believe, is 721,000.
But then that ran up against this: outside political spending that went
from 1 percent to 44 percent, not disclosed in the last election. And
these secret groups, such as Crossroads, with $76.8 million, and the
majority of the money that they spend is secret money--that has changed
the debate. But those who are out of the need for that secret money,
such as former Republican Senators Rudman and Hagel, are clear:
A bill is being debated this week in the Senate, called the
DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This bill is a well-researched, well-
conceived solution to this insufferable situation. We believe
every Senator should embrace the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This
legislation treats trade unions and corporations equally and
gives neither party an advantage. It is good for Republicans
and it is good for Democrats.
Most important, it is good for the American people. I urge my
colleagues on the Republican side to follow the example of their former
colleagues Senator Rudman and Senator Hagel; and I pledge to Senator
Murkowski that we take her comments very seriously. She has cast a
sliver of daylight. I intend to pursue that sliver ardently to work
through this problem.
I will conclude by also complimenting Senator McCain. He believes
there is a benefit for unions in here that I do not see, which I
disagree exists. But certainly he has a record of courage and
determination on campaign finance that entitles his judgment to our
respect. I look forward to working with both of them.
I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not
invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3369 is agreed to. The motion to
reconsider is agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant bill 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. 446, S. 3369, 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.
Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Joseph I.
Lieberman, Jon Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Christopher A. Coons, Jeanne Shaheen, Daniel K.
Akaka, Herb Kohl, Charles E. Schumer, Mark Begich, Tim
Johnson, Robert Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Mark
Udall, Sherrod Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
[[Page S5072]]
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3369, 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, 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 Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--45
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Kirk
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion upon reconsideration is rejected.
Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my pending motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________