[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16139-16143]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DISCLOSE ACT

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have two issues I wish to discuss 
today. The first one is one I have spoken about before, which is the 
DISCLOSE Act, which we are going to be voting on probably tomorrow. The 
last time I talked about the DISCLOSE Act, I raised the issue of the 
film that was made in the 2004 campaign by Michael Moore. This was an 
effort, very clearly, on the part of Mr. Moore to influence the 
election. No one could have seen that film without realizing it was a 
serious attempt to make sure Americans did not vote for President 
George W. Bush.
  Well, Citizens United, a group that has political views different 
from Mr. Moore's, believed that the film violated the law, and they 
filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission because they 
said it was clearly a political document, not just another movie, and 
it was filmed for the purpose of trying to affect the election.
  At the time, Michael Moore had this to say about Citizens United and 
their complaint:

       That's the difference between our side and their side. Even 
     when we disagree, we are respectful of freedom of speech, but 
     when they disagree, they try to shut you down. Well, it's 
     unAmerican and it's wrong and people are not going to stand 
     for it. People in this country don't like to be told they 
     can't watch something or see something.

  I can argue with Mr. Moore about whether our side really does hate 
freedom of speech, but the interesting point is that he insisted we 
have more opportunities to watch rather than less opportunities to 
watch and that any other position was, to use his term, un-American.
  What did Citizens United do? They decided that rather than fight 
Michael Moore, they would join him, and they made a movie and they ran 
the movie in the 2008 election. Immediately, they were attacked for 
making this movie because, unlike Michael Moore, Citizens United as a 
group happens to have a corporate charter. They are a corporation by 
definition, and the complaint was, you are entering the campaign and 
violating the law which says corporations cannot contribute to 
political parties.
  Citizens United took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and 
said: But we are not contributing to a political party; we are not 
violating the law against corporate contributions. We are exercising 
our first amendment right to make a movie and tell people what we 
happen to think about Hillary Clinton. Their views about Hillary 
Clinton were no more generous than Mr. Moore's views about President 
Bush.
  I haven't seen either movie. I don't particularly care to at this 
point. The issue is, does Citizens United have the same right to 
freedom of speech that Michael Moore does or is the technicality of the 
fact that Citizens United happens to be a corporation and Michael Moore 
is rich enough to make his movie by himself, without a corporate form 
and without shareholders, mean that he can speak and they cannot? The 
Supreme Court said: No, we won't support that idea, that he can speak 
and they cannot; and as long as they are not making a direct 
contribution to a party--that would be a violation of the law--they 
have the right to make a movie and they have the right to distribute 
it.
  Well, that is what the DISCLOSE Act attempts to do something about. 
We have heard complaints on this floor: Oh, it is evil and improper for 
corporations to speak, unless, of course, they happen to be the New 
York Times corporation--they can speak all they want--or the Washington 
Post corporation. They can speak all they want. But if a group of 
citizens get together, and they have some shareholders, and say, we 
want to speak in the political arena, they are told, no, no, no, you 
can't, except by the Supreme Court, which says, yes, yes, yes, you can. 
That is why I support the Supreme Court decision.
  All right. We get the DISCLOSE Act to say that the Supreme Court made 
a terrible mistake but we will do everything we can to try to rectify 
that mistake. We are told over and over again that we are not limiting 
their freedom of speech; we are just going for disclosure. Then there 
are all kinds of aspects of the bill that go beyond disclosure, and we 
are treating everybody alike, except for those groups we have carved 
out of the terms of the DISCLOSE Act, so they won't have to comply with 
the DISCLOSE Act, and those happen to be the kinds of groups whose 
support is necessary for the people who voted for this bill in the 
House.
  All right. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are 
things in the Supreme Court decision that do need some legislative 
attention. Why, then, don't we have some hearings? Why, then, don't we 
have the bill open for amendment? I am the ranking member of the Senate 
Rules Committee--the committee that would receive the jurisdiction on 
this bill--and we have not seen it in the Rules Committee. It has not 
been referred to committee. There have been no hearings. There has been 
no opportunity for amendment. There has been no opportunity to 
sandpaper some of the rough places and make the bill more acceptable to 
people who are currently opposed to it. It is simply: It passed the 
House in this fashion; let's bring it to the floor of the Senate the 
way it passed in the House and prevent the Senate from having any 
impact on the way it is worded or structured.
  So I am going to vote against the DISCLOSE Act for two reasons: No. 
1, I happen to believe that the Supreme Court got it right and that 
Citizens United has every bit as much right to produce a movie that 
attacks a political character as Michael Moore does. The technical fact 
that he does it as an individual should not change the importance of 
the dialog that should take place in the public square. No. 2, even if 
the Supreme Court decision does need some kind of legislative fix, it 
should be handled in regular order. We should have seen it in the Rules 
Committee. We should have had an opportunity to amend it, to debate it, 
to hear witnesses on it, to question those witnesses and have an 
understanding of it. For those two reasons, I intend to vote against 
it.


