[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4902-S4904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today as we close in on the 
vote on the DISCLOSE Act scheduled for tomorrow to urge my colleagues 
to vote yes on that measure. I have introduced the DISCLOSE Act in 
every Congress since Leader Schumer first unveiled it in 2010 on the 
heels of the wretched Citizens United decision.
  Every Congress, just about every time I have set foot in Washington, 
I have sounded the alarm on the ever-growing tsunami of slime that 
Citizens United unleashed into our elections. I rise once more today to 
urge this Chamber to end the flood of dark money drowning our 
democracy.
  This is not inevitable. As late as 2006, the amount of dark money 
sloshing around in our elections was only $5 million. In 2020, it had 
crossed the billion-dollar threshold. Big special interests don't spend 
a billion dollars without expecting return on investment, and that has 
damaged our democracy.
  Voting to clean up that mess presents clear choices: whether or not 
billionaires and big corporations can purchase influence in secret, 
whether or not Americans deserve to know who is buying that influence, 
whether or not corruption has a place in our American democracy.
  Twelve years after Citizens United, the evidence is in. Dark money 
powers up corporations and megadonors to pump billions into phony front 
groups. Those groups, often with soothing names like People for Puppies 
and Prosperity, then spew bile and slime into our elections. We often 
can't know exactly who paid for that bile and slime, but when 
corporations and the ultrarich keep getting what they want from a dark 
money-funded Congress, well, you see that over and over and over again; 
and Americans' suspicions grow. Their gut tells them the corporations 
and billionaires are behind the phony ads in an effort to rig our 
political system.
  And Americans' instincts are right. Academic studies show that 
economic elites and business interests command huge influence in 
government policy while regular people have statistically little or 
none. Studies also show that politicians elected to Federal office with 
the support of dark money are more likely to support legislation 
aligned with big corporate interests. Regardless of what the American 
people want, the big donor interests win time after time.
  Dark money isn't limited to elections either. I have come to the 
floor now 18 times to expose a decades-long, rightwing scheme to 
capture the Federal judiciary and its crown jewel, our Supreme Court. 
This scheme included a $580 million secretive campaign of dark money 
and phony front groups to pack the courts with judges selected to 
green-light donor-friendly policies, running multimillion-dollar ad 
campaigns to keep the confirmations of those judges and Justices on 
track.
  Now, the result is the Court that dark money built is delivering big 
for its donor puppeteers. In a matter of days, the FedSoc Six on the 
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, manufactured new polluter-
friendly legal doctrines, and threw out centuries-old gun safety 
regulations--all things big donors wanted; all things majorities of 
Americans did not want. What is more, one rightwing donor just dumped 
$1.6 billion to supercharge the dark money operation that captured the 
Court and cement that dark money network's hold over the Federal 
judiciary. And guess what. We wouldn't know who that donor is if 
someone hadn't tipped off the press--ProPublica and the New York Times. 
Think about that. We only know this because we get occasional little 
glimpses of these megadonors' covert schemes. That means this is only 
the tip of the iceberg. And where that $1.6 billion goes on its way out 
into our political system will be obscured in dark money channels.

  No wonder Americans' trust in the government is cratering. Fifty-
eight percent of voters say our government needs major reforms or a 
complete overhaul. Just a quarter of Americans say they have confidence 
in the Supreme Court. That is down 11 percent just from last year. 
Americans know something is deeply amiss in our democracy.
  Mr. President, I believe to restore trust in government, we need to 
flush dark money out of government. Year after year, poll after poll, 
overwhelming majorities of Americans say: money in politics and wealthy 
political donors are the root of Washington's dysfunction. Election 
cycle after election cycle, even during COVID, voters listed political 
corruption among their most important issues. Americans no longer trust 
that their voices matter here, not as much as the dark money voices of 
big corporations and billionaires. And it is time to listen to them. It 
is time to rid our system of the corrupting influence of unlimited dark 
money.
  Even the Citizens United Justices recognized that unlimited political 
spending without transparency would corrupt. Even the Justices who 
opened the floodgates of unlimited political spending knew that if it 
was not transparent, it would corrupt. They just wouldn't do anything 
about it.
  The DISCLOSE Act hinges on a very simple idea: that Americans deserve 
to know who is spending to influence their vote. If you agree with that 
simple idea, vote for the DISCLOSE Act. If you believe that 
corporations and billionaires shouldn't hide behind phony front groups 
while spending gobs of money on elections, you should vote for the 
DISCLOSE Act. If you oppose corruption, you should vote for the 
DISCLOSE Act. It is time for every Member of this body to go on record 
about this poison in our system. And with any luck, with 10 Republicans 
joining us, we can return to a Congress that serves America again, and 
Americans deserve that.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, Senator Merkley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I was in grade school, I had basic 
civics education. We learned about the fact that the vision of America 
was based on individuals standing up for their ideas in the public 
square. They could say: Here is what I think should take us forward, 
and here are the arguments behind it.
  And someone else could say: Not so quick. I don't think that is the 
right path. We should do something else.
  But in the course of this debate, those people gathered in the square 
could decide which way to go, partly based on whether they admired the 
thinking and the ideas being presented by the individuals, perhaps also 
what they knew about the individuals who were making those comments. 
But this is a basic competition of ideas freely expressed by members of 
the community and debated openly.
  Well, I thought that was a beautiful thing; and it really goes to the 
notion of freedom of speech and the power that flows up from the people 
because it is the people gathered and discussing ideas who are making 
decisions. And in a republic, like our Republic, those decisions also 
involved whom you vote for because of that set of ideas; and that 
person is sent to a State legislature or the House of Representatives 
or the U.S. Senate to fight for those ideas. Isn't that a beautiful 
concept of complete transparent debate?
  You know who else agreed with this idea who is no longer with us? 
Antonin Scalia. Now, I don't know that I have ever quoted Antonin 
Scalia before, former Supreme Court Justice who passed away a few years 
ago. He had this to say about disclosure. He said:

