[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16113-16115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DISCLOSE ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I reflect on the current state of 
frustration most Americans feel about our political system, I know 
there are many reasons, not the least of which is the state of our 
economy. When people are uncertain about their economic future, they 
are certainly unhappy with political leaders because that is whom they

[[Page 16114]]

look to first and foremost for some assurance that our economy is 
moving forward and creating opportunity for them in the future. Where 
there is uncertainty, it is understandable that it translates into 
frustration with politicians and our political process.
  But I would tell you that as I reflect on the many years I have been 
involved in public life, there is one aspect of this which really needs 
to be addressed, honestly and openly discussed, and that is how we 
finance our political campaigns in America. I think this is at the 
heart of the current weakness of our political system and a real 
challenge to its future.
  I can tell you that most every individual who sits down to make the 
decision about entering public life has that sobering moment when they 
reflect on the fact that this isn't just a matter of how hard you work 
or how good you are or what your ideas might be. It has a lot to do 
with how much money you can raise. And if you can't raise enough money 
to deliver your message through radio or TV or social networking and 
all the different varieties of reaching the voters, even the very best 
candidates don't stand a chance.
  I came to the Senate succeeding my mentor and great friend Paul 
Simon, who was a Senator from Illinois. Paul Simon would have run 
successfully if he had tried for another term in the Senate, but Paul 
announced that he just didn't want to go through that arduous battle of 
raising money--literally sitting on the telephone hour after weary hour 
trying to get through to people to beg for money. That is the plight of 
most people who decide to be political candidates. So those who do 
engage in that process and accept that challenge know it is going to 
consume at least half of their waking moments as a candidate--raising 
money so that you will be on television in the important close of the 
campaign. You know as well that you are going to be calling a number of 
people, some of whom are very gracious and giving without any demand 
for return and some who just want to call you back at a later time when 
something important to them comes up. That item of importance may be at 
the highest level of principle, but it may not be as well. It may be 
something very personal to them about their business or their family 
that brings them to ask a favor. That is the nature of the political 
process.
  Now insert into that process the new decision by the Supreme Court, 
which has decided that not only individuals have the power under our 
Constitution and Bill of Rights to express themselves through the 
expenditure of money but that now corporations do as well. This 
Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court--a Court which many had 
praised as being a conservative Court bound by precedent--broke 
precedent, established new standards, and basically allows corporations 
and special interests across America to spend unlimited amounts of 
money in political campaigns. Now the hardest working candidate of 
either political party, working night and day to raise money, can be 
overwhelmed and eclipsed overnight by a special interest group or 
corporation that decides to spend millions of dollars to tell their 
side of the story. And trust me, these corporations won't get up and 
say: We had a narrow amendment in our self-interest to try to maximize 
our profits, and the incumbent Senator voted against it. That isn't how 
they will tell the story. They will tell the story about how this 
politician had basically turned his back on the people who elected him 
or takes a position they do not appreciate. How does the average 
person--the average candidate--overcome that kind of attack? The 
Citizens United decision by this Supreme Court has turned our political 
system upside down.
  Here is a quote that accurately describes what we are trying to 
achieve with the DISCLOSE Act, which we are going to call up for a 
vote. The DISCLOSE Act addresses the Citizens United decision by the 
Supreme Court. We are going to be voting on this for the second time. 
The first time we voted on it, not a single Republican would join us in 
an effort for disclosure--disclosure by these special interest groups 
and corporate groups that are buying these political ads. Let me quote 
from a Member of the Senate. This Member of the Senate said:

       What we ought to have is disclosure. 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, who has just come to the 
floor. The minority leader said that in the context of the McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill in 2002.
  The Senator from Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, is not the 
only Republican who would seem to support the principle behind the 
DISCLOSE Act. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, the ranking 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said earlier this year:

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

  The Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, chairman of the Senate's 
Republican campaign committee, apparently agrees with that sentiment. 
Here is what he said earlier this year:

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

  I agree. I agree with these statements by Senator McConnell, Senator 
Sessions, and Senator Cornyn, and I think the statements they have made 
give them good reason to vote for the DISCLOSE Act, which they 
initially opposed and I hope, in reconsideration, might favor.
  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.
  As a voter, I would want to know who paid for the political ad, and I 
do not want foreign companies trying to buy our elections. Shouldn't we 
know if some foreign corporation is buying ads to defeat an American 
politician? Shouldn't we have that disclosure? That is what the 
DISCLOSE Act says, and those who oppose it oppose that kind of 
disclosure.
  As a taxpayer, I don't want big companies with more than $10 million 
in Federal contracts to be able to buy ads to curry favor with those 
Congressmen and Senators who happen to want to help them without 
disclosing who they are. Is it too much to ask that someone who has a 
vested interest in government contracts and buys ads to influence the 
outcome of an election to elect a Senator or Congressman who will vote 
their way at a minimum disclose who they are?
  As a shareholder of a company, I want to know what political 
activities the management of that company is spending my company's 
money on. If the board of directors or one member or the CEO decides to 
spend several million dollars defeating a candidate, should the people 
who own the company, the shareholders, at least know that and be in on 
the decision?
  The DISCLOSE Act would help with all these goals. It would make CEOs 
and other leaders take personal responsibility for their ads. It would 
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. It would prevent foreign companies from contributing 
to the outcome of our election. It would mandate that corporations, 
unions, and other groups disclose their campaign activities to 
shareholders and members in their annual and periodic reports. It would 
bar large government contractors from receiving taxpayer funds and then 
using that money to buy campaign ads. It would restrict companies from 
sponsoring a candidate. It is all common sense.
  Let me be clear. I personally think we should go further to change 
the way we finance campaigns. I am the author and lead sponsor of 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 those high-rolling candidates who have personal 
wealth. That would change

[[Page 16115]]

the system fundamentally, to move toward a system of public financing. 
Those who criticize it should take heart from the States that have 
brought it to a referendum, which have said repeatedly that they would 
much rather have public financing and take the special interests out of 
politics even if it meant imposing a tax--as we do, for example, with 
corporations doing business with the Federal Government--a tiny tax, 
which would generate enough money for the campaigns across the Congress 
and get us out of this money chase we are currently in. It would change 
the system of politics fundamentally. It would put the average citizen 
back in the picture, and I think it would begin to restore confidence.
  Until we change the way we finance campaigns, I do not believe we can 
restore confidence in our political system to a level that it should 
be. But in the wake of the Citizens United decision, we are moving in 
the opposite direction. Allowing companies to spend freely and directly 
on political campaigns--we should at least have the transparency that 
is being asked in the DISCLOSE bill. Is it asking too much to require a 
group or company to at least mention who is sponsoring an ad so the 
American people know who is paying for it? I don't think it is. Once 
upon a time, many Republicans agreed with me.
  I will close with one more quote from the Senator from Kentucky, the 
minority leader, from an interview years ago on ``Meet the Press.'' 
Here is what he said: ``Republicans are in favor of disclosure.'' We 
hope they will be in favor of the DISCLOSE Act, which calls for 
disclosure. You can't state a position much more clearly than the 
Senator did. I hope they still feel that way. I hope Senate Republicans 
will join us in a meaningful disclosure method for campaign finance 
reform that will move us in the direction of giving the voters more 
information so they can decide which candidates they want to support 
and know who is supporting different causes and candidates.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not sure what the parliamentary situation is, but 
I am going to proceed under my leader time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________