                               Tax Policy

  Turning my attention very quickly to the issue the Senator from 
Arizona was discussing which has to do with tax policy, I wish to call 
to the attention of my colleagues an article that appeared in the Wall 
Street Journal on September 21 with respect to capital gains taxation 
and the impact of seeing the capital gains tax rate go up on the 
economy. The headline of the article is ``Cap Gains Taxation: Less 
Means More.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. I will highlight only one portion of this article in the 
interest of time. It is the point that is made as the final point in 
the article where it says:


[[Page 16140]]

       Higher capital gains taxes will not substantially reduce 
     the deficit.

  They point out--we have all seen it--that the higher the capital 
gains tax goes, many times the lower the capital gains tax revenues. 
Why is that? Because if you have an investment in a business or a piece 
of real estate and the cost of getting out of that investment is 
inordinately high because of a capital gains tax rate, you won't be as 
motivated to get your money out of that investment and put it into a 
more productive one as you would be if the capital gains tax were low.
  We have all known that. The economic information on that has been 
around for a long time.
  But there is another aspect to this I want to highlight; that is, the 
impact on jobs. The figure they use in this article is that if the 
capital gains tax rate went to zero, the loss to the Treasury, in terms 
of income, would be $23 billion a year. Oh, you may say, that is a lot 
of money. We can't afford to lose $23 billion a year coming into the 
Treasury. What impact would that have on the deficit? We would lose $23 
billion a year that we need.
  All right. Let's assume that the $23 billion comes in. What does this 
administration propose to do with it? They want to put it in the 
stimulus package to create jobs. They would spend the entire $23 
billion as rapidly as it came in. It would go out in a stimulus effort 
to create jobs. The point made in the article is that by not taking in 
that $23 billion and leaving it in the economy, we are giving the 
economy itself and those people who are in the business of creating 
jobs $23 billion in incentives to create jobs. If I can quote the last 
paragraph:

       A capital gains tax reduction to zero produces new jobs at 
     the cost of $18,000 per worker--far less than might occur 
     from any other proposals.

  In other words, if the government took in the $23 billion, and then 
spent it in incentives to create jobs, they would spend more than 
$18,000 per job than would happen if we simply left that money in the 
hands of the people who know how to create jobs. I am not suggesting a 
capital gains tax rate of zero, but I am saying let's leave it where it 
is, because it is the most efficient way to create new jobs in this 
economy, rather than have it come into the government and have the 
government hand it out in ways that are proven to be less effective in 
the creation of new jobs than the reality of the economy working on its 
own.
  Those are my two messages, and I appreciate the opportunity of 
sharing them today. No. 1, let's defeat the DISCLOSE Act. No. 2, let's 
leave the tax program where it is, because that is the most efficient 
and effective way to create new jobs, and new jobs is what we want and 
need in this economy more than anything else.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 2010]

                  Cap Gains Taxation: Less Means More

                            (By Allen Sinai)

