[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16128-16134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DISCLOSE ACT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the 25 years I have had the privilege of 
serving in the Senate, I have regrettably, in the course of almost 
every election period, with one brief exception when we had the McCain-
Feingold bill in place, seen our system of funding campaigns become 
increasingly broken. The truth is, a lot of the anger the American 
people feel today--rightfully--for the absence of this Congress--not 
just this particular session but the Congress of the United States 
being able to directly address the concerns of the American people--a 
lot of that anger really ought to be directed at the system itself, at 
the fact that we have locked in place funding of campaigns that robs 
the American people of their voice, that steals the legitimacy of our 
democracy, and concentrates decisionmaking in the hands of the 
powerful, individuals with a lot of money or powerful corporations with 
a lot of money.
  Money is driving American politics. Money is driving the American 
political agenda. Money decides what gets heard and does not get heard 
around here, what gets acted on and does not, and how it gets acted on 
in many cases. Every so often we have bubbling up a legitimate kind of 
citizen energy that motivates one particular reaction here or another, 
whether it is a tax bill or a particular piece of legislation for 
women, pay, but it is rare now. It is actually rare that the kind of 
grassroots effort that traditionally we think of when we think of 
legitimate democracy, that it is felt in its appropriate ways.
  The truth is, the increased influence of special interest money, big 
money in our politics, is robbing the average citizen of his or her 
voice in setting America's agenda. There are far more poor people, 
there are far more children, there are far more interests that don't 
get represented. We constantly see, like the debate we have had 
recently over carried interest, for instance, or a number of other 
interests here get as much time and as much debate over one or two of 
those single issues as some of those that affect a far greater 
proportion of the population.
  As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Citizens 
United, we have seen an incredible step backwards from accountability, 
a step backwards from preserving our democracy, and an incredible gift 
to the power of money. In the last few years, under the McCain-Feingold 
bill and under our rules, at least if a company wanted to participate 
in the election, it had to go out and ask its executives to contribute. 
We went through the sort of charade of having a fundraising event at 
which a whole bunch of executives would have to show up or people who 
worked for a company, and they wrote a check. The checks were bundled 
together, and there were your contributions. But at least there was 
accountability. At least people knew those people had contributed. At 
least people saw where it was coming from and who it was coming from.
  Under the Citizens United decision, all a CEO has to do is put it in 
the budget of the corporation. The corporation can budget annually. We 
are going to put $2 million, and the CEO can turn that money over in 
its totality to some group that is formed to destroy somebody's 
reputation with a lot of lies, just pour the money over. That is it. 
Total secrecy. We don't even get to know who gave the money. No 
accountability. They just turn the money over to lobbyists who run the 
media campaigns to help their friends and defeat their opponents in 
Congress. We can have the best Congress. People have always said that 
money buys people in public life. But this is a step toward the 
greatest certification of that I have ever seen. It sends a chilling 
message to candidates without means, which is most candidates, that 
they can't combat the bottomless pocket of a K Street lobbyist who has 
some cabal of corporations that want to pour a bunch of money in to get 
their special interests protected.
  So American workers in Ohio or Indiana or any other State who wonder 
why those jobs went overseas, there is a tax benefit that helps those 
companies actually take those jobs overseas. Why is that tax benefit 
there? Why do we have thousands upon thousands of pages of special 
interest tax provisions in our Tax Code? Because the lobbyists and the 
powerful people are able to be heard, and they are able to work their 
will. They are able to make that happen.
  Now we have a rule, because the Supreme Court ruled that corporations 
are like people and have the same rights. So we have a new assault on 
America's democracy. I mean that. It is an assault on our democracy. We 
have always had money in the marketplace of politics. We understand 
that. For years people have tried to find one way or another of trying 
to address that concern. This is not a new concern of the American 
people. It is hard to say where we are headed, all of us, in our 
careers in public life. I am, obviously, on the back end of that 
runway, but I am stunned by what the impact of this is going to mean to 
our country and to the ability of average voices to be heard.
  The humorist Will Rogers once quipped that ``politics has gotten so 
expensive, it takes a lot of money even to get beat.'' But Will Rogers 
would be stunned by the amount of money in politics today.
  In 2008, a record total of $5.2 billion was spent by all the 
Presidential, Senate, and House candidates. When I ran for President in 
2004 on a national

