[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14016-14024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              DISCLOSE ACT

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to 
allow us to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act to deal with campaign finance 
reform. I thank Senator Schumer for his hard work on this issue to 
bring forward a bill that I hope can enjoy sufficient support so we can 
continue to advance campaign finance reform. Election campaign finance 
reform is difficult to pass in this body for many reasons. First, it 
requires bipartisanship. We know that. We know we need to bring 
together Democrats and Republicans to say: Our legacy on fair elections 
is more important than our own individual elections, and we have a 
responsibility to the American public to deal with a growing problem in 
American politics; that is, the influence of money, particularly during 
election time.
  That is why we celebrated in 2002 with passage of a bipartisan 
campaign reform act. Under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold, we were able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and 
advance campaign finance reform to reduce somewhat the influence of 
special interest corporate money in our political system and to add 
further disclosures so the American public could know who is trying to 
influence their vote. That is what campaign finance reform is about, to 
limit corporate money and provide greater disclosure. Democrats and 
Republicans came together in 2002 to get that done. The protection of 
our fair election process has now met a new opponent. That is the 
Supreme Court or, more specifically, five Justices on the Supreme 
Court, the so-called conservative Justices. They legislated from the 
bench, reversing precedent, and ruled on the side of corporate 
interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans. These were the so-
called Justices many of my colleagues look to for judicial restraint. 
It is not judicial restraint when they legislate from the bench. It is 
not judicial restraint when they reverse precedent, when they rule on 
the side of corporate America over ordinary Americans.
  Let me quote from Justice Stevens in his comments as they reflect on 
the decision the Court made:

       [E]ssentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited 
     nature of the case before us so they changed the case to give 
     themselves an opportunity to change the law. There were 
     principled, narrow paths that a court that was serious about 
     judicial restraint could have taken.

  Justice Stevens goes on to warn, the majority ``threatens to 
undermine the integrity of the elected institutions across the Nation. 
The path that is taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to 
this institution.''
  Justice Stevens, in his minority opinion, says:

       At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the 
     common sense of the American people, who have recognized a 
     need to prevent corporations from undermining self government 
     since the founding, and who have fought against the 
     distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering 
     since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to 
     repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is 
     imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have 
     thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in 
     politics.

  We tried to do something about that in 2002. We passed a law that 
said corporations cannot directly try to influence elections. Then we 
set up how they can do so through a transparent way, collectively, 
through political action committees. But we stopped undisclosed direct 
corporate influence in American elections. Now the Supreme Court has 
reversed that bipartisan action. So how should we in Congress respond? 
What options do we have? We could amend the Constitution, but that is a 
matter that requires a great deal more deliberation. I am concerned 
about amending provisions in the Constitution. We need to think long 
and hard before we act. We could do something many of us have talked 
about for a long time--provide incentives for public financing of 
campaigns to try to reduce dramatically the amount of private money in 
our campaigns. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this effort. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor. That is a matter that should be given serious 
review. But we don't have the opportunity to do that today.
  Today we do have an opportunity to act as Senator Schumer has brought 
forward the DISCLOSE Act which we all profess we support--disclosure. 
All

[[Page 14017]]

of us have said we should be serious about giving the public an 
opportunity to know who is trying to influence their vote.
  The minority leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, 
said:

       I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full 
     disclosure, full disclosure of all money we raise and how it 
     is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  He was, of course, quoting from Justice Brandeis's famous comments in 
an opinion when he was a Justice on the Supreme Court, about sunshine 
being the best disinfectant.
  Shortly we will have an opportunity to proceed with the DISCLOSE Act. 
We will have an opportunity to vote.
  I understand some of the concerns of my Republican colleagues. They 
say: Look, corporations generally side with Republicans. Therefore, if 
we can get corporations to put more money into the election process, 
won't that be good for Republicans?
  Let me counter that by saying we all benefit. Each Member of this 
body benefits by reducing the influence outside interests have in the 
independence we can exercise in the Senate. Look at what is going to 
happen if we don't change this. Karl Rove has indicated he intends to 
bring forward $52 million to try to influence the 2010 elections by so-
called anonymous donors, without disclosing the source of the funds. We 
know there is the potential of hundreds of millions of dollars being 
spent to influence votes without disclosing where that money is coming 
from, under the banner of Citizens United and corporate contributions. 
We can do something about that.
  Our legacy to protect a free and fair election process from undue 
influence of corporate special interests is more important than even 
our own individual elections. We were able to come together in 2002. 
Let's reconfirm what we did. Let's each do what is right for the 
integrity of the election process. Let's each do what we said we 
believe in--full disclosure. We can do that with the motion to proceed.
  Voting for cloture on this motion does not preclude a Member from 
offering an amendment. If there is something in the proposal one 
doesn't like--all of us would wish to see it stronger, or maybe there 
are other provisions we wish to take a look at--let's proceed to the 
debate. Let's not be afraid to have the debate on the floor of the 
Senate, supposedly the greatest debating institution in the world. 
Let's not be afraid to have the debate on how we can make elections 
more responsive to the needs of the people, ordinary citizens, so they 
have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote. Let's have 
that debate on the floor of the Senate. We will have a chance to do 
that in a few hours by voting for cloture on the motion to proceed.
  I urge my colleagues, give the American people this debate they so 
richly deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Could the Chair let us know how much time is left on 
either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are no longer under controlled time. There 
are 10-minute segments for Senators.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with regard 
to election reform, democracy, and unfortunately partisanship, and most 
importantly, the first amendment.
  There is a threat to the Constitution on the floor of the Senate 
today. It is called the DISCLOSE Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this bill.
  The DISCLOSE Act, an Orwellian oxymoron if there ever was one, 
contradicts the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United. It 
is essential to put the decision in context and shed sunlight on this 
dangerous bill.
  First, I applaud the Court's ruling. It reaffirms the right to 
freedom of speech. This is precisely the Court's role in our government 
system of checks and balances: to rein in Congress when legislation 
does not square with our founding principles. Let us remember the 10 
words in the first amendment that are most relevant for this debate:

       Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of 
     speech.