       Congress is deliberating on what to do about the ``Bush tax 
     cuts''--the reductions in income, capital gains and dividend 
     taxes legislated in 2001 and 2003--currently set to expire at 
     the end of this year. The recession may officially be over, 
     but what Washington does on tax policy still matters for an 
     economy that's creating very few net new jobs and is stuck 
     with an unacceptably high unemployment rate and record-high 
     federal budget deficits of over 9% of GDP.
       Capital gains taxation is one area in which lawmakers can 
     help jump-start the economy. Capital gains tax rates for 
     taxpayers in the top four income brackets are set to move 
     higher in a few months. My new study, ``Capital Gains Taxes 
     and the Economy,'' published this week by the American 
     Council for Capital Formation, shows that the net effect of 
     lower capital gains taxation is a significant plus for U.S. 
     macroeconomic performance.
       The study simulated reductions and increases in capital 
     gains taxes starting in 2011 and extending to 2016 to 
     estimate the effects on economic growth, jobs and 
     unemployment, inflation, savings, the financial markets and 
     debt.
       Here are a few of the relevant findings:
       Hiking capital gains tax rates would cause significant 
     damage to the economy. Raising the capital gains tax rate to 
     20%, 28% or 50% from the current 15% would reduce growth in 
     real GDP, raise the unemployment rate and significantly 
     reduce productivity. These losses to the economy outweigh any 
     gains in tax receipts from the increase in the capital gains 
     tax rate.
       For example, at a 28% capital gains tax rate, economic 
     growth declines 0.1 percentage points per annum and the 
     economy loses about 600,000 jobs yearly. If the capital gains 
     tax rate were increased to 50%, real GDP growth would decline 
     by 0.3 percentage points per year, and there would be 1.6 
     million fewer jobs created per year. At a 20% capital gains 
     rate compared with the current 15%, real economic growth 
     falls by a little less than 0.1 percentage points per year 
     and jobs decline about 231,000 a year. Smaller increases in 
     the capital gains tax rate have smaller effects on the 
     economy, but the effects are still negative.
       Lowering capital gains tax rates would help grow the 
     economy and jobs. My study found that when capital gains 
     taxes are reduced to below 15%, the after-tax return on 
     equity rises, stock prices increase, household wealth rises, 
     consumption moves higher, and capital gains can be realized. 
     Capital gains tax receipts to the government increase and 
     household financial conditions improve to provide a healthier 
     basis for future consumer spending.
       My study also found that a reduction in the capital gains 
     tax rate to 5% from 15% raises real GDP growth by 0.2 
     percentage points per year, lowers the unemployment rate by 
     0.2 percentage points per year, and increases nonfarm payroll 
     jobs by 711,000 a year. Productivity growth improves 0.3 
     percentage points a year.
       Taken to its logical conclusion, moving to a zero capital 
     gains tax rate would have an even bigger effect, increasing 
     growth in real GDP by over 0.2 percentage points per year and 
     approximately 1.3 million additional jobs per year.
       Higher capital gains taxes will not substantially reduce 
     the deficit. The net impact on the federal budget deficit of 
     a reduction in the capital gains tax rate to 0% is a decline 
     in tax receipts of $23 billion per year after the positive 
     effects of stronger economic growth on payroll, personal and 
     corporate income taxes are taken into account. This is 
     significantly less than the $30 billion per year static 
     revenue loss estimate, which does not include feedback 
     effects. A capital gains tax reduction to 0% produces new 
     jobs at a cost of $18,000 per worker, far less than might 
     occur from many other proposals.
       The bottom line is that any capital gains tax increase is 
     counterproductive to real economic growth. To the contrary, a 
     reduction in the capital gains tax rate would be a pro-growth 
     fiscal stimulus that creates new jobs and new businesses, 
     funds entrepreneurship, reduces the unemployment rate, 
     increases productivity, and in the long run brings in more 
     payroll taxes. In the case of capital gains taxation, less 
     means more.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about an issue 
that came up frequently during my townhall meetings in Maryland in 
August, and that subject dealt with campaign finance reform and what we 
need to do to restore public confidence in our election system.
  I must tell you, there wasn't a single person in Maryland who told me 
that we needed more special interest corporate spending in elections. 
There wasn't a single person who told me there is too much disclosure 
of information as to where contributors come from. It was the reverse. 
People in Maryland believe there is too much special interest money in 
our campaigns. They believe they have a right to know where all 
campaign contributions and expenditures come from. They want true 
campaign finance reform.
  The interesting thing is that we know how difficult it is to pass 
campaign finance reform legislation. I was part of the Congress that 
passed, in 2002, the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It wasn't easy to 
get it done, and it was a bipartisan bill. We made strong headway in 
that legislation to restrict corporate money. I must tell you, I think 
the public appreciated the efforts that were made, appreciated that it 
was bipartisan, and knew we did make progress in limiting what 
corporations can spend in Federal elections. Corporations can 
participate. They can have their employees work for political action 
committees. But it is very transparent, open, and it is limited, so 
that we have some control of the amount of special interest money 
coming into our Federal elections.
  Then comes Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that reversed the 
actions of Congress, that reversed the 2002 bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act. It was a decision--5-to-4--by the Supreme Court, where the so-
called--and I use this term gently--conservative Justices, who, in my 
view are the most