[[Page 16129]]

basis, we spent $4.1 billion. That broke the 2000 record when Al Gore 
ran of $3.1 billion. So we go from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion to $5.2 
billion.
  Now we have a new rule. All these secret funds can come into the 
political process. We have already broken the record in 2010 from the 
2006 race by a huge amount. I think the total amount of money spent in 
2006, which was an off Presidential year, was about somewhere around 
$700 something million, $800 million. We are well over $1.2, $1.3 
billion already in this cycle. That is just the campaign spending. That 
is the direct money that goes into the campaigns.
  But last year, special interests spent a record of $3.47 billion 
hiring lobbyists. The rest of the country might have been suffering 
from a recession, but it was a great year for K Street in Washington, a 
5-percent increase in fees over the previous year.
  President Obama's ``change'' agenda stirred up so many people who 
were going to be opposed to it from the very beginning--health care, 
banking regulation, all the things that have undermined Americans in 
the last years--they wanted to preserve the status quo. They sat up, 
and they came up with about $1.3 million spent per minute in 2009. That 
is the amount the watchdog group, Center for Responsive Politics, 
arrived at when they took the $3.47 billion that lobbyists collected 
and divided it by the number of hours Congress was in session in 2009. 
It comes out to $1.3 million per minute spent to try to hold on to the 
status quo.
  Now thanks to the Supreme Court, it is a lot easier for special 
interests to finance and orchestrate contrived political movements. 
Unbelievably, the Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have 
the same right to speech as individuals. Therefore, they can spend 
unlimited amounts of money in elections.
  I remember from my days in law school learning distinctly that a 
corporation is a fictitious entity. It is a fictitious entity created 
as a matter of law to protect the corporation in the conduct of its 
economic business, not to protect it in the context of giving it the 
same rights as an individual with respect to speech. For a Supreme 
Court of the United States to somehow put a corporation on the same 
plane as the individual citizen is absolutely extraordinary.
  As a result, we are now seeing a whole bunch of spending by shadowy 
groups run by long-time Republican Party officials and activists that 
is going to end up in the hundreds of millions of dollars, money that 
cannot be traced to its source. How do Members feel about that? How do 
Americans feel about the millions of dollars being spent and they don't 
know who is spending it? Unaccountable democracy.
  What we are talking about, I suppose, means little to the 
corporations compared to what they are going to get in terms of 
blocking a regulation. We have people here who want to delay the 
regulations for clean air. They are going to come in here and try to 
say: We can't proceed now to have clean air. We have to delay it. So 
more coal fumes will pollute the air and more people will get sick and 
so forth. But they will try to work their way, and they have a lot of 
money to try to do it with.
  The Supreme Court's ruling also clears the way for the domestic 
subsidiary of a foreign corporation to spend unlimited amounts to 
influence our elections.
  I want people to think about that. A foreign corporation and a 
national of a foreign country are barred under the law from 
contributing to Federal or State elections. But nothing in the law bars 
the foreign subsidiary incorporated in the United States from doing so. 
Those subsidiaries do not answer to the American people. They answer to 
their corporate parents way off in some other country. That means that 
in no uncertain way a foreign corporation can indeed play in an 
American election, and clever people will not have a hard time in 
covering that trail.
  So today, on the floor of the Senate, in Washington, DC, in the year 
of the tea party--when the tea party is asking for accountability, and 
