[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 65 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2354-S2358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               DARK MONEY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing 
Senator Whitehouse and myself to conclude today's session.
  I want first to salute my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, who will be 
on the floor momentarily. He has come to the floor many times to talk 
about issues relative to climate change and global warming. He has come 
on so many occasions that I have lost track, but it shows his 
dedication to this issue.
  He has also been outspoken on the issue of campaign financing and 
what is happening in America today. We all know that it takes big money 
to run big campaigns, and we all know that many people are put off by 
politicians who are waiting on wealthy donors to give them the money to 
make it across the finish line. That is a fact.
  I have always said that in this business of politics, there are two 
categories. There are multimillionaires and mere mortals, and I am in 
the second category, never having enough money to finance my own 
campaign, prevailing on my friends to help. It is too bad that politics 
has reached the level where campaigns are so long and so expensive.
  Tonight Senator Whitehouse and I will highlight one aspect of that 
issue that is particularly worrisome and really should be front and 
center; that is, the so-called secret contributions, the dark money--
money that is being spent on political campaigns with no fingerprints. 
It is a growing phenomenon, and it is troublesome to think that our 
democracy has reached that point.
  I am going to speak about one aspect of it, and Senator Whitehouse 
will follow me on the topic. I thank him for initiating this 
opportunity this evening.
  Let me tell my colleagues what my topic is about. It is one aspect of 
it. We know that the United States leads the world in medical research. 
Because of the U.S. scientific community, HIV/AIDS is no longer a death 
sentence, polio has been eradicated in this country, people survive 
cancer and heart attacks in record number, and a child born today will 
likely live to be 78 years of age--nearly three decades longer than a 
baby born in 1900.
  Thanks to the U.S. scientific community, we know the true dangers of 
tobacco. Now we are learning about the dangers related to e-cigarettes. 
But it was not always the case that the dangers of cigarette smoking 
were commonly accepted knowledge. For years, the tobacco industry 
claimed to be interested in rigorous, independent science. They wanted 
to sell less harmful products, and they wanted to support scientific 
research. Evidence has now been disclosed which unequivocally 
demonstrates that tobacco companies, by funding alternate research and 
funneling money into front organizations to do their bidding, have 
literally corrupted the science on this issue. They produced products 
they knew were no less hazardous and sought to influence elections to 
ensure the friendliest voices supporting tobacco were elected to office 
at Federal, State, and local levels all across the country.
  If this tactic sounds familiar, it should. It is exactly what the 
Koch brothers are currently doing with respect to sowing seeds of doubt 
about the causes of climate change and helping to elect Republicans who 
are climate change deniers.
  I have said repeatedly on the floor of the Senate and I will repeat 
this evening: The Republican Party of the United States of America is 
the only major political party in the world today that denies climate 
change. I have said that repeatedly, expecting some Republican to come 
to the floor and say it is not true. One of them whispered to me in the 
elevator after I said this a few times: I think there is a party in 
Australia that also denies climate change. That is the best they could 
come up with.
  How did this happen? There was a time when Republicans were the 
leaders when it came to environmental protection. If I am not mistaken, 
I say to my colleague, I think it was President Richard Nixon who 
created the Environmental Protection Agency.
  When I look back on my own experience in Congress, there were 
Republicans who stood up and spoke up on the issue of climate change. I 
remember when John McCain and Joe Lieberman were the two lead sponsors 
on a bill dealing with global warming. It has been within my period of 
time serving in the Senate, but not anymore. It has changed 
dramatically. The Koch brothers, I think, are behind it. They didn't 
come up with this strategy on their own. They were able to look at Big 
Tobacco's playbook from years gone by.
  The first thing Big Tobacco did was to question legitimate science. 
The Koch brothers got right in line. They have been questioning 
legitimate science when it comes to global warming, and they pioneered 
efforts to use dark money to influence America's public opinion and to 
sway elections without ever really revealing their true identities or 
motivations.
  I look back on tobacco and cancer. I am one--probably, like most 
Americans--who has lost a dearly loved member of my family to tobacco 
and cancer. My father died when he was 53 years of age from lung 
cancer. I was 14 years old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day. It was 
a horrible death.

[[Page S2355]]

He lingered for 100 days in the hospital before he died. It is 
something you never forget. There is hardly a family in America who 
doesn't have a similar story to tell.