  However, some of my colleagues across the aisle have mischaracterized 
the Citizens United decision as undoing 100 years of law and precedent. 
This is a reference to the Tillman Act of 1907 that prohibits 
corporations from directly financing political campaigns. This was not 
affected by the Court's ruling. The Supreme Court did rule, however, 
against provisions of the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 
2002 that barred corporations and unions from running political ads 30 
days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. 
Corporations and unions cannot donate directly to a Federal candidate 
and, contrary to the claim of DISCLOSE Act supporters, it is already 
illegal for foreign entities to participate in American elections.
  Unfortunately, the sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act have chosen partisan 
fiction over fact in their effort to override the Court. The DISCLOSE 
Act is anything but full and fair campaign disclosure. It is 
politically skewed, motivated by a majority desperate to continue to be 
a majority.
  The DISCLOSE Act is loaded with handouts to the most monied of 
Washington special interests, including the National Rifle Association 
and the Sierra Club. They didn't want tape put on their mouths. Others 
doubtlessly were standing in line saying: Don't muzzle me, you can 
simply muzzle the other guy behind the tree.
  I challenge anyone who comes to the floor to preach the virtues of 
this bill to explain, with a straight face, the carefully tailored 
exemptions from disclosure included in title III. Moreover, despite a 
clever rewording of the House-passed version, the Senate bill retains 
carve-outs for labor unions by exempting donations under $600 under 
title II, section 211. This figure is conveniently below the average 
union dues. So for 600 bucks you have free speech. If it is over $600, 
you don't.
  Supporters of the DISCLOSE Act claim it is necessary to keep a flood 
of money out of politics, but carve-outs for special interests say 
otherwise. On June 24, the National Journal's Congress Daily reported 
that environmental, labor, and other groups--many of which specifically 
benefit from title II and title III exemptions--announced they would 
spend $11 million to either reward or admonish Senators in both parties 
for their positions in regard to climate change legislation.
  Another example is the American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees. The Hill newspaper reported on June 21 that this 
union, exempt under the bill, had ponied up $75,000 for ads in Maine to 
pressure Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to support a 
taxpayer-funded bailout for unions.
  These facts present an inconvenient truth for the sponsors of the 
DISCLOSE Act. It flies in the face of our democracy for the majority to 
ration the right of free speech to one set of Americans at the expense 
of others.
  In May, it was reported in the press that sponsors of this bill 
boasted that its deterrent effect should not be underestimated. 
Americans do not, and never have found it appropriate for government to 
shut down any political dissent.
  The DISCLOSE Act abandons the longstanding practice of treating 
corporations and unions equally. But even if title II and title III 
exemptions were removed, the bill is still unworkable. On May 19, 
writing in the Wall Street Journal, over half a dozen former FEC 
Commissioners noted that the FEC has regulations for 33 types of 
contributions and speech and 71 different types of speakers. The 
DISCLOSE Act adds to this complexity with another layer of Byzantine 
requirements that raise serious concerns about whether the law can be 
enforced consistent with the first amendment. We do not need any more 
regulations to the first amendment.
  If anyone doubts this bill is motivated by politics, they need to 
look no further than a June 22 letter sent by the bill's Senate sponsor 
and the Senate majority leader to Members of the House in which they 
pledge to bring

[[Page 14018]]

the measure to the floor in advance of the fall elections. Why the 
rush? In so doing, the majority has again used rule XIV to bypass the 
Senate Rules Committee--a committee upon which I serve--in order to 
expedite the DISCLOSE Act's passage.
  Unfortunately, it is becoming all too common for the majority to 
circumvent regular order, stifle the minority, and force unwanted 
legislation on the people by filling the amendment tree, misusing rule 
XIV, and ping-ponging legislation between the Houses. I am tired of 
Ping-Pong. Give me table tennis. Give me a paddle. Give me five serves, 
and then I will let Senator Schumer have five serves, and we can go 
back and forth as we should in regard to amendments in the Rules 
Committee, where this debate ought to be held. Senator Cardin said: Let 
us have a debate. I am for that. And let's put it in the Rules 
Committee, where it should be debated first.
  To review, the Citizens United decision does not upend a hundred 
years of law and precedent. The DISCLOSE Act has intentional loopholes 
in title II and title III to keep special interest dollars on behalf of 
the majority flowing, and the rest of the bill is a confusing set of 
redundant regulations. The bill's sponsors are rushing this legislation 
to the floor without consideration by the Rules Committee--again, here 
we go; that is what happened with health care; that is what happened 
with the Dodd-Frank bill--in order to protect the incumbent majority 
before the fall elections.
  Under the first amendment, the American people have a right to speak 
out against policies and legislators who kill jobs, curb growth, and 
expand the government at the expense of the private sector--and now a 
proposed tax increase. These policies hurt millions and millions of 
Americans employed in the private sector and millions more looking for 
work during a recession. They must be protected under the first 
amendment. The people have a right to be heard.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator 
from the State of Washington, who has been a leading advocate for the 
voice of average Americans in government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
strong support of the DISCLOSE Act, to close the glaring campaign 
finance loopholes that were opened by the Citizens United ruling.
  This Supreme Court ruling was a true step backward for this 
democracy. It overturned decades of campaign finance law and policy. It 
allowed corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited 
amounts of their money influencing our democracy. And it opens the door 
wide for foreign corporations to spend their money on elections right 
here in the United States.
  The Citizens United ruling has given special interest groups a 
megaphone they can use to drown out the voices of average citizens in 
my home State of Washington and across the country. The DISCLOSE Act we 
are considering will tear that megaphone away and place it back into 
the hands of the American people, where it belongs.
  This is a very personal issue for me. When I first ran for the Senate 
back in 1992, I was a long-shot candidate with some ideas and a group 
of amazing and passionate volunteers by my side. Those volunteers cared 
deeply about making sure the voices of average Washington State 
families were represented here in the Senate. They made phone calls. 
They went door to door. They talked to families across our State who 
wanted more from their government.
  Well, we ended up winning that grassroots campaign because the 
people's voices were heard loudly and clearly. But to be honest, I do 
not think it would have been possible if corporations and special 
interests had been able to drown out their voices with an unlimited 
barrage of negative ads against candidates who did not support their 
interests. That is why I so strongly support this DISCLOSE Act. I want 
to make sure no force is greater in our elections than the power of 
voters across our cities and towns. And no voice is louder than 
citizens who care about making their State and country a better place 
to live. This DISCLOSE Act helps preserve that American value. It 
shines a bright spotlight on the entire process.
  What the DISCLOSE Act will do will make corporate CEOs and special 
interest leaders take responsibility for their ads. When candidates put 
campaign commercials up on television--you have seen them--we put our 
faces on the ad and tell every voter we approve the message. We do not 
hide what we are doing. But right now, because of this Supreme Court 
decision, corporations and special interest groups do not have to do 
that. They can put up deceptive, untruthful ads with no accountability 
and no ability for people to know who is trying to influence them.
  The DISCLOSE Act strengthens overall disclosure requirements for 
groups that are attempting to sway our elections. Too often, 
corporations and special interest groups are able to hide behind their 
spending because of a mask of front organizations because they know 
voters would be less likely to believe the ads if they knew what the 
motives of the sponsors were. The DISCLOSE Act ends that. It shines a 
light on the spending and makes sure voters have the information they 
need so they know whom they can trust.
  This bill also closes a number of other loopholes opened by the 
Citizens United decision. It bans foreign corporations and special 
interest groups from spending in U.S. elections. It makes sure 
corporations are not hiding their election spending from their 
shareholders. It limits election spending by government contractors to 
make sure taxpayer funding is never used to influence an election. And 
it bans coordination between candidates and outside groups on 
advertising, so corporations and special interest groups can never 
``sponsor'' a candidate.
  This DISCLOSE Act is a commonsense bill that should not be 
controversial. Anyone who thinks voters should have a louder voice than 
special interest groups ought to vote for this bill. Anyone who thinks 
foreign entities should have no right to influence U.S. elections 
should support this bill. Anybody who agrees with Justice Brandeis that 
``sunlight is the best disinfectant'' ought to support this bill. And 
anyone who thinks we should not allow corporations such as BP or 
Goldman Sachs to spend unlimited money influencing our elections ought 
to support this bill.
  Every 2 years, we have elections across this country to fill our 
federally elected offices. Every 2 years, voters have the opportunity 
to talk to each other about who they think will represent their 
communities best. And every 2 years, it is these voices of America's 
citizens that decide who gets to stand right here representing them in 
the Congress. That is the basis of our democracy, and it is exactly 
what this DISCLOSE Act aims to protect. So I am proud to support this 
bill, and I urge all of our colleagues to move forward on this bill on 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Republican 
leader, Senator McConnell, for his expertise and leadership on this 
issue. Secondly, as several of my colleagues have pointed out, the 
DISCLOSE Act is a direct assault on the first amendment right to free 
speech. Protecting political speech, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, 
is one of our most sacred responsibilities.
  This is a partisan bill drafted behind closed doors by current and 
former Democratic campaign committee leaders. It is obviously written 
to disadvantage Republicans and favor special interests supportive of 
Democrats. The closed-door process under which the DISCLOSE Act was 
written contradicts its supporters' professed goal of transparency. It 
is a partisan rewrite of