the tea party is asking for sunshine, and they want reform--I would 
like to hear the tea party stand up today and say: Republicans ought to 
vote overwhelmingly to have sunshine on the funding process of our 
campaigns.
  The DISCLOSE Act, on which we will vote today, does not amend the 
Constitution. It is not going to overturn the Supreme Court decision 
that equated the rights of people--I would think the tea party ought to 
be excoriated over the notion that a corporation has been given the 
same rights as the Constitution gives to an individual. But it does not 
even overturn that. It does not even constitute campaign finance 
reform. All it does is shine the disinfectant of sunlight on 
corporations and faceless organizations that are trying to buy and 
bully their way in Washington through campaigns run against Members who 
disagree with them.
  The DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, organizations, and special 
interest groups to stand by their political advertising, just like any 
candidate for office, and it requires the CEO of a company to identify 
themselves in their advertisements. And corporations and organizations 
would be required to disclose their political expenditures.
  Is that asking too much, that the American people get to know who is 
spending the money to influence them so that maybe they will have the 
ability to judge whether there might be a little bias in that ad or 
there might be a little personal interest in that ad, there might be a 
reason they are getting the information they are getting, the way they 
are getting it?
  That is all we are asking. It is not radical. It is not prohibitive. 
It simply removes the false notion that Americans are somehow 
voluntarily organizing all across this country in order to pursue a 
public interest. The fact is, corporate special interest money is being 
compiled and targeted to pursue a special interest and to send a loud 
televised message to those who disagree with them that they are going 
to be punished for disagreeing. If that practice is not disclosed and 
tempered, it is not only going to tip elections, it is going to 
cripple--cripple--the legislative process more than it has already been 
crippled in these past few years.
  Instead of negotiating with each other in the public interest in the 
Congress, Members of Congress find themselves asking corporations--
supposedly subject to the law and will of the American people--they ask 
them whether it is OK with them whether we regulate or legislate and 
release their allies to vote in favor of one thing or another. And 
guess what. No surprise to the American people, those corporations 
almost always refuse to do so.
  So when the Citizens United decision was handed down, the voices 
seeking support from these corporations argued it would have no effect 
on the American political process. They said: We don't need to worry 
about new funneling of funds to candidates. But the record already says 
otherwise. The truth is, Karl Rove admitted that based on the Citizens 
United decision, he has formed two new groups specifically, because 
this decision empowered him to do it, to influence the 2010 elections 
with $52 million of ads bankrolled anonymously by special interests.
  Now that the Supreme Court has opened the door to these anonymous 
ads, a lot of other groups are planning to spend approximately $300 
million or more on the elections this fall. Already we have seen 
incredible disparity. I think the total spent by these anonymous groups 
attacking Democratic candidates around the country is over $30 million. 
The total amount the Democrats have had available to them, because they 
do not have as much money, and they do not represent those powerful 
groups, is about $3 million. Seven to one is the ratio.
  All you have to do is begin to analyze these ads, and you can see 
exactly what the message is and why it is coming.
  So here is the deal: Whether you agree with the ads or not is not 
what is at issue on the floor of the Senate today. At a minimum, I 
would hope our colleagues would support the idea that messages that are 
sent in American politics, advertisements that are made