[[Page 16141]]

judicial activists, reversed precedent and congressional action and 
expanded what corporations can do in Federal elections.
  I was listening to Senator Bennett talk about how unfair it was that 
a documentary was treated differently. Well, as Justice Stevens said in 
that case:

       Essentially, 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.

  They could have dealt with the issue Senator Bennett talked about. 
But, no, instead they opened the door completely for corporations to 
spend money in Federal elections.
  Let me quote from Public Citizen Congress Watch. Their research 
director Taylor Lincoln said:

       The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on 
     corporate spending on elections.

  That is moving in the exact opposite direction the people of this 
Nation want us to move in, dealing with campaign finance reform--
reversing the actions of Congress and indeed their own decisions. This 
wasn't the first time. I can give you a lot of chapter and verse how 
the so-called, again, judges who are supposed to be conservative have 
been judicial activists. They did that in the Lilly Ledbetter case. In 
that case, they reversed previous precedent and made it virtually 
impossible for a woman to be able to bring a case based on gender 
discrimination in the workforce. We took that Supreme Court decision 
and the Congress did the right thing. We made sure that the intent of 
Congress was carried out. We passed a bill to give gender equity and 
opportunity to bring an effective suit if one is discriminated against 
in the workforce.
  We need to do the same thing on campaign finance reform. The Supreme 
Court has acted. I disagree with their decision. Now Congress needs to 
act in order to restore some confidence with the American people. I 
applaud Senator Schumer in his efforts to bring forward legislation--
the DISCLOSE Act--and this bill is consistent with the Supreme Court 
decision. I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe 
corporations are equal to individuals, as far as spending money and 
contributing in a campaign. But we will debate that issue on another 
day. That is not what this bill does. It does something I thought 
virtually every Member in this Congress agreed on, which is that the 
public has a right to know who is spending money in a campaign--to 
disclose where you are spending money, where it is coming from.
  If you, as a candidate for the Senate, put an ad on television, you 
have to identify that it is your ad. The public has a right to know who 
is responsible for the money being spent on the ad being put on 
television. That is not true under Citizens United. Corporations can 
now spend money without accepting responsibility for the ad, and 
without the public knowing the source of the ad. That is plain wrong. 
We have an opportunity to correct that, consistent with the Supreme 
Court decision. This is not about trying to reverse the Supreme Court 
decision. I would like to do that, but that is not what this is about. 
This is about making sure the public knows who is spending money in a 
campaign. I thought everybody agreed on this.
  Let me quote from the leaders of the Republican Party in the House 
and Senate. Senator McConnell said:

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expected so voters can judge for themselves what is 
     appropriate.