  By the early 1950s, evidence linking smoking and lung cancer was 
growing. Tobacco companies could have responded by taking steps to 
protect American consumers. What they did was to launch a conspiracy to 
challenge the science behind tobacco. In 1953, tobacco companies hired 
the PR firm Hill+Knowlton to lead a pioneering effort to discredit 
emerging science and keep people smoking. At the heart of this strategy 
was an effort to manufacture a scientific controversy by insisting 
there were two sides to the debate about whether cigarette smoking 
caused cancer. Tobacco companies identified and paid scientists who had 
expressed skepticism about the health risk of cigarettes, who were 
critical of statistical methods, and who had offered alternative 
theories of what really was causing cancer among smokers.
  They also formed an industry-sponsored research entity that claimed 
to support independent research. Instead, the organization's main 
purpose was to serve the industry's public relations interests--namely, 
to sow seeds of doubt about the health risks of smoking and not advance 
science. Does it sound familiar to the scientists sowing seeds of doubt 
about global warming?
  As more and more independent research found an association between 
smoking and disease, tobacco companies used their so-called independent 
research organizations to insist that there was a great deal of 
uncertainty about whether smoking caused cancer. These entities 
supported scientists who showed a willingness to generate data and 
provide testimony that would support the industry. Meanwhile, tobacco-
friendly elected officials were happy to accept this bogus, fake 
science while also receiving generous campaign contributions from Big 
Tobacco.
  The tobacco industry efforts reached new highs--or lows, if you 
wish--when, in the early 1970s, there was growing concern about the 
impact of secondhand smoke. Arizona became the first State to restrict 
indoor smoking in some areas in 1973 after a Surgeon General report 
mentioned that secondhand smoke could be harmful to nonsmokers. By 
1981, 8 years later, 36 States had some type of smoking restriction in 
place.
  I know this issue, personally, because as a Member of the U.S. House 
of Representatives I decided to offer an amendment to ban smoking on 
airplanes. At the time, I was opposed by the leadership of both the 
Republicans and the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Of 
course, anyone from a tobacco-growing State or from the South opposed 
my efforts to ban smoking on airplanes. Well, it turned out we had a 
lucky break here and there in the House Rules Committee and got to 
bring the measure to the floor of the House for a vote, and I succeeded 
in passing the first restriction on smoking on airplanes.
  It turned out the reason was obvious: The largest frequent flier club 
in America is the U.S. Congress. We spend half of our lives on 
airplanes, and we know better when people say: You are sitting in the 
nonsmoking section of an airplane. Everybody was in the smoking section 
in the back of the airplane was puffing away.
  So that measure passed. I called my friend Frank Lautenberg of New 
Jersey, then a Senator, and said: Frank, can you take this up in the 
Senate? He said he would, and he did, and the two of us passed the 
basic prohibition of smoking on airplanes.
  By the 1980s, evidence had accumulated about the health risks of 
secondhand smoke and, in 1986, the Surgeon General concluded that 
secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers and was associated 
with respiratory illness in children. Once again, tobacco companies 
didn't accept the obvious. They responded to the evidence of harm from 
secondhand smoke and restrictions on smokers by launching an effort to 
undermine the scientific evidence. They identified, trained, and 
subsidized friendly scientists and sponsored symposia all around the 
world to feature these scientists without revealing they were paying 
them to come up with these opinions.
  In 1988, tobacco companies began funding the Center for Indoor Air 
Research. This is after we started banning the use of cigarettes on 
airplanes, for example. Like the other so-called independent research 
organizations funded by tobacco companies, CIAR--the Center for Indoor 
Air Research--allowed tobacco companies to fund and control the use of 
research favorable to their market position so they could continue to 
sell addictive, cancer-causing products to more and more people--
especially to kids. To shift emphasis away from secondhand smoke, the 
so-called research institute supported studies to weaken the case for 
regulation of tobacco.
  Why is it important to reflect on history of 30 years ago? It is 
happening all over again. Tobacco companies continue to provide funding 
to third-party organizations that advocate policies that align with the 
interests--such as e-cigarettes--without ever publicly disclosing their 
ties to these tobacco companies. In recent years, tobacco companies 
have sought to advance the idea that bringing to market so-called lower 
risk tobacco products will actually benefit public health. They warn 
that overregulations are going to hurt their business.