[[Page 16130]]

for or against a candidate, advertisements that are made for or against 
a particular idea, that those ought to be sent openly; that they ought 
to be sent in an accountable way so the American people--which is what 
this is all about, this institution, this house, the Senate, the House. 
All of this comes from the words ``We the People,'' and we have been 
hearing those words, ``We the People'' all over America from the tea 
party and from others who are trying to remind people what that is all 
about. This vote is all about that today, and their outrage ought to be 
summoned all across the country to shed the sunlight on this political 
process and hold it accountable.
  If our friends come to the floor this afternoon and vote en bloc 
against it, let me tell you, that is a declarative statement about 
whose interests are being protected and what is at stake in this 
election as we go into this November.
  The stakes for the American people are simply too high to let special 
interests hide behind faceless and unidentified campaigns. I cannot 
think of anything that is less American than secret money going into 
campaigns to try to affect the choices of the American people.
  This is an opportunity for us to truly speak for the American people, 
and I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise to voice my support for the 
DISCLOSE Act.
  The DISCLOSE Act has to do with the Citizens United case, where the 
Supreme Court went out of its way to overturn nearly 100 years of 
statutes and settled precedent that had established the authority of 
the Congress to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in 
Federal elections. It is a truly astounding decision, and it broke with 
all precedent for 100 years.
  The Court ruled--and this takes a little bit, and you have to suspend 
your mind to get this right--that corporations are absolutely free to 
spend shareholder money with the intent to promote the election or 
defeat of a candidate for political office. The corporations have 
freedom of speech. This is astounding.
  Beyond ignoring precedent, the Court's reckless, immodest, and 
activist opinion failed to distinguish between the rights of purpose-
built political advocacy corporations and profit-driven, large 
corporations to direct resources to influence elections. They came in 
and ruled that any corporation can spend corporate money on whatever 
races they want. By issuing the broadest possible opinion, the majority 
admitted of no differences between Citizens United and any major 
multinational corporation.
  But this decision left important questions unresolved. Who determines 
what candidates the major multinational corporation supports or 
opposes? Think about it. Here are corporations run by managers. We all 
know the problems with boards of directors, and we have seen what has 
gone on in the last years with decisions by corporations. But they 
never said who in the corporation gets to make the decision. Can a 
manager of the corporation or a CEO say I am going to throw $40 million 
or $50 million into the political pot or should he have to go to 
shareholders to get it? That is a gigantic amount of money in politics, 
but it is a mere pittance to a large corporation. Who determines what 
candidates the major multinational corporation supports or opposes? The 
boards of directors? The CEO? The employees? All these groups and 
individuals serve the corporation for the benefit of the shareholders.
  How will the shareholders of these corporations learn who makes these 
decisions within the corporation? Even so, how are we to determine what 
speech the shareholders favor? How do you do that? You are running a 
corporation and you get up one morning and decide you are going to go 
against candidate X or Y. Have you asked your shareholders what to do 
with their money or whether they want to be against or for candidate X 
or Y? How is that decision made? Do we care if the shareholders are 
U.S. citizens or citizens of an economic, political, or military rival 
of the United States? The way this thing rules is that a corporation 
that is under the control of an economic, political, and military rival 
of ours anywhere in the world can now be involved in our campaigns. 
That is something we have never done before.
  As it stands now, Citizens United allows corporate interests to 
prevail over the rights of American citizens--that is it, pure and 
simple--because they have so much in assets. A speaker in California 
said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Most Americans know 
that and they decry it. With this decision, it allows corporate 
interests to prevail over American citizens and overwhelms the 
contributions and the voices of shareholders and individuals, and it 
ultimately makes elected officials even more beholden to corporations.
  I tell you what, I don't have to do a survey to find out that most 
Americans don't want elected officials more beholden to corporations, 
and I am a corporate guy. There is nothing wrong with corporations. But 
the American people don't want corporations having more control over 
elected officials.
  Boardroom executives must not be permitted to raid the corporate 
coffers to promote personal political beliefs or to curry personal 
favor with elected politicians. That result is bad for corporations, 
bad for shareholders, and bad for government. We must ensure that the 
corporation speaks with the voice of its shareholders, and that those 
who would utilize the corporate forum to magnify their political 
influence do not do so for improper personal gain or to impose the will 
of a foreign power on American citizens.
  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has left us without the tools to 
directly affect any of these compelling public interests. The DISCLOSE 
Act cannot entirely undo the activism of the Roberts Court and shut off 
the spigot of corrupting corporate funds because they say it is 
unconstitutional. The Congress cannot overcome a constitutional 
violation that was made by the Supreme Court. That is fundamental to 
our system. But it will serve as a bulwark against the flood of 
corporate money and help resolve the open questions created by the 
Court in Citizens United.
  The act will shine a spotlight on corporate spending and prevent 
corporations from speaking anonymously by increasing disclosure and 
strengthening transparency in Federal campaigns.
  Transparency--if you came to the floor since Buckley v. Valeo, in 
1974, the first campaign finance ruling, you would have found my 
colleagues, led by their majority leader, speaking passionately about 
transparency, transparency, transparency. Now we have a bill where no 
one knows who is spending the money, and there is no movement on the 
other side. In fact, there is a filibuster against this bill, which 
would allow transparency. That is the main thing to do. It can't change 
the rules because the Supreme Court says it is then constitutional. We 
are trying to deal with transparency, something that has been a 
hallmark--if you take a debate over the last 30 years on financing of 
elections and put all of those papers up on a wall, and you throw a 
dart, the chance that you would hit a Member on the other side of the 
aisle talking about transparency is pretty high.
  So you have to ask: Why would they be opposed to shining a spotlight 
on corporate spending and prevent corporations from anonymously 
increasing disclosure and increasing transparency in Federal campaigns?
  Not only does the act require the corporation, organization, and 
special interest groups to stand by their political advertising like a 
candidate running for office--when we had McCain-Feingold, I think most 
Americans

