[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S3345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. President, now on another matter, unfortunately, inflation and 
tax hikes don't exhaust Washington Democrats' capacity to make trouble 
for the American people. Today, the Rules Committee will be reviewing 
the DISCLOSE Act--a seemingly annual liberal attempt to restrict 
political speech by threatening the privacy of those who see things 
differently from them.
  For decades, Washington Democrats have looked for opportunities to 
expand the reach of unelected Federal bureaucrats to police the 
political activities of private citizens. The DISCLOSE Act is just one 
more example of a troubling tendency on today's political left: Quit 
trying to play by the rules and demanding a change in the rules 
instead.
  The DISCLOSE Act was a key pillar of the sweeping election takeover 
Democrats have been trying to pass since they lost an election in 2016. 
For years, they have failed to convince majorities in Congress or among 
the American people that the future of our democracy requires the 
playing field to be tilted toward their side.
  But failing to overhaul the system hasn't stopped liberals from 
sabotaging the guardrails that protect political speech from the 
inside. Remember, the naming and shaming of conservatives for ``wrong 
think'' was practically an official policy back in the Obama-Biden IRS. 
More recently, leaked confidential taxpayer information from the IRS 
wound up in the hands of liberal publications just in time for tax 
debates on the Hill. Now Washington Democrats want to grease the skids 
for more. Needless to say, whether or not disclosure was legal hasn't 
been a primary concern for the liberals behind these leaks in recent 
years.
  But to the extent our Democratic colleagues want to have a 
conversation about laws on the books, donations to political action 
committees are already disclosed to the FEC. So are donations to 
501(c)(4) organizations aimed at influencing Federal elections. In 
other words, existing law has already thought of this.
  What our colleagues want to do is newly expand the definition of 
political speech and stretch disclosure requirements. They want 
Americans who oppose them politically to have to either abandon their 
privacy or abandon the public square. They want conservatives to choose 
between their livelihoods or their political beliefs. The chilling 
effect on Americans' speech is by design, not by coincidence.
  The same liberal groups who urged radical mobs to intimidate the 
Supreme Court Justices outside their private family homes and the same 
elected Democratic officials who refuse to condemn that illegal 
intimidation now want to systematically ``out'' ordinary private 
citizens' private donations and political speech.
  The pro-intimidation, anti-privacy modern left wants less privacy 
surrounding the First Amendment. It doesn't take much connecting the 
dots to see why. But even the liberal ACLU warned years ago that what 
liberals want here ``unconstitutionally infringes on freedom of 
political speech and the right to associational privacy.'' That is the 
ACLU, on the same side as myself.
  More recently, the NAACP and the ACLU teamed up in fighting State-
level public disclosure laws at the Supreme Court--on the same side, 
again, as me and several other Republican Senators. They reiterated the 
landmark ruling in NAACP v. Alabama that ``inviolability of privacy in 
group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to 
preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group 
espouses dissident beliefs.''
  Ah, but today's Democrats disagree. Over the years, Washington 
Democrats have cycled through a litany of reasons for passing their 
sweeping takeover of American elections. But while the rationales 
changed constantly, the goal never changes one inch: more power for 
elected Democrats to rewrite the rules of their own elections and more 
power for the political left to harass and intimidate citizens who 
don't think like them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.