  Our Republican leader was right on that.
  House Republican Leader Boehner said:

       I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full 
     disclosure. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  I can quote lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans. Quite frankly, 
I don't know Members who are against disclosure. Yet some of my 
colleagues will be voting against it. To me, it is hard to understand 
why, when this bill is narrowly focused and its principal objective is 
to make sure voters know who is spending money in an election. Does it 
do other things? Yes. I didn't think there were objections to the other 
provisions, such as making sure foreign corporations cannot contribute. 
Well, you know, I thought that is what we all agreed on. Government 
contractors--restricting what they can do. It is consistent with the 
Supreme Court decision, where eight of the nine Justices acknowledged 
that it would be OK for Congress to enact legislation concerning 
disclosure.
  So I come back to our responsibility. We are not on the Supreme Court 
of the United States. That is not our responsibility. Our 
responsibility is to enact laws. Our responsibility is to respond to 
the needs of this Nation, to respond to what our constituents want us 
to do. Quite frankly, our constituents want us to take up campaign 
finance reform. They want us to do a lot more than just the DISCLOSE 
Act, when it comes to campaign finance reform. I am one of those who 
supports public financing of campaigns.
  I think it would be far better for the people of Maryland and this 
Nation to have less special interest money financing campaigns. I think 
it would be better to have some public way in which they can know the 
candidates running. I think we should require our networks to provide 
air time for debates. That is not today's debate, but it is whether we 
can move the ball forward on campaign financing that makes sense. In 
other words, let's not move backward. Let us do what the Supreme Court 
told us we can do in regard to corporate spending.
  Let's do what Members of this body have said we should do, and that 
is require that we disclose the source not only of those who contribute 
to our campaigns but those who spend money on behalf of getting us 
elected or defeated. We have a right, the voter has a right to know 
that. Those who are responsible for the act should have the courage to 
disclose the moneys they are spending and take responsibility for the 
ads they produce.
  I could go on with additional information that we have--some of these 
organizations that are organized under the Internal Revenue Code. I can 
show you that we are not going to be able to have adequate enforcement 
of that. One thing we can do, which I hope we can agree on, is to pass 
the DISCLOSE Act so the public has the information to judge who is 
getting involved in our campaigns, and then I hope that Democrats and 
Republicans can join to make sure the integrity of our election system 
is strengthened.
  Confidence in government depends upon the people of our Nation 
believing that our elections are open and fair. We spend a lot of time 
in other countries making sure their election process is right. We need 
to do a better job here in America. It can start this week by allowing 
us to debate the DISCLOSE Act. Let's not hide behind the filibuster. 
Let's bring it forward and have the debate on the floor, and let us 
respond to our constituents. They have the right to know who is 
spending money in this election.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my 
distinguished colleague from Maryland, who has such great legislative 
and elective experience and speaks with such passion and energy about 
this issue. I share his concern, and I rise today to speak about a type 
of corruption in the political arena. What type of corruption in the 
political arena am I talking about?
  I am talking about the corrosive and distorting effects of immense 
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the 
corporate forum and that have little or no correlation to the public 
support for the corporation's political ideas, wealth that can unfairly 
influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent 
expenditures.
  Sounds like tough talk to call that a type of corruption in the 
political arena and describe it in those terms. But those are not my 
words. Whose words are they? Those are the words of the U.S. Supreme 
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said:


[[Page 16142]]

       State law grants corporations special advantages--such as 
     limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of 
     the accumulation and distribution of assets--that enhance 
     their ability to attract capital and to deploy their 
     resources in ways that maximize the return on their 
     shareholders' investments.

  That is what they are for, and that is what they should do. But the 
Supreme Court continued:

       These state-created advantages not only allow corporations 
     to play a dominant role in the Nation's economy, but also 
     permit them to use ``resources amassed in the economic 
     marketplace'' to obtain ``an unfair advantage in the 
     political marketplace.''