  Tobacco companies have provided funding to an array of think tanks--
the Heartland Institute, the R Street Institute, the National Center 
for Public Policy Research, just to name a few. These tobacco industry-
funded groups have sent letters to policymakers, they publish op-eds, 
they write reports, and they issue press releases that mirror the 
tobacco industry's position, warning that any future FDA rules will 
burden the tobacco industry and undermine efforts to bring a so-called 
lower risk product to market. Many of these groups have historically 
been silent or opposed policies that have proven effective in reducing 
smoking rates. Do you know what reduces smoking more than anything 
else? Cost of the product. As we have seen States and the Federal 
Government raise the tobacco tax, we have seen use of the product 
diminish. They haven't supported that, of course, and they don't 
support smoke-free laws or mass media campaigns.
  Last year, Philip Morris, notorious as a tobacco company, established 
the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. Let me repeat that. Philip 
Morris, a tobacco company, established the Foundation for a Smoke-Free 
World. They are going to fund research to end cigarette smoking and 
provide $80 million a year for 12 years. Given their history and their 
continued opposition to proven policies to reduce cigarette use, excuse 
me if I am skeptical.
  That is the problem, isn't it? Research from the Foundation for a 
Smoke-Free World or TV ads or op-eds from the Heartland Institute or 
the National Center for Public Policy Research just may seem harmless, 
but if the American public and elected officials knew that R.J. 
Reynolds, Altria, or Philip Morris--some of the biggest tobacco 
companies--were behind this research PR, they would be as skeptical as 
I am.
  One more example: corporations and wealthy donors flooding cash into 
efforts to influence the American public and American political 
officials. In addition to funding bogus research, we know tobacco 
companies have poured millions of dollars into nonprofit, dark money 
organizations, which, in turn, spend millions of dollars to influence 
elections, never disclosing who they are or where the money is coming 
from. Dark money makes it nearly impossible to find the true sources 
behind the attack ads and political campaigns these organizations fund, 
but sometimes, thanks to the news media and transparency organizations, 
the donors are revealed.
  In 2013, the Center for Public Integrity reported that the tobacco 
giant Reynolds American, Incorporated, funded several dark money groups 
during the 2012 election cycle, including conservative activist Grover 
Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the Koch brothers' Americans for 
Prosperity--a conservative political advocacy group--and the 
Partnership for Ohio's Future, an anti-union organization backed by the 
Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
  The only reason we know Reynolds was the secret source is because it 
was disclosed at the behest of an unnamed

[[Page S2356]]

shareholder; otherwise, these donations and the involvement of tobacco 
companies would have remained a secret.
  Whether they are quietly funding attack ads or the release of 
supposedly unbiased reports, corporations and wealthy donors are using 
anonymous, dark money contributions to influence America's public, 
casting doubt on legitimate science and trying to sway elections 
without ever revealing their true identities and motivations.
  It is not just limited to Big Tobacco and their campaigns to turn 
public opinion against tobacco taxes and smoke-free laws; the Koch 
brothers have built on this model and expanded the Big Tobacco 
playbook. They are pushing faulty research in an attempt to obscure the 
reality of global warming and using dark money to influence our 
political system. Why would the Koch brothers care so much? They are in 
the oil business. It is so a rich few can benefit financially at the 
expense of everyone else if they vote the Koch brothers' line--and that 
is at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
  It is time to put an end to dark money influence in elections.
  I yield the floor to the leader on this issue in the Senate 
Democratic caucus, Senator Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin, who is a 
leader in our caucus, but also a very important leader on these issues.
  We are here this evening because a group of us now embark on a series 
of speeches on the Senate floor to shine some light into a network of 
phony front groups--a web of deceit conceived and bankrolled by the 
Koch brothers and other self-interested billionaires to advocate for 
very selfish and unpatriotic policies.
  This web of deceit has infiltrated and populated the Trump 
administration, and it is swamping the interests of everyday Americans. 
I will not dwell on its policies. The billionaires having to hide 
behind these front groups tells you all you need to know about their 
policies.
  There are plenty of billionaires these days, and a bunch of them do 
pretty good stuff, but there is an extremist subset trying to quietly 
remake America to their ideology, and they are behind the web of 
deceit.
  When an issue affects some hyperwealthy interest group, the web 
activates. In the Halls of Congress, on cable news, in opinion pages, 
on social media, the front groups will be everywhere, with fake news, 
bogus studies, and phony science.