       Requiring people to stand up in public for their political 
     acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is 
     doomed.

  And then he continued:

       For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, 
     thanks to the Supreme Court, [on which he sat] campaigns 
     anonymously . . . hidden from public scrutiny and protected 
     from the accountability of criticism. This [he said] does not 
     resemble the Home of the Brave.

  So here is a very conservative Justice saying that, without 
transparency, without public accountability, democracy is doomed.

[[Page S4903]]

  I love the revolutionary idea that flows up from the people or, as 
Abraham Lincoln put it, that we are of the people, by the people, for 
the people.
  Seven weeks from now, Americans are going to go to the polls, and 
they are going to cast their vote on initiatives and on individuals 
running for office based on what they have heard. And here is the 
challenge. A lot of what they have heard is not about people standing 
up in public with the courage of their convictions but about secret 
campaign spending where there is no accountability--the exact kind of 
influence that Antonin Scalia said dooms our democracy.
  Citizens United, the decision in 2010, is something we talk about 
quite a bit. What it basically said is that if you don't give money 
directly to a candidate but instead run a campaign on their behalf, you 
can spend as much as you want. So unlimited spending--unlimited. This 
created super PACs that can collect unlimited spending from 
corporations, unlimited spending from individuals, and run unlimited 
campaigns on behalf of someone--super PACs.
  But here is the thing, when they made that decision, the Court 
thought that perhaps Congress would act to make sure that all of those 
donations were disclosed. They weren't making a decision that they 
liked secrecy. After all, Antonin Scalia who voted for Citizens United 
said:

       With secrecy, democracy is doomed.