  That was the law of the United States of America. That law was 
precedent when our Chief Justice stood before our Senate Judiciary 
Committee and promised, under his oath before that committee, that he 
would honor precedent. Not only that precedent, but it relied on 
earlier Supreme Court precedent.
  This Court, Justice Marshall writing, quoted the Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life decision, a previous Court, and said, as the Court 
explained in Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the political advantage 
of corporations is unfair because ``[t]he resources in the treasury of 
a business corporation . . . are not an indication of popular support 
for the corporation's political ideas. They reflect instead the 
economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The 
availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable 
political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no 
reflection of the power of its ideas.''
  When Chief Justice Roberts, under oath before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, promised that he would honor the precedent of the United 
States of America, this was not only precedent, it was precedent within 
precedent. It was the established law of the United States of America, 
that corporate expenditure in elections was a type of corruption in the 
political arena.
  But they could not resist. They could not resist, and by a 5-to-4 
decision--one of an array of 5-to-4 decisions by which a narrow 
partisan majority of our Supreme Court has taken the law and moved it 
as far as it could--they changed the law of the United States. They 
knocked down this standing precedent in order to open the floodgates of 
American elections to corporate money.
  Let me interrupt myself for 1 minute. When I say ``moved it as far as 
it could,'' I mean these decisions on these massive issues--issues of 
great importance to our country, issues of vast consequence in our 
elections--do not need to be decided 5 to 4. A Court that had a real 
interest in modesty, in conservatism, could look for a broader majority 
to try to build consensus for the rule that it was announcing. Of 
course, if they tried to build that broader consensus, they would not 
be able to take as big a political leap. This is a Court that over and 
over will take the big political leap at the cost of, I think in the 
long run, the Court's credibility, but in the short run of building a 
precedent that has lasting value because it has a significant majority 
behind it.
  Other big decisions of the Court--Brown v. Board of Education for 
instance--were unanimous. Here, once they have their majority, that is 
all--that is enough. Then they are willing to move.
  Who did they open the floodgates to when they did this? Let's see who 
has been opposing our bill to try to at least make public what 
corporations are taking advantage of. Roll Call reported back in July 
that ``the bulk of corporate outreach on the campaign finance bill''--
that is the bill we are trying to get to, trying to correct this 
Citizens United decision, trying to protect our elections from being 
flooded with corporate money--``the bulk of corporate outreach on the 
campaign finance bill was done primarily by companies based outside the 
United States but that have substantial operations here.''
  That is great. The lobbying on whether corporations get to control 
our elections is being dominated by multinational corporations based 
outside of the United States. American citizens' voices are going to be 
drowned out by corporate money based on lobbying from corporations that 
are not even American corporations.
  Roll Call continues: ``According to Senate filings, large 
international firms reported lobbying Members--or hiring others to do 
so--on the DISCLOSE Act''--the bill we are on--``in recent months. . . 
.'' They include Sony and Honda. How fortunate for General Motors to 
have the electoral process controlled by lobbyists for Honda. The 
financial firm, UBS, a Swiss bank--that is what we need. The views of a 
Swiss bank are clearly important to American elections and should 
certainly drive them and, therefore, let the corporate money flow. That 
makes great sense. A Swedish drugmaker, Novo Nordisk--that is where the 
money is behind this.
  Where does it go? It goes to Karl Rove's group--like he has not 
already done enough damage to this Republic--American Crossroads, which 
hopes to spend $50 million in this election, according to the New York 
Times, supported by the American Action Network, which is planning to 
spend $25 million in concert with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which 
is spending $75 million, all reported by the New York Times, along with 
other groups: Americans for Job Security, the American Future Fund.
  Let me ask, if you see an advertisement on television that slams a 
political candidate, that trashes him on some issue, and it is brought 
to you by Americans for Job Security or the American Future Fund, you, 
as a citizen trying to evaluate that advertisement, what information 
does that give you? I suggest it does not give you very much 
information at all.
  ExxonMobil could buy American elections. The entire Presidential 
election between President Obama and Senator McCain, adding up the 
spending on both sides, cost about $1 billion. ExxonMobil makes that 
every week.
  These big multinational corporations can drown out American citizens' 
voices, and it barely makes a dent in their bottom line. They can buy 
American elections through what the Supreme Court said, until this 
active, radical group on the Supreme Court pushed this decision through 
5 to 4, with the precedent of the United States, was a type of 
corruption in the political arena. That was the law of the land, not 
just in one decision but repeatedly. Now that can happen, thanks to 
that decision. And American citizens will be swamped by these big 
corporations.
  Is it a coincidence that 85 percent of the spending so far in this 
election has been on behalf of Republicans? There is a phrase in 
politics: You are supposed to dance with the guy that brung ya. But I 
tell you what, when you take the oath as a judge, that principle should 
be dispensed with and discarded. You should take on new duties that go 
beyond loyalty to any political party.
  Nevertheless, this Court has opened the corporate floodgates so that 
international corporations can come in, drown out American voters, buy 
up American elections, and what was law before, a type of corruption in 
the political arena and 85 percent of the spending by the big 
corporations is on behalf of Republicans--I am sure that is just a 
coincidence.
  To the contrary, we often hear my colleagues on the other side say: 
Unions do just the same thing. When you see that advertisement on 
television attacking a political candidate, and it says at the bottom--
let's pick our most active union, the Service Employees International 
Union--it says Service Employees International Union, you have a pretty 
good idea who that is. You can find them in the phonebook. You probably 
know somebody who is a member. They are active in the community. It is 
no mystery. But how about American Future Fund? The way this is set up 
right now, ExxonMobile could take its billions of dollars and start 
laundering that money through shell organizations and shell 
corporations. By the time the slammer ad gets put on television 
attacking a political candidate--it could be Americans for Peace and 
Puppies, as far as we knew--and nobody would have the time in the 
hectic last days