  This is a well-studied phenomenon. Two speeches ago, I had a stack of 
books about this high here on the desk with authors who had written 
about it. There is also excellent academic research by Robert Brulle, 
Riley Dunlap, Nancy MacLean, David Rosner, Gerald Markowitz, Michael 
Mann, and many others who deserve credit for shining light into these 
front groups.
  The graphic behind us is actually a diagram from the work of 
Professor Brulle. To the uninitiated, it might appear that these are 
all actual, different groups and that they might actually represent--
who knows--thousands, maybe even millions of real people across 
America. That is the scheme. These front groups are designed to provide 
a simulacrum, a manufactured, artificial appearance of public support 
for ideologies and policies that actually just benefit the richest of 
the rich or the ``pollutingest'' of the polluters.
  Got a tax scam to sell? Call in the front groups who will parrot, 
falsely, that the middle class will benefit, when it is the 
billionaires and big corporations that actually make out like bandits.
  Want to block action on climate change and let fossil fuel companies 
keep polluting for no charge? Quick, activate those front groups to 
spread climate denial, the original fake news: Climate change isn't 
happening; or, OK, maybe it is, but we don't really know how human 
activity is the cause; or, OK, maybe it is, but who knows how bad it 
will really get. OK, really bad, but it is too hard, so let's leave it 
to some other generation.
  Never mind what the real scientists have to say. The web of deceit 
has fake scientists, and it doesn't matter to the web if their phony 
scientists are right or wrong. They couldn't care less. They just have 
to keep their fake scientists talking, make it seem like there may be a 
real question about the science--in essence, pollute the public's mind.
  While these phony front groups are out working their PR magic, 
connected lobbyists and electioneering groups stalk the Halls of 
Congress, ready to kneecap Republicans who might--like Bob Inglis did--
have the temerity to think about acting on climate. More generally, 
this web of deceit has infected the Republican Party with climate 
denial, all to help polluters pollute for free. That is part of the 
creepy billionaire ideology behind the web of deceit.
  Of course, a web like this has its stooges and quislings, and in the 
Trump administration they can get to high places. Imagine if you have 
been building this web of deceit for decades, and one day you get to 
plant your phony minions into real, high-level government positions. 
Oh, what wonderful legitimacy, and what would you not then do to defend 
your stooges?
  We just saw this web of deceit spring into action to defend fossil 
fuel stooge Scott Pruitt, our ethically challenged Environmental 
Protection Agency Administrator.
  You may have seen the steady stream of news about Pruitt's ethical 
lapses: huge bills for taxpayers for first-class flights and 24/7 
security, even on family trips; a $43,000 Maxwell Smart secret phone 
booth; a jaunt to Morocco for the natural gas industry; a condo deal 
from a lobbyist with business before the EPA; massive raises to cronies 
from Oklahoma through a loophole in, of all things, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. He even was caught firing or reassigning people who told him 
he could not sign up for perks like a private jet service at taxpayer 
expense.
  Talk about lights and sirens. This guy is a lights-and-sirens affront 
to any concept of decency in government service. As scandal after 
scandal piled up, pressure mounted to fire the scoundrel.
  Never fear, the web of deceit is here. Nearly two dozen phony 
industry front groups rode to the rescue, urging the President to keep 
Pruitt on. Here is the letter. As you can see, all these groups' logos 
are on it. They praise Pruitt for his work to help fossil fuel 
polluters pollute. They rejoice that his rollback of fuel economy 
standards will raise drivers' fuel costs. They applaud his getting rid 
of independent scientists and putting industry insiders on EPA advisory 
committees.
  It is actually the reporting of Pruitt's scandals, they write, that 
is the conspiracy. ``This whole ordeal is nothing more than an 
orchestrated political campaign,'' they write--``an orchestrated 
political campaign''--so says the polluters' orchestrated political 
campaign to save Pruitt's political hide. If you want to see something 
about orchestrated political campaigns, this is it.
  The web also went to war in the press and on social media for Pruitt. 
The so-called Heartland Institute defended Pruitt as ``the single most 
effective appointment of the president of the United States,'' and went 
after Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo on Twitter for breaking 
with Republican complicity by calling on Pruitt to resign.
  Another tool of this web is a front group called the Media Research 
Center. They are also on this letter. The Media Research Center's job, 
when stooges are caught stooging, is to go on the attack and accuse the 
journalists of bias. This Media Research Center has a website called 
NewsBusters devoted to attacking honest reporting that it doesn't like. 
In articles and on Twitter, it attacked ABC News and other networks for 
reporting on Pruitt's expensive first-class travel.