  Well, we haven't acted because we have a triple veto baked into the 
way the Senate acts that says you need a supermajority to get a bill to 
the floor, a supermajority to close debate on amendments, and a 
supermajority to go to a final vote on a bill.
  Colleagues across the aisle have said: We wanted to protect that 
secret money because we think it helps us.
  That secret money is all about not government of, by, and for the 
people; that secret money is about government of, by, and for the 
powerful. So they are using their veto for the powerful to corrupt our 
country, to corrupt the core vision of government of, by, and for the 
people. That is what this DISCLOSE Act is all about, to say that we 
only thrive if the money is legitimate in campaigns.
  Let me explain this. There are two standards that my Republican 
colleagues have been fighting for: one standard for ordinary people and 
a completely different standard for the rich and powerful.
  For ordinary people, they have supported public disclosure. So for 
ordinary people in America who spend $200 on a campaign, it is publicly 
disclosed. Everybody knows who you gave the money to.
  But if a billionaire doesn't write a $200 check but writes a $200 
million check on behalf of running a campaign for an individual, it is 
secret. It is secret--secrecy for the rich and powerful, disclosure for 
ordinary Americans.
  This is all about the equivalent of a stadium sound system by the 
powerful that drowns out the voice of ordinary people. That drowning-
out effort, as my colleague just pointed out, has gone higher and 
higher and higher. The sound system from the stadium has gotten louder 
and louder and louder, drowning out the voices of people. In 2010, it 
was some 60 million in dark money. In 2016, collectively over the years 
they had reached a billion dollars, and, in 2020, over a billion 
dollars in a single year.
  And now we have Barre Seid, who donated his company, $1.6 billion, 
into the dark money network. This money, spent without accountability, 
is used to smear candidates.
  There is a saying--a saying I heard as a little kid--and that saying 
was: The lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its 
pants on. But in our social media world, it is more like the lie gets 
three times around the globe before the truth gets out the front door. 
The truth is being hammered constantly by the smear campaign from dark 
money.
  So this is what we have: a vote coming up on whether you believe in 
secret money smear campaigns or you believe in public accountability 
and preserving the vision of government of, by, and for the people.
  This is so important to our future. I wonder what Antonin Scalia, 
lying in his grave, might be thinking when he sees the outcome of 
Citizens United, an outcome he did not intend.
  You know, I had the experience of being the target of one of these 
smear campaigns in 2014. The Koch brothers were bragging, and they held 
a meeting. They said: We are going to put a lot of money--millions of 
dollars--into an organization called Freedom Partners. And Freedom 
Partners, along with the network, is going to spend $200 million in the 
2014 campaigns.
  They came to Oregon, and the press reports said that they were 
putting $3.6 million into television ads attacking me.
  Now, I was in a different position than many targets because the Koch 
brothers had bragged about this money. So they did not take advantage 
of the anonymity that they could have. I decided to call them out. I 
put up an ad and said: Where is this money from? It is out-of-State oil 
and coal billionaires who have come to our State who want to elect my 
opponent because they share an agenda, and here is the agenda they have 
advertised: great investment for them, terrible choice for Oregon.
  That was my response. I was able to respond because, in that case, 
the Koch brothers had chosen to waive the secrecy. They wanted people 
to know what they were doing. They wanted people to tremble and fear 
over the fact that they could write a check for $3 million, or $5 
million, or $10 million, or $50 million.
  This is even more evil when it is secret because then you can't 
respond about the source and what they are all about.
  We have seen some recent examples. The Elections Project--what is 
that dark money up to? That dark money is up to trying to override 
article I, section 4 of the Constitution. They want State legislatures, 
without any influence from Congress or from Governors, to be able to 
write election rules. That is not what the Constitution says.
  In addition, they want State legislators to be able to ignore the 
vote in their State and reassign electors for President to whomever 
they want. That is what that dark money group is doing.
  How about Heritage Action? Jessica Anderson, the executive director, 
was caught on video bragging about her organization's role in passing 
voter suppression laws in Georgia. That is what that dark money is up 
to. They are trying to stop Americans from voting. How un-American is 
that? How unpatriotic is that? How ``destroying the freedom and rights 
of Americans'' is that? That is what Heritage Action is up to in trying 
to destroy democracy here in the United States of America.
  Then we had the dark money groups coming together and saying that 
they were going to have an under-the-dome-type strategy to stop the 
DISCLOSE Act. What does ``under the dome'' mean? It is a reference to 
the dome over the Capitol. ``Under the dome'' is about using the triple 
veto here in the Senate to stop the DISCLOSE Act.
  We twice had 59 votes to try to hold a debate on the DISCLOSE Act, 
but not 60--1 vote short. Now they are trying to do it again, to use 
the Republican caucus under the Senate rules--an under-the-dome 
strategy to support the sleazy, terrible, dark money attacks corrupting 
elections in America.
  I say ``corrupting'' because how can an individual, if they can't see 
who is donating the money, if they don't know what is true and what 
isn't, because the highest percentage of these ads are actually putting 
fake facts forward; they are putting lies forward--that is why I call 
them a smear campaign. If smear campaigns are inundating the airways, 
how can citizens make an informed judgment? They can't. That is why 
Antonin Scalia said this type of secrecy would destroy democracy, and 
on this, he was right.
  Let's pass the DISCLOSE Act. Let's save the vision of government of, 
by, and for the people.
  I yield to my colleague from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I know that Senator Van Hollen 
is here as well.
  I am going to be brief. I particularly want to thank our colleague 
from Rhode Island because he has been relentless in terms of making 
this case day after day. I want to put this in very personal kind of 
terms because all of us who have the honor of serving in the U.S. 
Senate can relate to this issue.