[[Page 14019]]

campaign finance laws without hearings, without testimony, without 
studies, without a markup--again, written behind closed doors with the 
help of lobbyists and special interests.
  The problems it purports to address are purely hypothetical since 
there have been no elections since the Citizens United case. I have 
seen no evidence of any abuse in the current election cycle. This 
legislation is an attempt to change the rules to protect incumbent 
candidates from criticism of unpopular decisions and positions. I know 
none of us like to be criticized, but we must uphold the right of 
others to criticize us.
  Even those of us who opposed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act--BCRA 
but also known by the name McCain-Feingold--recognize that its authors 
sought to avoid any partisan advantage. The new rules then applied to 
everyone, and they only applied after the subsequent election. The same 
cannot be said for the DISCLOSE Act. It is 117 pages in which the 
bill's authors pick winners and losers, either through outright 
prohibitions or restrictions that are so complex they achieve the same 
result. The effort is too political, benefiting traditional Democratic 
allies, such as labor unions, while placing burdensome restrictions on 
for-profit organizations and the associations that represent them.
  Let me give you one example regarding the union exemptions. The new 
law applies to government contractors but not their unions or unions 
with government contracts or government unions. It is obviously 
discriminatory. As Leader McConnell has asked, where in the first 
amendment does it say that only large and entrenched special interests 
get the ``freedom of speech''?
  Here is what the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, said about the 
bill in April:

       Congressional leaders today took a vitally important first 
     step to begin to address the Supreme Court's recent decision 
     in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The AFL-
     CIO commends these efforts and supports increasing disclosure 
     and reexamining some current campaign finance rules. . . .It 
     is imperative that legislation counter the excessive and 
     disproportionate influence by business.

  Well, they have made sure it does.
  Unlike BCRA, the DISCLOSE Act has an effective date of 30 days after 
enactment. In other words, proponents want people to stop political 
speech now, before the midterm elections in November.
  Hundreds of diverse organizations oppose this bill, from the ACLU to 
the chamber of commerce. Let me just quote two.
  Here is a letter from several hundred of the Nation's leading trade 
association and business groups:

       By attempting to silence corporations' voice in the 
     political process while enabling unions to retain their 
     enormous influence, Schumer-Van Hollen is a patently 
     unconstitutional threat to the elections process. Schumer-Van 
     Hollen is a direct attack on the rights of the business 
     community and the role our organizations play in the national 
     political dialogue.

  And a letter from the National Right to Life organization:

       The overriding purpose is . . . to discourage, as much as 
     possible, disfavored groups, such as the [National Right to 
     Life Committee], from communicating about officeholders. . . 
     .This legislation has been carefully crafted to maximize 
     short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one 
     political party, while running roughshod over the First 
     Amendment protections for political speech that have been 
     clearly and forcefully articulated by the Supreme Court.