  Other groups on this letter also took to Twitter to defend their boy 
Pruitt, including the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, the 
American Energy Alliance, and the Conservative Partnership Institute. 
``Orchestrated political campaign,'' indeed.
  When I saw this orchestrated ``protect Pruitt'' letter, it reminded 
me of this one, which I received in the summer of 2016. Back then, a 
group of us delivered speeches exposing this web of

[[Page S2357]]

deceit's role in blocking action on climate change. We called it the 
web of denial because climate denial is the web's recipe for delay and 
inaction on carbon pollution.
  More than 20 organizations in the Koch brothers' network, with 
lengthy records of climate change denial, objected to being called out 
as Koch-linked climate change deniers. To challenge our assertion that 
they were an orchestrated bunch of front groups, they responded with 
this orchestrated letter from all the front groups. They went on to say 
it was ``tyranny'' that we would call out who actually pays them and 
what interests they actually front for. I can't wait to hear the 
caterwauling from them now.
  Why are these polluter-funded front groups so desperate to protect 
Pruitt? That question sort of answers itself, doesn't it? They do a 
good job of hiding. Unfortunately, our laws allow wealthy donors to 
funnel money through opaque brokers and anonymous shell companies. The 
dark money could be from the ultrawealthy, rightwing Mercer family, 
from the Koch brothers' empire, from ExxonMobil, from whomever--even a 
Russian oligarch. We get only occasional glimpses into these dark-money 
channels of influence in our political system, often through leaks or 
mistaken filings or extraordinary, painstaking research. It is not 
easy.
  For the 22 front groups that signed this recent letter, we have 
figured out one common denominator: the Koch brothers' empire. Let's go 
down the list.
  We will start with the Heartland Institute. We know that Heartland 
received at least $100,000 from foundations connected to the Koch 
brothers, and it received at least $7 million from DonorsTrust. But 
what is DonorsTrust? It has no business purpose. It is an identity-
concealing device whose entire purpose is to launder donations to front 
groups so that you will not know their real backers. Journalists have 
learned, however, that the Koch brothers are among the largest, if not 
the largest, contributors to DonorsTrust.
  Back to our list--ALEC: Koch-connected foundations gave ALEC at least 
$600,000. Koch Industries is also a donor, but we don't know how much 
it has given. More secrecy.
  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow: Wow, there is a good name. Who 
could possibly be against a constructive tomorrow? Certainly not the 
Kochs, whose foundations gave it at least $45,000. That will buy a 
signature on a letter, for sure.
  American Energy Alliance: Koch-connected organizations gave the 
American Energy Alliance at least $1.7 million.
  60 Plus: Koch-backed organizations have given 60 Plus more than $42 
million. This is interesting because 60 Plus is actually a front group 
that supposedly advocates for senior citizens. So its presence on this 
Pruitt letter is weird and telling.
  Idaho Freedom Foundation: It received at least $570,000 from the 
Koch-backed DonorsTrust.
  That Media Research Center I talked about received at least $1 
million from DonorsTrust.

  Independence Institute: Koch-connected foundations gave the so-called 
Independence Institute more than $140,000 while Koch-backed DonorsTrust 
provided the group more than $2.5 million.
  Conservative Partnership Institute: This is a relatively new group, 
and we don't yet know who is funding it, but we do know it is staffed 
by folks from other Koch-backed groups. This web of deceit shares not 
only common funding but common personnel.
  American Commitment received at least $21 million from Koch-
affiliated organizations.
  The Center for Security Policy received at least $1.9 million from 
Koch-backed DonorsTrust. Like 60 Plus, this Center for Security Policy 
doesn't usually work on environment or energy issues. It lists its 
research areas as ``Shariah, Defense, Homeland Security, Israel & the 
Middle East, Sovereignty, and National Security & New Media.'' Its 
presence on the Pruitt letter is also weird and telling.
  The Institute for Liberty received at least $1.8 million from Koch-
affiliated organizations.
  Americans for Limited Government received at least $5.6 million from 
Koch groups.
  Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund: We don't know how much money this 
group received directly from Koch-affiliated organizations, but we do 
know that Tea Party Patriots was created by yet another front group 
called Freedom Works. We are getting into front groups within front 
groups here, folks, and Freedom Works received at least $12 million 
from Koch-affiliated foundations.
  Mountain States Legal Foundation received at least $90,000 from Koch-
backed Donors Trust.