[[Page 16131]]

liked this. If you were going to put up an ad, you would say: I am Ted 
Kaufman and I approve this ad. There were a lot of jokes about it, but 
you knew who paid for the ad. But they don't want to do this with 
corporate money. I can go to a big corporation and start a committee to 
save the world, and I can pour $35 million into it and spend it around 
the country, and I never have to disclose that it is me.
  Under this act, CEOs would be required to identify themselves in 
their advertisements just like political candidates, and corporations 
and organizations will be required to disclose their political 
expenditures.
  All we are asking is, if a corporation spends $35 million on a 
political race, they have to disclose that, like elected officials and 
everybody else has to do now. The other thing we say is, if a 
corporation is going to spend money in a race, the person in charge--
the CEO--has to say what every elected official and Federal 
officeholder has had to say in recent years, since McCain-Feingold--
that ``I am Joe Brown and I support this ad.'' Disclosure is exactly 
what our friends on the other side of the aisle were supporting.
  Directors of public companies may still be able to hijack shareholder 
money to promote their own narrow interests. But thanks to the DISCLOSE 
Act, shareholders will be able to determine when they have done so.
  The act will prevent foreign-controlled corporations from secretly 
manipulating elections by funneling money to front groups to fund last-
minute attack ads and other anonymous election advertisements. But they 
can also be 6 months in advance. Last minute is because you don't want 
them to know you did an ad. They can do it 6 months before the 
election, and nobody knows who did the ad.
  If we fail to respond to the threat that the Citizens United decision 
poses to our democracy, then I fear the public confidence in its 
government will continue to erode, precisely when bold congressional 
action is needed. It is not bad enough that the Congress has an 
incredibly low approval rating. You vote for someone because you think 
they are X, and all the time they are being supported by corporation Y. 
Our ability to meet the Nation's pressing needs depends on our ability 
to earn and maintain the public's trust. That is what we have all 
learned and know.
  How do you maintain public trust? To not get involved in this bait 
and switch, where there is an organization saying one thing and it is 
doing something else. Earning that trust--the trust of the American 
people--will be all the more difficult in a world in which corporate 
money is allowed to drown out the voice of individuals and corrupt the 
political process. This is basic to our society and what we believe in. 
The American people deserve much better. I think it is important that 
we pass the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I heard what the Senator from Delaware 
said. He has been a very valuable member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and of this body itself. We all listen to what he says. He is 
not saying this out of any sense of what it might do in an election for 
him, he is retiring this year. We ought to listen to somebody who has 
no stake in this, other than as a citizen who cares what happens to our 
democracy. I thank my friend from Delaware for speaking out, as he 
always does so clearly.
  We are going to try again this week to take action to help stem the 
tide of corporate influence that was unleashed when, earlier this year, 
five unelected Supreme Court Justices overturned 100 years of precedent 
in the Citizens United decision. When we last tried to correct this 
prior to the August recess. We brought up the DISCLOSE Act. Republicans 
filibustered the bill. It never allowed the Senate to even debate the 
legislation. Many of us argued that without even going to the 
legislation, we faced real problems, and those have been borne out. We 
have seen massive corporate spending, drowning out the voices of hard-
working Americans.
  I heard somebody say in Vermont: ``Do you mean if you have somebody 
who is trying to stop counterfeit goods coming from China''--or to use 
another example, ``trying to stop the flood of toys that have too much 
lead in them that will endanger our children--and you have a Member of 
Congress who goes out and works to tighten the law so they can't do it, 
are you telling me that Chinese company can set up a small corporation 
here in the United States and spend a fortune to defeat the person who 
is trying to protect our children, to defeat the person who is trying 
to stop lead in toys? And do you mean in defeating the person who is 
trying to protect our children they could do it without anybody ever 
knowing where the money was coming?'' I said: That is the result of the 
Citizens United decision.
  They could not understand that. But I tell my fellow Vermonters, with 
election day less than 2 months away, hundreds of millions of dollars 
of corporate interest group funds have been spent or pledged to be 
spent on political advertising and election activities. The American 
people deserve better than that.
  We have seen filibusters, once a rarely used part of Senate 
procedure, become a regular tool for obstruction in the Senate on issue 
after issue. No matter how much the American people want an issue voted 
on, we end up having a filibuster blocking it. That obstruction has led 
to delays in considering legislation meant to protect the American 
people, as well as an alarming and almost unprecedented rise in 
judicial vacancies because Republicans will not allow votes on judges. 
Here, in an area fundamental to our democracy, it is clear the American 
people continue paying the price unless Congress takes action. 
Americans should expect bipartisan support for any legislation designed 
to prevent corporations from taking over elections, corporations from 
deciding elections, instead of the people who are affected by them.
  This legislation does that, and I hope the Senators on the other side 
will stop filibustering this legislation. I cannot help but think on 
these filibusters--do you know what it is? It allows one to say: I am 
going to vote maybe. We were elected and paid to vote yes or no, not 
maybe. Those who keep using the filibuster to prevent a vote on serious 
matters can go home and say: That matter has not come up. I have not 
voted on that. I am on your side, whichever side you are on, because I 
never voted. I voted maybe. That is what these filibusters are. They 
are voting maybe because you do not have the courage to stand and vote 
yes or no.
  In Citizens United, five Supreme Court Justices cast aside a century 
of law and opened the floodgates for corporations to drown out 
individual voices in our elections. Five overruled every law passed by 
Congress or other courts over the years. That broad scope of the 
decision was unnecessary, it was improper, and it was one of the 
greatest grasps for power I have ever seen. At the expense of hard-
working men and women in this country, the Supreme Court ruled that 
corporations could become the predominant influence in our elections 
for years to come. These unelected members of the Supreme Court said: 
We are going to let corporations decide your elections, not the hard-
working men and women who are affected by the elections. We have 
already seen the consequences. Corporations have injected more money 
than ever into primary races and now general elections across the 
country, and they can do it without ever even saying which corporation 
is emptying their treasuries to do this. We need to at least have some 
transparency to this new-found access.
  We have heard from Americans of all political persuasions who express 
overwhelming concern over the impact of the Citizens United decision, 
as the threat it poses to our electoral process is readily apparent. We 
have a constitutional duty to work to restore a meaningful role for all 
Americans in the political process. Vote yes or vote no. Be willing to 
stand on one side or the other of the issue, not a filibuster which 
allows you to duck facing responsibilities as a Senator, not a 
filibuster to a motion to proceed because