  So I hope my colleagues will recognize the damage they are doing to 
political discourse in violation of the first amendment that is a 
result of the legislation that has been drafted here for purely 
political advantage and will oppose the DISCLOSE Act.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the Citizens United case has aimed a 
dagger at the heart of American democracy. So I rise today in support 
of the DISCLOSE Act, to stop that dagger aimed at our heart.
  Our Nation is unique in world history in that it was founded not on 
nationality or royal bloodlines but on an idea--a simple yet 
revolutionary idea--that the country's people are in charge. As was so 
often the case, Abraham Lincoln said it better than anyone--that the 
United States is a ``government of the people, by the people, for the 
people.'' What that means is we, the elected officials, work for the 
people. They elect us. They are in charge. But this idea, this vision, 
this government by and for the people cannot survive if our elections 
are not open, fair, and free. The government is not by or for the 
people if corporations and even foreign corporations and giant 
government contractors are able to hijack the electoral process to run 
millions of dollars of attack ads against any candidate or any 
legislator who dares to put the public interest ahead of a company's 
interest.
  Our Constitution, through the first amendment, puts the highest 
protection on political speech, recognizing how important it is that 
citizens be able to debate the merits of candidates and the merits of 
ideas. But if the essence of the first amendment is that competing 
voices should be heard in the marketplace of ideas, the Citizens United 
decision just gave the largest corporations a stadium sound system with 
which to drown out the voice of American citizens.
  Think about the scale of the spending this decision allows. My Senate 
race was far and away the most expensive election in Oregon history. 
The two candidates together spent around $20 million. ExxonMobil, a 
single corporation, made $20 million in profits every 10 hours in 2010, 
and that was during their worst year in a decade. If you like negative 
ads, you would love the impact of Citizens United. Imagine what 
corporations will do to put favorite candidates in office. The sheer 
volume of money could allow corporations to handpick their candidates, 
providing unlimited support to their campaigns to take out anyone who 
would dare to stand up for the public interest.
  The DISCLOSE Act will help prevent special interests from drowning 
out the voice of American citizens. First, this bill will bring 
transparency to campaigns now that unlimited money is allowed to be 
spent on negative attack ads. If you are looking to buy a used car and 
someone tells you the engine looks great, you would want to know if the 
person saying that is your trusted mechanic or the used car salesman. 
Who is speaking is critical information in evaluating the message. With 
that principle in mind, the DISCLOSE Act makes the CEO of a company 
stand by their words. The CEO will have to say at the end of the ad 
that he or she approves this message, just as political candidates have 
to do today. It is common sense. If a company is willing to spend 
millions working against a candidate, the voters have a right to know 
about that company's involvement instead of allowing it to hide behind 
shadowy front groups.
  The second problem the DISCLOSE Act takes on is the system of ``pay-
to-play'' where companies campaign on behalf of candidates in order to 
get access to government contracts. This legislation bars that form of 
corruption. It bars government contractors from running campaign ads 
and paying for other campaign activities on behalf of a Federal 
candidate.
  Passing the DISCLOSE Act is key to sustaining the healthy democracy 
that represents the interests of American citizens. A healthy democracy 
requires transparency, an equal voice for all its citizens, not an 
amplified voice for those who represent very large corporations.
  So I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. As President 
Lincoln, a great Republican President, reminds us: The essence of the 
Nation, the cause that brought a generation of patriots to challenge 
the greatest military power of the 18th century, the idea that inspired 
people to leave everything behind to come to our shores is a government 
of the people, by the people, and for the people.
  We are here because we work for the American people. Let's pass the 
DISCLOSE Act today so our successors can say the same thing tomorrow.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page 14020]]


  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, how much time is available to this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 24 minutes 10 seconds available.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity of 
addressing this issue and of listening to my colleagues as they talk 
about it. I haven't heard some of this exorbitant language since I left 
the campaign trail. I left the campaign trail forcibly but, 
nonetheless, I have some memory of it, and I realize that in a period 
of a campaign, people get carried away.
  ``A dagger at the heart of our democracy'' is a phrase that has been 
used. ``The destruction of government of the people'' is a phrase that 
has been used. If I can think of someone who uses this kind of language 
quite normally in the political discourse, the name of Michael Moore 
comes to mind. The reason I raise Michael Moore is because we are 
talking about a movie. That is the source of this entire decision.
  There is a group of people who decided they wanted to make a movie 
that was critical of a candidate for President of the United States. In 
this case it was former Senator Hillary Clinton. They didn't like her 
and they wanted to make a movie and they did. In the same vein, Michael 
Moore, who didn't like George W. Bush, made a movie entitled 
``Fahrenheit 9/11.'' Nobody got excited about Michael Moore's movie in 
terms of violating the Constitution or a dagger at the heart of our 
democracy or destroying the legacy of Abraham Lincoln because we knew 
Michael Moore. We knew the kinds of things Michael Moore was famous for 
doing, and overstating a position is Michael Moore's stock in trade.
  So the folks at Citizens United decided they were going to follow the 
Michael Moore precedent and make a movie. I haven't seen either movie, 
so I don't know whether Citizens United's movie about Hillary Clinton 
went as far over the top as Michael Moore's movie about George W. Bush, 
and I don't care because Michael Moore, regardless of what distortions 
may have been in his movie, had every right under the Constitution of 
the United States to make that movie, to make the political speech, and 
to do the very best he could to influence the election.
  The movie was a financial success, and the movie was a critical 
success, and the movie did not win the election. The movie did not 
defeat George W. Bush. The American people had other things to do 
besides watch Michael Moore's movie. He exercised his first amendment 
right to freedom of speech. He got the opportunity to say what he 
wanted to say, he spent a lot of money doing it, and the movie was 
widely seen. The democracy did not come to an end as a result of the 
making of the movie. Now we are told that Citizens United made a movie 
and somehow that is going to have a vastly different effect.
  I don't believe Senator Clinton's loss to Barack Obama in the 
primaries had much to do with the movie that Citizens United made. They 
spent a lot of money, but I don't think it was an avalanche of spending 
by a corporation that destroyed American democracy because Hillary 
Clinton did not win the nomination. I think it had a great deal more to 
do with Barack Obama's ability to run a decent campaign rather than 
Hillary Clinton's suffering at the hands of Citizens United making this 
movie.
  Well, because Citizens United was not one individual in the form of 
Michael Moore, but because it was a group of individuals who got 
together and took the opportunity to create a corporate form of 
identity for the making of their movie, that got them in trouble. An 
individual could do it, but a group of individuals who organized 
themselves into a corporation couldn't do it. That went to the Supreme 
Court, and the Supreme Court said yes; they could. I don't find that to 
be a great destruction of the first amendment. I find that to be the 
proper statement on the part of the Supreme Court to say: Let's have 
vigorous political speech in this country, and if a group of people 
want to do that vigorous speech in the form of a corporation, let them 
go at it. Let them have at it. The Supreme Court was right, in my 
opinion.
  I hear those people who attack Citizens United say: Yes, the first 
amendment protects the right of free speech, but it does so for 
individuals. Corporations are not individuals, neither are unions. Yet 
the DISCLOSE Act treats unions differently than it treats corporations. 
The DISCLOSE Act goes after corporations and their right of free speech 
and does its very best to see to it that the restrictions they put on 
corporations do not apply to unions.
  The DISCLOSE Act listens to the outcry of some corporations such as 
the National Rifle Association and says: Well, we won't make it apply 
to you and, thus, demonstrates that it is responding to political 
pressure from people who say we will punish you at the polls if you 
take away our right of free speech. So the act is written in such a way 
that some corporations get treated differently than other corporations. 
Of course, unions get treated different from all corporations.
  Is this the way we want to deal with the first amendment right of 
free speech where everybody ought to have exactly the same rights? I am 
told: Oh, no. This bill doesn't prohibit any free speech. All this does 
is disclose. That is why it is called the DISCLOSE Act. You Republicans 
are in favor of transparency. You want to disclose things. Why don't 
you support the DISCLOSE Act?
  Well, if it is a bill aimed at disclosure, why does the word 
``prohibit'' and the companion word ``prohibition'' appear all through 
the bill? I have a copy of the bill right here.
  On page 4, section 3, listed on page 4, it begins, ``Prohibiting 
independent expenditures and electioneering communications . . . ''
  On page 5, section 3: ``Prohibiting independent expenditures'' and so 
on.
  Section 6: ``Prohibiting independent expenditures . . . ''
  Then, on page 6, in section 7: ``In these ways, prohibiting 
independent expenditures . . . ''
  We go to the first title of the bill, and it is titled ``Regulation 
of Certain Political Spending.'' Section 101: ``Prohibiting independent 
expenditures and electioneering communications . . . ''
  This is not the DISCLOSE Act. This is an act aimed at prohibiting 
expenditures by certain people and certain groups. Who are they? Well, 
government contractors. I have been in business. I have solicited 
government business. If I got the government business, was I told in 
advance: If you get this business, you are giving up your first 
amendment rights when it comes to political speech? If you can stay 
away from contracting with the government, you can hang on to your 
first amendment rights. But as soon as you become a government 
contractor your rights are gone.
  It prohibits free speech from those who received TARP money. There is 
an interesting precedent to set. I know some of the folks who received 
TARP money who didn't want it. They were told in that circumstance: You 
will accept TARP money. The TARP money, as it was distributed in that 
program, was forced upon certain corporations. Were they told at the 
time, or should they be told under the DISCLOSE Act--let's have full 
disclosure and transparency--when you accept this money, you cannot 
exercise your freedom of speech rights as a result of accepting this 
money?
  General Motors received TARP money, so General Motors says you cannot 
run an ad expressing your opinion on any matter of public affairs; 
however, the United Auto Workers can. The United Auto Workers received 
the benefit of TARP money. The United Auto Workers received stock in 
General Motors. They are the shareholders of General Motors, to a large 
extent.
  So do we say, well, under the DISCLOSE Act the unions can express 
their first amendment rights all they want, but General Motors, as a 
corporation, cannot, even though the TARP money was what allowed the 
union members to keep their jobs.
  It has been pointed out here that the groups opposed to this are wide 
and diverse--from the Sierra Club to the ACLU. I turn to the letter the 
ACLU wrote with respect to this, and they are not dealing with 
hyperbole. They are dealing with experience in reality. Let me go to 
the first key issue the ACLU