[[Page S4904]]

  Senator Whitehouse has added a reform to his proposal that is very 
personal to me and I think embodies the accountability and the 
transparency that Oregonians and people in Minnesota, Michigan, and 
Maryland are calling for. Here is how I would start it: A number of 
years ago, I authored legislation that millions of Americans now 
understand is called Stand By Your Ad. Stand By Your Ad stipulated that 
as an elected official or a candidate, you would have to actually put 
your name behind these attack ads where you go after your opponent. 
And, now, day after day, in these next 50-plus days, we are going to 
see plenty of these ads.
  The law worked well, and it is still on the books today, much to the 
chagrin of some officials who would like to take a quick hit on their 
opponent--an official or a candidate--and then scamper off without any 
accountability.
  I do want to make clear, because of the good work of the Senator from 
Rhode Island, that Stand By Your Ad doesn't mean as much today because 
we now know the premium is ongoing for these secret, incredibly 
negative ads on your opponent because the people paying for dark money 
ads aren't required to put their name behind what they are saying.
  That is an extraordinarily strong hit against openness and 
accountability and transparency in our democracy. Oregonians and people 
across the country are rightfully disgusted by it. It is extraordinary 
the lengths that those who are orchestrating these dark money attacks 
will go in order to make their case when there is no accountability.
  I see my seatmate from the Finance Committee. We have worked together 
for years to change the Medicare statute that barred Medicare from 
negotiating to hold down the price of medicine. Big Pharma protected 
this negotiating ban like it was the Holy Grail. My colleague and I 
would come to the committee day after day and talk about: How is this 
common sense? Everybody in America negotiates in order to get the best 
possible deal.
  But we looked, particularly in this session, at the start of the 
debate as a classic study in dark money. Big Pharma, and groups 
associated with it, spent enormous sums of money attacking me 
personally in Washington, DC, media. There was scary music, and there 
were attacks about how anybody who wanted these reforms was like a 
leech and taking away cures from the American people.
  The striking part of all of this, and why what Senator Whitehouse has 
had to say is so important, is that the ad wasn't even directed at me, 
because it was in Washington, DC. I am barely a household word in my 
own household, let alone in Washington, DC.
  And what was the point of these extraordinarily large sums attacking 
me in Washington, DC? The point of it was to scare my colleagues--
Senator Stabenow, Senator Van Hollen, all of my colleagues here--
because there was so much money at the hands of these extreme groups 
associated with Big Pharma that wanted to undermine a commonsense 
reform backed by millions of Americans that Medicare should negotiate.
  At one point, someone said: Oh, there is so much opposition to this 
effort to negotiate.
  I said: Are you kidding me? The opponents of negotiating on Medicare 
must be in a witness protection program because we can't find anybody 
who thinks you shouldn't negotiate.
  Yet Big Pharma was willing to spend huge sums of money--dark money--
not really to damage me politically, because my constituents live in 
Oregon, but to scare other Senators.
  So people, of course, are going to get bludgeoned with these dark 
money ads every time they turn on the television, the radio, or watch a 
video online. I just don't think that Americans should be forced to 
guess or wonder what special interest is funding these ads that come 
from murky groups that have these radical names like the Coalition for 
Prosperity and Justice. We all know that they are not going to tell you 
who they really are.
  My colleague from Maryland has been very patient. We had some 
glitches in the schedule, and we want to hear from our friend from 
Michigan as well.
  I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for basically taking the ``Stand 
By Your Ad'' concept and kind of reconfiguring it in the DISCLOSE 
legislation. Senator Whitehouse's bill would require the heads of 
corporations, unions, or other organizations to identify when they are 
behind political ads, the same way Stand By Your Ad works under the 
original version of the law that I authored.
  And remember--and I want this to be the takeaway about this issue--
Senator Whitehouse's proposal and extending ``Stand by Your Ad'' in 
this kind of fashion treats everybody the same. This is quintessential 
good government. It is not about going after somebody on the right or 
somebody on the left. This is about common sense. It is not a radical, 
leftwing proposal.
  The American people ought to know who is trying to influence their 
votes. By the way, when we authored the original ``Stand by Your Ad'' 
proposal, it used to be bipartisan. And as my colleague from Rhode 
Island has mentioned, of late, it has been the Republicans who have 
been protecting dark money and protecting the basic kind of disclosure 
that I think our system of government has been all about.
  The American people have strong differences of opinion on issues. 
There is no question about that. But I have had more than 1,020 open-
to-all townhall meetings. What nobody disputes is that openness and 
accountability is what the American system is all about.
  So, Senator Whitehouse, our thanks to you for spending years and 
years at it because you are taking us, in a significant way, back to 
what I think used to be common sense, used to be accountability, used 
to be something that transcended the kind of thing that Big Pharma was 
doing early on where they didn't even pretend--they didn't even 
pretend--it was about an individual legislator; it was about scaring 
off all Members of Congress.
  We can do better. Senator Whitehouse's proposal moves us in that 
direction, and I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, who also was 
trying to deal with the scheduling kind of challenge, and look forward 
to working with him and my seatmate on the Finance Committee and 
Senator Whitehouse, another exemplary member of the Finance Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: 
myself for up to 10 minutes, Senator Stabenow for up to 10 minutes, 
Senator Cantwell for up to 5 minutes, and Senator Menendez for up to 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.