[[Page 16132]]

that is a vote to ignore the real-world impact this decision is already 
having on our democratic process. I call on Senators: Have the courage 
to take a position. Do not vote maybe so you can go back home and say: 
That issue has not come up. Have the courage, have the honesty. Vote 
yes or no.
  The DISCLOSE Act is a measure I support to moderate the impact of the 
Citizens United decision. I will vote for it. The DISCLOSE Act will add 
transparency to the campaign finance laws to help ensure corporations 
cannot abuse their new-found Supreme Court-made Constitutional rights.
  This legislation will preserve the voices of hard-working Americans 
in the political process by limiting the ability of foreign 
corporations to influence American elections. Can you imagine a proud 
country such as ours, we are willing, because of the decision of five 
people, to allow foreign corporations to come in and meddle in our 
political process? We are going to prohibit corporations from receiving 
taxpayer money when contributing to elections. Are you going to say to 
the taxpayers: We are going to tax you, and then we are going to give 
the money to determine who might give us more taxes? We are going to 
increase disclosure requirements of corporate contributions, among 
other things.
  It is hard to overstate the potential for harm in the aftermath of 
the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act is necessary to prevent 
corruption in our political system because the Citizens United decision 
brings about corruption in our political system. The DISCLOSE Act will 
protect the credibility of our elections because the Citizens United 
case diminishes credibility for our elections. If we do not do that, we 
are not going to maintain the trust of the American people. While some 
on the other side of the aisle praise the Citizens United decision as a 
victory for the First Amendment, what they fail to recognize is that 
these new rights for corporations come at the expense of the free 
speech rights of all Americans. That much is already clear. There is no 
longer any doubt that the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate 
all mediums of advertising is quieting the voices of individuals who do 
not have the deep pockets and the unlimited resources of these 
corporations.
  Citizens United is only the latest example of which a thin majority 
of the Supreme Court places its own preferences over the will of hard-
working Americans. The campaign finance reforms of the landmark McCain-
Feingold Act were the product of lengthy debate in Congress as to the 
proper role of corporate money in the electoral process and passed by 
bipartisan majorities.
  Those laws strengthened the rights of individual voters while 
carefully preserving the integrity of the political process. But with 
the stroke of a pen, five Justices--unelected Justices--cast aside 
those years of deliberation and substituted their own preferences over 
the will of Congress and the American people.
  Vermont is a state with a rich tradition of involvement in the 
democratic process. We see it in March at our Town Meeting Day. But it 
is also a small state, and it would take so little for a few 
corporations to outspend all our local candidates--Republicans and 
Democrats alike. Come on. A megacorporation could, in effect, try to 
control all the government of our small state. It is easy to imagine 
corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads and 
transforming the nature of Vermont campaigning. This is not what 
Vermonters expect of their politics. The DISCLOSE Act is the first step 
toward ensuring Vermonters and all Americans can remain confident that 
their voices are going to be heard in the political process, not an 
unseen, unknown corporation with a whole lot of money.
  The Citizens United decision grants corporations the same 
constitutional free speech rights as individual Americans. Who could 
possibly have imagined what the Framers of the Constitution would have 
thought of that? Remember the opening words of our Constitution: ``We 
the People of the United States . . . '' It does not say we the people 
and a few megacorporations of the United States. In the Constitution, 
the Founders spoke of guaranteeing fundamental rights for the American 
people, not to corporations, which is mentioned nowhere in the 
Constitution. The time is now to ensure our campaign finance laws 
reflect this important distinction.
  The American people want their voices heard in the coming election. I 
look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important 
legislation to ensure the DISCLOSE Act is enacted into law. At the very 
least, our constituents deserve a debate in the Senate on this 
legislation. Have the courage and the honesty to vote yes or no, not to 
hide behind a filibuster and get away with voting maybe. What does that 
do for their constituents?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the same topic 
about which the senior Senator from Vermont just spoke. We are grateful 
for his leadership on so many issues but especially those that involve 
the Judiciary Committee, the committee of which he has been chairman. 
He has been a great example. I will not try to repeat or replicate his 
message but to reinforce what Senator Leahy and others have said 
already in this debate.
  For people who do not follow campaigns day to day or even week to 
week--a lot of people are making a living and struggling through a 
tough economy, so they are not always engaged in day-to-day politics. 
Generally, the way it works in this country, whether it is a State such 
as Pennsylvania, New York or Vermont or any State in the Union, for the 
most part, with some exceptions, we have candidates who declare their 
candidacy for office. They have to file paperwork. They have to fill 
out ethics forms and provide other disclosures as a candidate.
  Then candidates, as they are running and raising money, have to make 
reports about their donors. That happens all the time in State races 
and in Federal races where someone gives you a contribution of any 
size, that has to be reported. Some States might have a cutoff below a 
certain dollar amount.
  If you are running in an election and someone gives you a 
contribution of $25,000 or $100,000, people ought to know about that. 
They ought to know who is funding your campaign.
  Even in the Federal system, we have limits on contributions. But 
while a candidate is running, they file reports that tell the voters 
who is supporting them. It is a basic foundational principle of the way 
we run elections.
  Now we are faced with a situation, because of the Citizens United 
case, where those basic rules about how candidates are influenced or 
impacted by contributions, what corporations and entities do in an 
election--all that is turned on its head.
  Basically, what this Supreme Court decision means is, you can have a 
corporate entity--I am not sure there is anyone in America who does not 
think corporations already have too much influence. Let's set that 
aside. They have plenty of influence in elections. Right now any 
corporation at any time can spend any amount of money they want.
  We do not have any information, unless the law is changed, about 
their donors, who is paying for that influence, who is paying for those 
advertisements. The corporate entity does not even have to identify 
itself. They can call themselves the XYZ company or XYZ campaign and 
come in and run ads positively or negatively, for or against, 
candidates in an unlimited way. It violates the basic rule we have all 
operated under, which is: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you 
want to bring some light to the darkness, especially the darkness that 
will envelop a lot of campaigns, then I guess you would be in favor of 
not having a statute passed such as the DISCLOSE Act.
  It is very simple. Others have gone through it, so I will not walk 
through every provision, but one of the first provisions is mandating 
expanded disclosure and disclaimer requirements for certain 
communications by corporations, unions, and certain tax-exempt 
organizations.

