[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4904-S4906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I too want to thank the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, for his laser focus on the issue of 
disclosure and transparency. And I want to thank my colleagues here on 
the floor: Senator Wyden; Senator Stabenow; and Senator Merkley, who 
was here before; and others within our caucus.
  In fact, every member of our Democratic Caucus supports the DISCLOSE 
Act. We support it because the stakes are so high for the future of our 
democracy. Billions of dollars that have crept in and now are gushing 
into our political system to influence our elections pose a grave 
threat to our Republic and to the future of our democracy.
  Make no mistake, these are corporations and very wealthy people who 
are spending billions of dollars in secret money to influence people's 
votes so that they can get their way at the expense of the public 
interest. You have got a very few people with very deep bankrolls who 
are using their funds to try to shape our democracy and bend our 
democracy to suit their interests at the expense of everybody else.
  And, as President Biden said in his remarks on this earlier this 
week, even foreign entities--foreign entities that are not allowed to 
contribute to political campaigns are engaged in these political 
expenditures--under current law, use dark money, front groups, to try 
to influence our elections and steer the course of our democracy here 
in the United States from overseas. That, by itself, should scare the 
hell out of every Senator and every American.
  Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about how we got here. 
How

[[Page S4905]]

did we get to a place where, in the United States of America, for 
elections, special interests can spend billions of dollars to influence 
people's votes without telling the voters who they are? And make no 
mistake, they are not telling voters who they are because they don't 
want voters to know who is behind these ads.
  Well, the story begins with the infamous 5-4 decision in the Supreme 
Court case of Citizens United. That decision opened the spigots and 
then floodgates to corporate spending--corporate spending in Federal 
elections. That is when the Supreme Court said: For spending in 
elections, we are going to say corporations are people too. 
Corporations can't go into the ballot box and push the lever, but for 
purposes of influencing everybody else's vote, we are going to say 
corporations are people too.
  And that unleashed a huge amount of money into politics. The only way 
to address that part of Citizens United is, of course, either to have a 
Supreme Court that will reverse the terrible Citizens United decision 
or through constitutional amendment. I support that, but that is not 
happening anytime soon. But there is something that we can do right now 
and which we are going to vote on tomorrow, and that is the issue of 
secret, dark money because we can change that through our votes 
tomorrow.
  After Citizens United, what you began to see was not just more money, 
not just a gusher of money from corporations and corporate entities 
going into elections, but more and more secret money flowing into 
elections. And you can see the pattern here of, back in 2006, about $5 
million a year going into secret money in different ways; in 2020, $1 
billion in that year alone. So the trajectory is increasing by the 
year, and as my colleagues have said, we also have the situation where 
one individual just contributed $1.6 billion that is going to flow in 
subterranean ways through our election process--one individual, $1.6 
billion.

  Now, here is a point I want to emphasize. Even in that really 
terrible Supreme Court decision, 5-4 decision, in Citizens United, the 
Justices--eight of the nine Justices in that decision called for more 
transparency in elections. Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote on behalf 
of eight of the nine Justices: that the disclosure of political 
expenditures ``provide shareholders and citizens with the information 
needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their 
positions and supporters.''
  He went on to say that, with disclosure, ``citizens can see whether 
elected officials are `in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests.''
  This is Justice Kennedy. He voted for the notorious Citizens United 
decision, which opened the gushers of money, but he said, as this money 
flows through our system, we have a public interest in making sure 
voters know who is spending that money. And he says right here that it 
is important for citizens to know whether their elected officials are 
in the pockets of special interests.
  So this vote is pretty clear in former Justice Kennedy's terms, which 
is, if you want dark money, you don't want the public to know who is 
supporting you in your campaigns, if you support continuing dark money.
  So after that Citizens United decision, the alarm bells went off, as 
they should, and many of us said: We have got to pass a law to require 
disclosure. All this money is going to flow through the system. My God, 
at the very least, let's make sure that voters know who is spending the 
money.
  So back in 2010--I served in the House of Representatives at the 
time--I authored the original DISCLOSE Act. My chief cosponsor was a 
Republican, Mike Castle from the State of Delaware, at the time. And we 
passed it. We passed that in the House of Representatives back in 2010. 
But when it came to the Senate, it hit a brick wall of Republican 
opposition.
  And I must say, given what Republicans had said before the Citizens 
United decision about disclosure, it was a complete, 180-degree flip-
flop and turnaround because the position that the Republican Senate 
leader Senator McConnell had taken for decades was, We don't need all 
these regulations to regulate political money, but we should have 
disclosure; we should have disclosure.
  In fact, when he was on ``Meet the Press'' back in the day, in the 
year 2000, this was a hot issue because of McCain-Feingold. So he was 
asked why he voted no on one of these campaign finance provisions, and 
he said the following:

       We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do 
     is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions 
     and tax-exempt business associations . . . so you include the 
     major political players in America.

  He went on to say--Senator McConnell:

       Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of 
     disclosure?

  Well, I agreed with Senator McConnell in 2000. We want full 
disclosure and full transparency. But what happened was, as soon as the 
Citizens United decision came down and a gusher of money started 
flowing through the system, including through corporations, all of a 
sudden, all of a sudden: Hey, I didn't mean what I said about 
disclosure. I can have my cake and eat it too--lots of money and nobody 
knows where it comes from.
  And, in a twist of history, when we passed the DISCLOSE bill out of 
the House, it came to the Senate, and the Senate version of that bill 
got 59 out of 100 votes. Every Democrat voted for it. It would have 
been 60 except for a terrible twist in history, which is Senator 
Kennedy passed away. And Senator Brown took his place, and Senator 
Brown voted against cloture on the DISCLOSE Act.
  But, my colleagues, here is the fact: 59 out of 100 Senators wanted 
to move forward there, and but for the antidemocratic filibuster, we 
wouldn't have secret money in politics today. But here we are, and we 
have to deal with it in the here and now.
  And it is interesting to hear the Republican leader. He said back in 
2012, after we tried to move the DISCLOSE Act, on this Senate floor: 
Dark money is a ``problem that doesn't exist.''
  Then, to take things even further, he rallied Republicans, and so, in 
the Republican national platform in 2012, it read: We ``oppose passage 
of the DISCLOSE Act,'' by name. We don't want the American people to 
know who is spending this money. We like dark money in politics.
  So that brings us to today because what we saw since that vote in 
2010 and then those comments by the Republican leader back in 2012 is 
this huge gusher of secret money flowing. And, interestingly now, it 
has also caught the attention of some of our Republican colleagues who 
have been complaining about secret money in politics, complaining that 
Democratic political organizations are spending secret money in 
politics.
  As we know, Senator McConnell distributed to reporters an email 
entitled ``Democrats Let the Dark Money Flow and Like Its Power''--and 
like its power. And Senator Hawley tweeted about dark money from 
foreign groups, writing:

       But who is funding this overseas dark money group--Big 
     Tech? billionaire activists? foreign governments? We have no 
     idea. Americans deserve to know what foreign interests are 
     attempting to influence American democracy.

  This is Senator Hawley, the Senator from Missouri. And I don't say 
this often on the Senate floor, but I agree with Senator Hawley's 
question here. And tomorrow he and every Member of this body will have 
a chance to vote to say that, yes, we should know about what foreign 
entities and interests are spending money in our elections, because 
there is all sorts of money--in fact, about $300 billion a year in 
foreign money--being laundered through our whole economy, and we don't 
know how much of that these days is flowing into elections. As 
President Biden said, we need to pass this to do that.
  And if you look at some of the titles of this bill that Senator 
Whitehouse has put forward, they are pretty simple. There are whole 
sections of the bill to get at the question of foreign money in our 
elections. I don't know why anyone is going to oppose that.
  Here we are, 12 years later, after that vote in 2010 that got 59 out 
of 100 votes. It would have had 60, except that Senator Kennedy passed 
away. And our Republican colleagues, who are now complaining about 
secret money, have a chance to work with us and vote with us to get rid 
of it. Whether it is Democratic money, Republican money, somebody 
else's secret money, get rid