[[Page 14021]]

talks about and give an example from real life. They say:

       The DISCLOSE Act fails to preserve the anonymity of small 
     donors, thereby especially chilling the expression rights of 
     those who support controversial causes.

  Then the first sentence in that section of their letter says:

       By compelling politically active organizations to disclose 
     the names of donors giving as little as $600, S. 3628 both 
     violates individual privacy and chills free speech on 
     important issues.

  I take my colleagues back to one of the most controversial issues we 
have seen in this country for a long time, which was proposition 8 in 
California in the last election.
  I am acquainted with an individual who made a contribution in favor 
of those who were trying to support proposition 8. That is all she did. 
She wrote out a check. Someone came to her and said: We are in favor of 
the proposition and we are trying to raise some money; will you help 
us?
  She wrote out a check of less than $1,000 and went about her 
business. Her business was a restaurant in Hollywood--a restaurant that 
was routinely and significantly supported by people in the 
entertainment industry--actors, directors, and others connected with 
making movies. When the contribution list for propositions was made 
public, and it became known that this woman had made a contribution in 
favor of proposition 8, patronage at her restaurant dropped off more 
than half. People opposed to proposition 8 started using hate speech 
toward this woman: You are a bigot, and we cannot patronize your 
restaurant.
  She had no idea that when she wrote that check in support of those 
who wanted a position that she agreed with--to put it on the ballot to 
be voted on by Californians--and it was by a majority of Californians 
who supported it--when she took the majority position of the voters in 
her State, she had no idea she was going to see her business ravaged by 
those discovering her name on that list who would go after her.
  They have a right not to eat at her restaurant, I understand that. 
But this is a real-life example of what can happen to people in 
controversial situations and the ACLU is appropriately concerned about.
  The DISCLOSE Act, in the name of transparency, would expose small 
donors to that kind of retaliation. However, if you belong to a union, 
and you pay union dues, and the union dues are spent to produce a 
movie, something along the lines of what Michael Moore did with 
``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' no one will ever know your union dues were spent 
for that purpose, because unions are treated differently than 
corporations.
  This is a bad bill. It hasn't been through the committee. I am the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee to which the bill normally would 
be referred. The majority leader, exercising his authority, saw to it 
that the bill didn't get referred to committee. There have been no 
hearings. There is no opportunity for anybody to come forward and say 
this will be a problem. We haven't heard from the ACLU and a witness 
that we could question. We only got a letter, because they were shut 
out from any hearings.
  For those who are offended by my reference to the ACLU and would 
prefer the National Right to Life Organization, well, we have their 
letter, too, but we didn't have an opportunity to hear any of their 
witnesses or the legal authorities who believe that the Supreme Court 
ruled correctly, who might have come before the committee and given us 
the benefit of their analysis; we haven't had a chance to hear from 
them either.
  The bill has been drafted and redrafted a number of times behind 
closed doors, but we only see the final draft when it gets here on the 
floor, with no hearings, no background, no opportunity to question, 
comment, amend, or improve. I am in favor of transparency as much as 
the next Senator. I am in favor of free speech as much as anyone. I 
have stood on this floor and quoted James Madison with respect to free 
speech on a number of issues and have been dismissed on the grounds 
that, well, anybody can quote James Madison. I believe in the tenth 
Federalist, where Madison made it very clear that the right of factions 
to express themselves freely and openly, even when they clash bitterly, 
is a very fundamental right in the Constitution itself. ``Factions,'' 
as they used the word in Madison's day, referred to political parties. 
I think the term ``factions'' also refers to those whom we speak of as 
special interest groups today. James Madison made it very clear that if 
we attempt to stifle the ability of a faction to express itself, we 
strike at the core of liberty itself. I hope that people don't 
interpret that as over-the-top language, as I have heard some other 
things that I have interpreted as over-the-top language. I sincerely 
believe that and I strongly support it.
  The DISCLOSE Act would not pass the test of truth in advertising. The 
title does not disclose what it does here. It is filled with 
prohibitions and violations of the first amendment, and it is filled 
with special favors for certain groups and attacks on others. For that 
reason, I will oppose cloture and, if cloture is invoked, I will oppose 
the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey, who has been an outstanding leader on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleagues in this 
debate, and I am reminded of a great Republican, President Reagan, who 
said, ``There they go again.'' I always find it incredibly interesting 
when some of my most conservative colleagues quote the ACLU. Then I 
know something is amiss. Let me ask, what is the vote that is going to 
take place? It is simply to allow us to go forward and have a debate, 
offer amendments, and ultimately vote on the bill. That is what this 
bill is all about. So those who say they are for transparency won't 
even let a process move forward that is transparent, so we can debate 
and so that the American people can decide do we want corporations--
including foreign corporations--to have access to who is elected in 
America, in this body and in the Congress, and ultimately making 
decisions that affect their lives every day?
  That is what this vote is all about. You can paint it any way you 
want, but that is what this vote is about. I am amazed they cannot even 
say yes to proceeding to a debate and a vote on the merits of the bill 
itself.
  We all know that the Roberts Supreme Court and its activist 
conservative majority overruled, wrongly in my view, restrictions on 
spending by corporations and unions. My colleagues on the other side 
are well aware that, as a result of a perceived loophole in current 
law, foreign corporations--those from other countries--would now be 
allowed to fund American election campaigns, to pick their candidates 
who would reflect their interests if elected or defeat candidates who 
would not reflect their interests--all without any meaningful mechanism 
or disclosure. Amazing. It is absurd. Nothing could be more ill advised 
or misguided. But here we are, once again, unable to even proceed to 
consider a bill that would remedy that situation. Once again, my 
Republican friends are standing in the way of proceeding to a bill, 
standing in the way of what I consider to be good governance, all in 
the name of those in their party who hold to some misguided attempt to 
twist first amendment rights to suit an ideologically based argument 
that somehow a requirement to disclose contributions would violate the 
first amendment. You still can spend the money; nobody is going to stop 
you from spending the money. But you have to disclose who is behind 
that contribution. I don't think transparency is something that 
violates the first amendment. It is the right of the American people to 
receive the information required by these proposed disclosure laws.
  Then they twist it even further, virtually saying that all money 
anywhere--even foreign money--is somehow free speech in American 
elections. I think the American people want to be the ones in control 
of who they elect to Congress to decide the issues of the day