[[Page 16133]]

  What is wrong with that? Why shouldn't we have that? For the most 
part, we have had that for years. Now we don't have that due to the 
Supreme Court decision. So we should make sure that is the law again.
  Second, the legislation would require covered organizations to report 
information about their donors and spending for certain independent 
expenditures and electioneering communications.
  Why shouldn't someone voting in 2010, or in any year, have 
information about the entity that is spending the money, and especially 
the donors supporting that entity. It is a free country. They can 
exercise their right to free speech, but the idea that it has to be 
shrouded in darkness and secrecy----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair.
  And, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a New York Times article of September 20, 2010, entitled ``Donor 
Names Remain Secret as Rules Shift.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 20, 2010]

                Donor Names Remain Secret as Rules Shift

                  (By Michael Luo and Stephanie Strom)

       Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies would certainly 
     seem to the casual observer to be a political organization: 
     Karl Rove, a political adviser to President George W. Bush, 
     helped raise money for it; the group is run by a cadre of 
     experienced political hands; it has spent millions of dollars 
     on television commercials attacking Democrats in key Senate 
     races across the country.
       Yet the Republican operatives who created the group earlier 
     this year set it up as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, so 
     its primary purpose, by law, is not supposed to be political.
       The rule of thumb, in fact, is that more than 50 percent of 
     a 501(c)(4)'s activities cannot be political. But that has 
     not stopped Crossroads and a raft of other nonprofit advocacy 
     groups like it--mostly on the Republican side, so far--from 
     becoming some of the biggest players in this year's midterm 
     elections, in part because of the anonymity they afford 
     donors, prompting outcries from campaign finance watchdogs.
       The chances, however, that the flotilla of groups will draw 
     much legal scrutiny for their campaign activities seem slim, 
     because the organizations, which have been growing in 
     popularity as conduits for large, unrestricted donations 
     among both Republicans and Democrats since the 2006 election, 
     fall into something of a regulatory netherworld.
       Neither the Internal Revenue Service, which has 
     jurisdiction over nonprofits, nor the Federal Election 
     Commission, which regulates the financing of federal races, 
     appears likely to examine them closely, according to campaign 
     finance watchdogs, lawyers who specialize in the field and 
     current and former federal officials.
       A revamped regulatory landscape this year has elevated the 
     attractiveness to political operatives of groups like 
     Crossroads and others, organized under the auspices of 
     Section 501(c) of the tax code. Unlike so-called 527 
     political organizations, which can also accept donations of 
     unlimited size, 501(c) groups have the advantage of usually 
     not having to disclose their donors' identity.
       This is arguably more important than ever after the Supreme 
     Court decision in the Citizens United case earlier this year 
     that eased restrictions on corporate spending on campaigns.
       Interviews with a half-dozen campaign finance lawyers 
     yielded an anecdotal portrait of corporate political spending 
     since the Citizens United decision. They agreed that most 
     prominent, publicly traded companies are staying on the 
     sidelines.
       But other companies, mostly privately held, and often small 
     to medium size, are jumping in, mainly on the Republican 
     side. Almost all of them are doing so through 501(c) 
     organizations, as opposed to directly sponsoring 
     advertisements themselves, the lawyers said.
       ``I can tell you from personal experience, the money's 
     flowing,'' said Michael E. Toner, a former Republican F.E.C. 
     commissioner, now in private practice at the firm Bryan Cave.
       The growing popularity of the groups is making the gaps in 
     oversight of them increasingly worrisome among those mindful 
     of the influence of money on politics.
       ``The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on 
     corporate spending on elections,'' said Taylor Lincoln, 
     research director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a 
     watchdog group. ``And 501(c) serves as a haven for these 
     front groups to run electioneering ads and keep their donors 
     completely secret.''
       Almost all of the biggest players among third-party groups, 
     in terms of buying television time in House and Senate races 
     since August, have been 501(c) organizations, and their 
     purchases have heavily favored Republicans, according to data 
     from Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political 
     advertising.
       They include 501(c)(4) ``social welfare'' organizations, 
     like Crossroads, which has been the top spender on Senate 
     races, and Americans for Prosperity, another pro-Republican 
