[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2424-S2425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Dark Money

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and to 
associate myself with their remarks on the critically important issue 
of unlimited and unaccountable money in our political system. I would 
like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Sheldon 
Whitehouse, for organizing this speaking series and for being a 
national leader on the issue of campaign finance reform.
  While my colleagues make important points about how our rigged 
campaign finance system can and does serve as a channel for anonymous 
billionaires and special interests to exert undue influence across our 
political system, I would like to focus my remarks on a related issue: 
how our broken campaign finance system also threatens our national 
security.
  There is no serious dispute that malign foreign actors like Russia 
are working to subvert our democratic processes and sow chaos in our 
political system. As we have seen, their strategies depend not on 
direct conventional attacks upon our Nation, but an

[[Page S2425]]

asymmetric approach that exploits the existing divisions and 
vulnerabilities of our open society, our democratic institutions, and 
our free markets.
  Even though we are now aware of this, we have not taken the necessary 
steps to repair the situation. Indeed, our Nation retains a campaign 
finance system that empowers anonymous donors to funnel unlimited 
amounts of money to influence public policy at every level of 
government, and to hide their actions behind corporations.
  This misguided system, which fell into place in the wake of the 
Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, allegedly has been 
exploited by foreign adversaries to advance their agendas on our soil.
  How does this threat work? Prior to Citizens United, an incorporated 
entity did not have the same right as a flesh-and-blood human being to 
make contributions and expenditures in elections. This distinction 
makes sense. Corporations typically are permanent legal entities. They 
can amass outsized sums of wealth and, critically, they can shield the 
human beings behind them from scrutiny and liability. It is easier for 
those who wish to circumvent the laws protecting our democratic system 
to do so from behind a corporate mask. Thus, when the Supreme Court 
gave corporations the right to make unlimited independent expenditures 
in elections, it also opened the door for those who wish to hide their 
election spending to cover their tracks with shell companies and other 
entities that only exist on paper.
  Our Nation historically has sought to safeguard our system of 
government from foreign influence. The Constitution requires the 
President to be a natural-born citizen. Early lobbying disclosure 
reforms were crafted with the threat of foreign propaganda in mind. And 
it remains a Federal crime for a foreign national, directly or 
indirectly, to spend money to influence our elections. But how can we 
know that authorities have the tools they need to enforce the law 
consistently when the law permits donors to funnel unlimited sums into 
elections and cover their tracks with shell corporations?

  There are serious allegations that foreign actors have taken 
advantage of this vulnerability in our system. CNN reported in early 
April that Special Counsel Mueller is investigating whether Russian 
oligarchs used donations to think tanks, political action committees, 
and straw donors to cover their illegal campaign spending in the 2016 
cycle.
  One figure who is suspected of this type of malign influence-peddling 
is Alexander Torshin. Torshin is the deputy governor of the Central 
Bank of Russia, a close Putin ally, and was recently sanctioned by the 
Trump administration, along with other oligarchs and high-ranking 
Russian Government officials. Multiple press reports stemming from 
documents turned over to congressional investigations by Trump campaign 
associates detail how Torshin allegedly cultivated people associated 
with the NRA to influence the 2016 election. His ultimate goal 
allegedly was to arrange a meeting during the campaign between then-
Candidate Trump and Putin. Press reports indicate that the FBI is 
currently investigating whether Torshin illegally funneled money to the 
NRA to assist the Trump campaign in particular.
  Indeed, if Russia did use the NRA to circumvent public scrutiny of 
its electoral meddling, it would have been following the same pattern 
as the Koch network. Robert McGuire from the Center for Responsive 
Politics stated: ``We've seen some of the groups in the Koch network 
give large, six and seven figure grants to the NRA--knowing that the 
NRA is going to spend the money on ads in an election. . . . The 
Russians could easily have funneled money into the NRA coffers using a 
similar pathway. . . . A legal, ostensibly apolitical donation to the 
NRA by Russia could have freed up other restricted funds to spend on 
politics.''
  While money is fungible, it is quite striking that the NRA spent over 
$30 million to assist the Trump campaign--two-and-a-half times more 
than what it spent in 2012 to assist Mitt Romney.
  These allegations regarding links between Russia and the NRA are 
among the most widely reported, but there is evidence of other 
instances where Kremlin-linked oligarchs and their allies allegedly 
directed money into American elections. For example, Viktor Vekselberg, 
another close Putin ally and oligarch who made billions from a 
government-sanctioned oil deal, allegedly funneled over $250,000 
through a U.S. corporation run by his cousin to spend on the 2016 
election. The cousin had no prior history as a major political donor 
before the last election cycle. Vekselberg was also recently sanctioned 
by the Trump administration for his close ties to Putin and alleged 
role in advancing Russia's malign influence activities. Special Counsel 
Mueller is also reportedly investigating whether Vekselberg funneled 
money into the 2016 election.
  These are two illustrations of how those from Putin's inner circle 
may have sought to influence our elections. Some of these methods may 
appear legal because the source of the money on paper was a person who 
is legally allowed to make expenditures on American elections. But 
experts, like Louise Shelley, director of the Terrorism, Transnational 
Crime and Corruption Center at George Mason University, doubt that 
these sums could have entered our political process without approval 
from the Kremlin. As she puts it: ``If you have investments in Russia, 
then you cannot be sure that they are secure if you go against the 
Kremlin's will. You can't be an enormously rich person in Russia, or 
even hold large holdings in Russia, without being in Putin's 
clutches.''
  If sophisticated special interest groups in our country rely on dark 
money to pursue their political agendas, and the Kremlin and Kremlin-
linked actors can exploit this vulnerability, then it stands to reason 
that other foreign actors can also manipulate our system. As long as we 
maintain a system wherein a political spender can be a corporation that 
received money from another corporation, which, in turn, received money 
from yet another corporation, there will be no accountability in our 
campaign finance system.
  Even if it cannot be proved that illegal campaign spending is 
changing electoral outcomes, I believe it is unacceptable for our 
Nation to knowingly permit an open conduit for foreign meddling in our 
elections, which has an effect on our national security. Our system of 
government depends on public faith that election results reflect the 
will of the American people.
  Going forward, I intend to speak further on this topic and work on 
ways to give authorities much stronger tools to prosecute the 
laundering of foreign money in our campaign finance system. In my view, 
this is not just an administrative or an election issue; this is a 
national security and international criminal issue, and as such, there 
should be investigations and prosecutions on that scale. I invite my 
colleagues to work with me on this important issue, and I thank my 
colleagues again for highlighting the need to take unaccountable money 
out of our politics.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.