[[Page 14022]]

in their lives, not somebody who is backed by some foreign corporation. 
Imagine if BP could say: I don't like Senator Menendez lifting that 
liability cap; I don't want to be liable for more than $75 million, 
even though I have created billions of dollars in costs, so let me fund 
candidates who agree that Senator Menendez's legislation to lift the 
liability caps on limited liability should be the ones to get elected, 
because they are going to take care of what? BP, which is a foreign 
corporation.
  Imagine if the insurance industry said: We don't even have to put our 
face on that announcement, that advertisement. Let's go fund those 
candidates who will allow us, the insurance industry, to continue to 
deny people who have a preexisting condition in this country the 
opportunity to get health insurance--where a child at birth has a 
defect and cannot get health insurance, or a father who had a heart 
attack on the job cannot get health insurance. Let's fund those 
candidates who will ensure that we as an industry don't have to insure 
those individuals.
  Imagine those companies on Wall Street which don't like the new law 
that we just passed and want to see it rolled back so they can continue 
to have the excesses that almost brought this Nation to economic 
collapse. They could say: Let's fund those candidates who will allow us 
to have not a free market but a free-for-all market. That is what this 
law is all about. That is what this vote is all about. I believe the 
people of New Jersey, which I represent, and people elsewhere, want 
disclosure.
  Finally, disclosure takes place by knowing who is giving this money.
  The bottom line is I want Americans to decide American elections. I 
don't want some foreign company funding candidates who ultimately 
enhance their views. I don't want big business deciding elections on 
the basis of their corporate interests versus the interests of the 
people. That is what this bill is all about. I can't understand the 
fear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have of simply 
letting us go to a full debate and an up-or-down vote.
  Look, if this law is poorly drafted and the majority of the Senate 
votes against it, so be it. But not even to allow us to go to that 
debate, to stop foreign corporations and foreign influence in our 
elections, to allow the BPs of the world to influence the way in which 
we have the gulf cleanup, or to allow the insurance industry to deny 
people based on preexisting conditions, or allow Wall Street to run 
wild--on and on--that is fundamentally wrong. That is what this debate 
is about, and that is what the vote will be all about.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Senator Reed, who is speaking as in morning business. 
Senator Franken spoke on the bill during morning business, and Senator 
Reed was kind enough to give him time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, last Friday, this Chamber played host to 
heroes: seven wounded warriors from the 82nd Airborne Division, who are 
currently recuperating at Walter Reed Army Hospital. They came down for 
a tour of the Capitol, and for moments here on the floor of the Senate, 
in which they were able to see their government in action.
  More important, we were able to thank them for their extraordinary 
service and sacrifice to the Nation. I am particularly proud because 
they are soldiers from my division--the 82nd Airborne Division.
  We had among our guests SGT Steven Dandoy, who was wounded last month 
in a mortar attack in Afghanistan, of the third battalion 321st Field 
Artillery, whose hometown is Milwaukee, WI; SGT Allen Thomas, who is 
from Adelphi, MD, and serves with the 2-508 Parachute Infantry 
Regiment, who was wounded in Afghanistan this past March during an 
attack from a suicide bomber, and he was joined by his fiancee, Donna; 
SPC Antonio Brown, from Florence, SC.
  We were honored to have SPC Antonio Brown from Florence, SC. He was 
wounded in Iraq in 2007 when a 50-caliber round detonated in his hand. 
He was serving with the 2nd Battalion of the 325th Parachute Infantry 
Regiment.
  SPC John Doherty of Jerome, ID, was wounded when a 50-caliber round 
detonated in his hand in April while he was serving with the 2nd 
Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Amazingly, he 
recently passed his flight physical with the goal of qualifying as an 
Army helicopter pilot despite his wound.
  SPC Jeffrey McKnight of the 1st Battalion of the 508th Parachute 
Infantry Regiment and hailing from Littleton, CO, was also our guest. 
He was wounded last month during a vehicle rollover in Afghanistan.
  SPC William Ross also serves with the 2nd Battalion of the 508th 
Parachute Infantry Regiment. He was our guest also. Specialist Ross 
hails from Knoxville, TN. He is recovering from a gunshot wound he 
received during a dismounted patrol in March. He was joined by his 
fiancee Tiffany.
  SPC Nicholas Stone of the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute 
Infantry Regiment was also our guest. He hails from Buffalo, NY. He is 
recovering from wounds suffered in an IED attack on a dismounted patrol 
in May. He was joined by his wife Kristen.
  Let me also say it is appropriate to recognize the families of these 
wounded warriors because they, too, serve. They, too, sacrifice. In 
fact, during the long hours of rehabilitation and therapy at Walter 
Reed, they are at the bedside literally of their wounded soldiers. I 
thank them.
  I also thank SFC Albert Comfort and SSG Rodolfo Nunez from the 82nd 
Airborne Division. They are the Division Liaisons for the wounded 
warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
  These young men left the comfort and safety of their homes all across 
this country to serve this Nation. Their service, their sacrifice 
sustains us. They are the fabric of our defense. They are those young 
men and women who serve in great danger but with unfailing fidelity to 
the Army and to the Nation. Because of them, we are able to oppose 
those who seek us harm.
  We can never repay them enough. We can never thank them enough. But 
last Friday we had seven of these wounded warriors down just to say: 
Thank you, well done, and to give them a chance to look at the Senate 
and see the history that was made by their predecessors, and which they 
are sustaining and will make in the future.
  It was a special moment for me because these soldiers come from the 
82nd Airborne Division. One of the great privileges of my life--in 
fact, I believe this is one of the greatest privileges an American can 
have--was leading American soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division as 
the company commander of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 504th 
Parachute Infantry Regiment. I learned a lot about service, sacrifice, 
and the contribution of Americans from across this globe, as well as 
the great potential of Americans, not only to defend our Nation but to 
do great things, furthering the goals and ideals of this country.
  I conclude by saying to these young soldiers: Thank you very much for 
your service. Good luck. Godspeed.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. 
He looks out, as our only West Point graduate in the Senate, for all 
our troops throughout the Nation. We salute him for it. I was proud he 
mentioned a brave trooper from Buffalo, NY.
  Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is left on our side and 
how much time on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minute 45 seconds remaining on the 
side of the Senator from New York. On the Republican side, there is 6 
minutes 52 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I wish to reserve 5 minutes for Senator Brown, who 
wishes to speak. I believe he is on his way. I ask unanimous consent 
that the last 5 minutes be reserved for Senator