     group that has been the leader on the House side; 501(c)(5) 
     labor unions, which have been supporting Democrats; and 
     501(c)(6) trade associations, like the United States Chamber 
     of Commerce, which has been spending heavily in support of 
     Republicans.
       Charities organized under Section 501(c)(3) are largely 
     prohibited from political activity because they offer their 
     donors tax deductibility.
       Campaign finance watchdogs have raised the most questions 
     about the political activities of the ``social welfare'' 
     organizations. The burden of monitoring such groups falls in 
     large part on the I.R.S. But lawyers, campaign finance 
     watchdogs and former I.R.S. officials say the agency has had 
     little incentive to police the groups because the revenue-
     collecting potential is small, and because its main function 
     is not to oversee the integrity of elections.
       The I.R.S. division with oversight of tax-exempt 
     organizations ``is understaffed, underfunded and operating 
     under a tax system designed to collect taxes, not as a 
     regulatory mechanism,'' said Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer who 
     once led that unit and now works for Caplin & Drysdale, a law 
     firm popular with liberals seeking to set up nonprofit 
     groups.
       In fact, the I.R.S. is unlikely to know that some of these 
     groups exist until well after the election because they are 
     not required to seek the agency's approval until they file 
     their first tax forms--more than a year after they begin 
     activity.
       ``These groups are popping up like mushrooms after a rain 
     right now, and many of them will be out of business by late 
     November,'' Mr. Owens said. ``Technically, they would have 
     until January 2012 at the earliest to file anything with the 
     I.R.S. It's a farce.''
       A report by the Treasury Department's inspector general for 
     tax administration this year revealed that the I.R.S. was not 
     even reviewing the required filings of 527 groups, which have 
     increasingly been supplanted by 501(c)(4) organizations.
       Social welfare nonprofits are permitted to do an unlimited 
     amount of lobbying on issues related to their primary 
     purpose, but there are limits on campaigning for or against 
     specific candidates.
       I.R.S. officials cautioned that what may seem like 
     political activity to the average lay person might not be 
     considered as such under the agency's legal criteria.
       ``Federal tax law specifically distinguishes among 
     activities to influence legislation through lobbying, to 
     support or oppose a specific candidate for election and to do 
     general advocacy to influence public opinion on issues,'' 
     said Sarah Hall Ingram, commissioner of the I.R.S. division 
     that oversees nonprofits. As a result, rarely do 
     advertisements by 501(c)(4) groups explicitly call for the 
     election or defeat of candidates. Instead, they typically 
     attack their positions on issues.
       Steven Law, president of Crossroads GPS, said what 
     distinguished the group from its sister organization, 
     American Crossroads, which is registered with the F.E.C. as a 
     political committee, was that Crossroads GPS was focused over 
     the longer term on advocating on ``a suite of issues that are 
     likely to see some sort of legislative response.'' American 
     Crossroads' efforts are geared toward results in this year's 
     elections, Mr. Law said.
       Since August, however, Crossroads GPS has spent far more on 
     television advertising on Senate races than American 
     Crossroads, which must disclose its donors.
       The elections commission could, theoretically, step in and 
     rule that groups like Crossroads GPS should register as 
     political committees, which would force them to disclose 
     their donors. But that is unlikely because of the current 
     make-up of the commission and the regulatory environment, 
     campaign finance lawyers and watchdog groups said. Four out 
     of six commissioners are needed to order an investigation of 
     a group. But the three Republican commissioners are inclined 
     to give these groups leeway.
       Donald F. McGahn, a Republican commissioner, said the 
     current commission and the way the Republican members, in 
     particular, read the case law, gave such groups ``quite a bit 
     of latitude.''

  Mr. CASEY. Basically, in this article we have a news organization--
among many--that is saying donor names are being kept secret. The other 
problem we have, of course, is foreign nationals are coming into the 
United States and spending money to influence elections. So this is not 
complicated. It is very simple. Either there is going to be sunlight 
and exposure about our elections and who is funding these various 
elections or we are just going to have darkness. I think that injures 
our ability to

[[Page 16134]]

have free debate in a campaign, and it injures the voter's ability to 
learn what they expect and should have a right to know about candidates 
and about those who are influencing candidates.
  Madam President, we should pass the DISCLOSE Act. At a minimum, we 
should have a debate on the DISCLOSE Act.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________