[[Page S4906]]

of it. Require transparency. That is what the DISCLOSE Act is all 
about.
  So this is another chance for every Member of the Senate to align 
themselves with the overwhelming majority of the American people. 
Eighty percent support transparency disclosure, and they do it because 
they know how important it is to our democracy. Let's vote for this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank Senator 
Van Hollen for his incredible work over the years and his leadership 
both in the House and in the Senate. And thank you for taking on this 
fight and working so hard to expose the bright light of truth and 
transparency about what is happening around secret money.
  And I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his dogged focus on the 
issue of secret money influencing elections. Thank you for all of your 
wonderful work, and to all of our colleagues who have joined us on the 
floor and to all of my Democratic colleagues, all of whom are 
supporting the DISCLOSE Act.
  The Members of this Chamber have a choice to make, and it is really 
pretty simple: You can be on the side of the American people or you can 
be on the side of the rich and powerful.
  We can pass the DISCLOSE Act, let the public know what is happening, 
put limits around it, stop all of this; or you can vote against it and 
vote with the powerful and the wealthy.
  The DISCLOSE Act is going to keep our elections in the hands of 
voters, not the highest bidders. That is really the bottom line. And 
you don't have to look very far for examples of why we need to pass 
this legislation.
  Colleagues have all been talking today about, stunningly, how a 
conservative group has received a $1.6 billion donation from a single 
donor--one man, $1.6 billion; and one mission--one mission--to put his 
finger on the scale of our democracy.
  If you don't think that guy isn't going to have an undue influence on 
our elections in the coming years, then I have a bridge across the 
Straits of Mackinac I would like to sell you.
  And this very rich man isn't alone, unfortunately. As my colleagues 
have said, in 2006, there was less than $5 million in dark money spent 
on our elections--5 million. Then, in 2010, the Supreme Court handed 
down its Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates, and it 
didn't take long for the water to rise. In 2012, more than $300 million 
was spent in secret money--dark money--in elections, and in 2020, more 
than $1 billion was spent in dark money in elections. And now we know, 
in 2022, that we have one person who has already given $1.6 billion to 
try to influence this election.
  If you laid those billion-dollar bills end to end, they would extend 
around the Earth nearly four times--extend around the Earth four times. 
That is how much we are talking about here, and we don't even know 
where all this anonymous spending is coming from.
  But we do know this, and Senator Wyden--Chairman Wyden--spoke 
earlier. When we took on Big Pharma to lower prescription drug prices, 
not one Republican voted yes. When we took on Big Oil to lower energy 
costs and attack the climate crisis, not one Republican voted yes. When 
we took on corporations that pay zero in taxes, not one Republican 
voted yes.
  The American people deserve to know why. How much dark money is 
coming in from those powerful interests to protect their profits?
  Dark money could also be coming from foreign actors who wish to harm 
our country.
  What has been reported, though, again, is that dark money is coming 
in from one really rich guy--one really rich guy who wants to make our 
Nation a little bit more toward his liking.
  American voters deserve to know who is spending huge--huge, huge--
sums of money to influence our democracy. And under the DISCLOSE Act, 
they will know that. It will strengthen the foreign money ban to make 
sure foreign actors can't influence our elections. It requires 
corporations and other groups to disclose their donors. Right, left, 
Democrat, Republican: Disclose your donors.
  And it expands disclosure requirements to online ads and other types 
of ads as well. As for all of those campaign text messages that are 
blowing up your phone, you deserve to know who is sending them.
  These changes are popular. They are common sense, and they are really 
important. They are really important if we think America deserves to 
know who is influencing our elections. It is time to make sure our 
American democracy actually works for the American people.
  Again, the Members of this Chamber have a choice to make: We can 
stand with the American people or we can stand with the rich and 
powerful. Democrats have made that choice. I have made that choice. We 
stand with the American people who just want a fair shot to work hard 
and get ahead. Americans want to know that this is their democracy and 
that it works for them, not just a few rich people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.