[[Page 14023]]

Brown, and I will speak on the remaining time--I know it is the other 
side's time--until one of them appears.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we heard a lot from the other side. I 
will be speaking in conclusion on this bill, along with Senator Reid, 
after the lunch break. We have never heard such falsities. The other 
side, first, talks about free speech and talks about how corporations 
have the right to free speech. The Constitution now guarantees that 
after Citizens United--and our bill does not get in the way of free 
speech. It simply requires disclosure, which the Court said was 
important.
  Second, they are talking about how it treats unions and corporations 
differently. The bottom line is, the unions are opposed to this bill 
and to simply say that a $600 limit favors unions, no, we are just 
favoring big, huge givers who give tens of thousands, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars over small, little givers. If there is a union 
person who gives $10,000, they will be under this law. If there is a 
corporate person who gives $500, they will not be. It is a misnomer.
  I see my friend and colleague from Illinois has arrived. Since I will 
be speaking after the lunch, and I am just waiting for Senator Brown to 
arrive, I yield the remaining time, other than the 5 minutes for 
Senator Brown, to my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Illinois 
is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his 
leadership on this legislation. We are here because the Supreme Court, 
across the street, decided, in a case called Citizens United, to change 
the way we campaign for office in America. They want to change it and 
say corporations and special interest groups can spend unlimited 
amounts of money on political campaigns.
  Most of the people I talk with in Illinois and across the country 
think they have enough political advertising when it comes to 
campaigns. Hold on tight because, for example, the U.S. Chamber 
Commerce announced they may spend as much as $75 million in this 
election cycle on more television advertising to promote candidates who 
agree with their positions on issues. That is about a five or six times 
increase in the amount of money they will spend.
  What it does, of course, is crowd out those of modest means. Any mere 
mortals left on this political scene who have to rely either on their 
own limited savings or raising money from others are going to find 
themselves overwhelmed and inundated by this Supreme Court decision. 
But it is a Supreme Court decision. Senator Schumer and the Rules 
Committee, on which I serve, sat down and said that at least if we are 
going to do this, let's have disclosure about the sources of these ads 
by special interest groups. Let's find out who is paying for the ads. 
Let's make them stand and say: This is my ad; I paid for it, rather 
than sneak around with names that mean little to nothing and inundate 
the airwaves so voters are confused and overwhelmed and not sure from 
where the ads are coming.
  The act is called the DISCLOSE Act because that is what it is all 
about. Sadly, it appears there is going to be a straight party vote, 
perhaps with a few exceptions, on this DISCLOSE Act.
  It is hard to understand how the Republicans can take this position. 
Let me read a quote. ``What we ought to have is disclosure,'' this 
Senator said. ``I think groups should have the right to run those ads, 
but they ought to be disclosed and they ought to be accurate.'' Who 
said that? The Senator from Kentucky, the minority leader, the 
Republican leader in the context of McCain-Feingold during the debate 
on campaign finance reform.
  The Senator from Kentucky is not the only Senator who seems to 
support the concept of disclosure. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Sessions, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said earlier 
this year:

       I don't like it when a large source of money is out there 
     funding ads and is unaccountable. To the extent we can, I 
     tend to favor disclosure.