  Energy & Environment Legal Institute received at least $16,000 from 
Koch-affiliated foundations and at least $500,000 from Koch-backed 
DonorsTrust. This, by the way--Energy & Environmental Legal Institute--
is a particularly creepy group whose function--hold your breath--is 
actually to harass legitimate scientists. That is what they do.
  Georgia Public Policy Foundation received at least $125,000 from 
Koch-backed DonorsTrust.
  Mississippi Center for Public Policy received at least $500,000 from 
Koch-backed DonorsTrust.
  Carbon Sense Coalition: We don't know yet how much money this group 
received from Koch-affiliated organizations, but we do know that it 
works in close concert with many of the other front groups in the Koch-
funded web of deceit.
  American Family Association received at least $50,000 from Koch-
affiliated organizations. This beauty of an organization has been 
identified as an anti-LGBTQ hate group--hate group--by the Southern 
Poverty Law Center. But here it is, signing a letter boosting Trump's 
EPA Administrator. Weird, again--but telling.
  ConservativeHQ.com: We don't know how much money this website 
received from Koch-affiliated organizations, but its job is to provide 
favorable online coverage of the Kochs and the web of front groups.
  Climate Science Coalition of America: Its parent organization 
received at least $45,000 from Koch-affiliated organizations.
  If you do the math, that is actually a grand total of at least 
$87,281,000 received by these 22 front groups from Koch-affiliated 
organizations, and that is only the part that has leaked out through 
the screens of secrecy. Who knows how much dark money remains hidden 
behind those screens?
  Here is the point. This is a scam--so much money and so many front 
group tentacles. Once you see what is going on, you realize these front 
groups are just tentacles of the creepy billionaires, of giant 
polluting corporations, and of the other special interests that fund 
them. The tentacles don't represent America; they represent a bunch of 
polluters and billionaires.
  The pollution angle keeps rearing its ugly head in all of this--and 
guess what. Koch Industries is a very big polluter. In 2014, Koch 
Industries dumped more than 6.6 million pounds of toxic pollution into 
our waterways. That same year, Koch Industries spent almost $14 million 
in lobbying the Federal Government. One of Koch Industries' biggest 
targets has been the EPA's clean water rule--6.6 million pounds of 
toxic pollution into our waterways, millions in lobbying to target the 
clean water rule. Since the clean water rule protects our rivers and 
streams--sources of drinking water for millions of Americans--when 
Pruitt promised to repeal the clean water rule, that could mean big 
bucks for polluters like Koch Industries.
  Koch Industries has major holdings in the energy industry--refining 
gasoline and other petroleum products, operating pipelines, and 
manufacturing petrochemicals. So when Pruitt promised to repeal the 
Clean Power Plan and undo fuel economy standards, that could mean big 
bucks for Koch Industries. Protecting clean water, reducing carbon 
emissions, and saving consumers money at the pump may be good for the 
planet and may be good for the American people, but these things are 
not good for polluters. So queue the web of deceit for Scott Pruitt to 
write letters and bombard social media and the press with front group 
disinformation.
  If the public could see it is just a couple of billionaires and oil 
companies and coal barons who are defending Pruitt, the jig would be 
up--Americans could see the special interest motive.

[[Page S2358]]

Yet add on this web of phony front groups and hide-the-special-interest 
funding in dark money channels, and it is money well spent if Koch 
Industries and companies like it can go right on polluting--polluted 
water, polluted air, climate change unchecked--some victory, but that 
is who they are.
  Americans need to get a good look at these phony front groups, so we 
will explain who these groups are, where they get their money, and how 
they have installed operatives throughout the Trump administration.
  Once upon a time, Donald Trump said he didn't want Koch money or 
anything else from them. It turns out dozens of Koch apparatchiks are 
running the Trump administration. The Kochs probably have more control 
in this administration than the Trumps. They are making the Trumps 
their chumps.
  As we spotlight this web of deceit, keep in mind this one simple 
truth: This is not democracy. This is the corruption of democracy. It 
is the corruption of democracy to benefit narrow special interests at 
everyone else's expense. It is the enemy of our vision of America as a 
shining city on a hill.
  We face a choice now in this country--to reclaim our destiny as that 
shining city on a hill that John Winthrop and Ronald Reagan spoke of or 
to sink into the corrupting ooze of special interest dark money, hidden 
influence, phony front groups, and fake news.
  History is watching.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________