  Pretty clear, isn't it? That looked like the Republican position 
until the Supreme Court decision. Why would they be against disclosure? 
They are betting that most of these ads are going to be on behalf of 
their candidates and against Democrats. That is what it comes down to.
  I happen to think disclosure is right whether it is a union or 
corporation. I think voters ought to know from where this information 
is coming. I can talk to you about why I think this is important as a 
voter, as a Senator, as a taxpayer. But what it boils down to is if we 
are going to have a system electing people to this Chamber who are 
accountable to the people they represent and not to special interest 
groups, the voters have to understand where candidates are coming from.
  If my opponent--or even if I decide to be heavily supported by 
special interest groups--decides to put money in the race, I think the 
voters of Illinois are entitled to know that. They should take that 
into consideration when they decide how they are going to vote come the 
next election. That is only fair.
  I support Senator Schumer's effort on the DISCLOSE Act. It is a move 
in the right direction. I hope after we enact this legislation, we will 
consider something else. I have a bill for the public funding of 
campaigns. Wouldn't it be great if we got out of the business of 
raising money to create trust funds for television stations across 
America, if instead we basically had a publicly funded campaign? That 
would be in the best interests of democracy and the best interest of 
giving the voters the information they need but not overwhelmed by 
special interests.
  The Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Senate Republicans' 
campaign committee, seems to agree with Senator Sessions. He said 
earlier this year:

       I think the system needs more transparency, so people can 
     more easily reach their own conclusions.

  Amen.
  The DISCLOSE Act would bring greater transparency to the source of 
campaign ads flooding the airwaves before an election, so that voters 
can make good decisions for themselves as to whether the ads are 
truthful or not.
  As a voter, I want to know who has paid for a political ad, and I 
don't want foreign companies trying to buy our elections.
  As a taxpayer, I don't want big companies with more than $10 million 
dollars in Federal contracts to be able to buy ads so they can curry 
favor with legislators who they hope could help them receive even 
larger contracts.
  As a shareholder of a company, I want to know what political 
activities the management of the company is spending my company's money 
on.
  The DISCLOSE Act would help with all of these goals.
  The bill would make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for 
their ads; require companies and groups to disclose to the FEC within 
24 hours of conducting any campaign-related activity or transferring 
money to other campaign groups; prevent foreign countries from 
contributing to the outcome of our elections; mandate that 
corporations, unions, and other groups disclose their campaign 
activities to shareholders and members in their annual and periodic 
reports; bar large government contractors from receiving taxpayer funds 
and then using that money to run campaign ads; restrict companies from 
``sponsoring'' a candidate.
  This is all commonsense stuff.
  Let me be clear: I think we should go much further to change the way 
we finance campaigns in this country.
  I believe very strongly in the Fair Elections Now Act, which would 
allow viable candidates who qualify for the fair elections program to 
raise a maximum of $100 from any donor. These candidates would receive 
matching funds and grants in order to compete with high roller 
candidates.
  That would change the system fundamentally, and put average citizens 
back in control of their elections and their country.
  But in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which would allow 
companies to spend freely and directly

[[Page 14024]]

on political campaigns, the least we should do is to pass this 
commonsense transparency bill.
  Is it asking too much to require a group or company to briefly 
mention that they are behind an ad, so that the American people know 
who is paying for what? I don't think it is. And once upon a time, many 
Republicans did not think so either.
  I will close with one more quote from my friend from Kentucky, the 
minority leader, from an interview years ago on ``Meet the Press'':

       Republicans are in favor of disclosure.

  You can't state a position much more clearly than that. Are they 
still? Or were Senate Republicans for campaign finance disclosure 
before they were against it?
  We will find out soon enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
his, once again, elegant words and yield to my friend from Ohio who has 
been a great voice in this body for the average family, the working 
family. I yield the remaining time we have left this morning on our 
side to Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New 
York. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes 32 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, yesterday, in the Rose Garden, 
President Obama made clear the choice Members of this body face as they 
vote on the DISCLOSE Act. It is a choice between granting special 
interests unfettered and secret influence over their elections and the 
choice of ensuring basic protections to voices of everyday Americans.
  Again, these will be ads run by interest groups that do not identify 
themselves--unfettered, secret, unlimited in the amount of money they 
can spend to elect their friends to Congress.
  We know what happened in 2009 when corporations spent over $3 billion 
lobbying Congress to influence their agenda. We know with the Wall 
Street bill and the health care bill, more than $1 million a day was 
spent to weaken those laws. We know what ultimately happens, what 
happens when this kind of special interest influence descends on this 
body. First of all, the money they spend in elections to elect their 
friends and allies--BP, the drug companies, the insurance industries, 
the big companies that outsource jobs from the United States to China--
we know what happens when they spend money to elect their friends, and 
we know what happens when they lobby in the Halls of Congress.
  We saw examples of that particularly during the Bush years. I was in 
the House of Representatives in those days, as was the Presiding 
Officer representing a district in New Mexico. We saw in those days the 
drug companies writing the Medicare legislation. The legislation was a 
bailout for the drug and insurance companies in the name of Medicare 
privatization. We saw it on trade issues. We saw the big companies that 
outsource jobs write trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA. On 
health care issues, we saw the big insurance companies writing 
legislation, assisting President Bush in getting his pro-insurance 
company legislation through. We know on the energy legislation, 
something the Presiding Officer worked to try to fix--unfortunately, we 
were all unsuccessful in the Bush years--with regard to writing energy 
legislation, we saw the oil companies do that.
  If we do not fix this, if we do not pass the Schumer bill, we are 
going to see a further betrayal of the middle class, further betrayal 
of democratic ideals--democratic with a small ``d.'' We no longer can 
brook in this institution, giving the drug companies the authority to 
write Medicare legislation, the insurance companies the ability to 
write health care legislation, the big companies that outsource the 
ability to write trade legislation, the oil industry to write energy 
legislation. It has happened over and over again. We should have 
learned this lesson this decade.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very comfortable 
with helping their benefactors, with helping the oil industry, the drug 
companies, the insurance companies, and those big companies that move 
overseas and outsource our jobs. That is why the DISCLOSE Act is very 
important. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you do not want 
to see our democratic system become the puppet of corporate America or 
any other special interest. You do not want to give corporations the 
ability to drown out the voices of the people--their customers, 
workers, and, frankly, their shareholders.
  The least we can do is empower citizens with information to evaluate 
the motives behind corporate and special interest spending. I do not 
want to see these huge dollars spent in these races, to be sure. But at 
a minimum, we have to make sure the public knows who is spending it, 
who the executives are who will benefit from these huge expenditures 
from the drug and insurance companies, from the oil industry, and those 
big companies that outsource.
  It is a pretty clear choice. A vote for the DISCLOSE Act, a vote for 
cloture is a vote for the public interest. A vote against cloture, a 
vote against the DISCLOSE Act is getting right in line with giving 
those special interests--Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance 
companies, the big companies that outsource jobs, the oil industry--
what they want.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague once again for his outstanding 
pointed words--right on the money--and we will hear the end of this 
debate after we close.

                          ____________________