[[Page 16143]]

before an election to figure out who it is who is really behind these 
attacks.
  That is no way to run an election. That is no way to run a democracy. 
That is not transparent. These corporations are not even humans. What 
they are doing, involved in these elections on this scale, is 
unimaginable. What it does is it amplifies the political voice of CEOs 
dramatically.
  The great thing about American democracy is that you and I and the 
pages who are here, when they are old enough to vote, and the police 
officers outside and the fellow driving by in the taxicab on 
Constitution Avenue, every American has a vote that counts the same. If 
you are the CEO of a big corporation, not only can you do your own 
politicking, but you can take that amassed treasury of wealth with what 
the Supreme Court called ``the amassing of large treasuries warrants 
the limit on independent expenditures,'' and you can spend it to push 
your own views and to drown out your neighbors, your friends, people 
who oppose you--anyone--with immense amounts of anonymous political 
spending.
  I do not think that is right. I think that is a mistake. Justice 
Stevens had it right in his dissent in the Citizens United case. He 
said this:

       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.

  Justice Stevens continued:

       It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While 
     American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of 
     the court would have thought that its flaws included a dearth 
     of corporate money in politics.

  So if you want the government of the United States of America--this 
great and sovereign Nation, this light of democracy in the darkness of 
this world, this government of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, of 
Roosevelt, of Lincoln--controlled by the same people who brought you a 
30-percent interest rate on your credit card, well, the DISCLOSE Act is 
not for you because they will not be able to do it anonymously if this 
bill passes.
  If you want the government of our country controlled by the insurance 
companies that took your child off the insurance when he got sick, that 
wouldn't provide coverage because he had a preexisting condition--if 
those are the people you want controlling the government--you don't 
want this bill because you want them to be able to fund these anonymous 
organizations with no consequence, with no transparency.
  If you want our government controlled by the people who brought you 
the gulf oilspill and who are polluting our atmosphere with carbon day 
in and day out in ways that are changing our world as we watch it, this 
bill ``ain't'' for you because this bill wouldn't allow them to do it 
sneakily, anonymously, unlimitedly.
  If you want this government controlled by the big corporations that 
are taking American jobs and making the American worker pack up the 
machinery they have worked on into shipping crates to be shipped 
overseas, where a foreign worker will be hired to make that same 
product, which will then be brought back into America--if they are the 
folks you want controlling our government, anonymously, through money 
and expenditure--the DISCLOSE Act is not for you.
  But let me tell you, if you are a regular American, who thinks 
everybody should have a fair voice at election time, who doesn't want 
to see our American elections drowned out by lobbyists for 
international corporations, by huge corporate expenditures that aren't 
even traceable back to the corporation but that come through phony-
baloney organizations with names that sound like ``The Make America 
Great Foundation''--if that is the kind of politics you want to put an 
end to--if you want to see real issues debated by real people, this 
DISCLOSE Act is important.
  This isn't just about fairness in one election. This isn't just about 
a Supreme Court that handed to one political party a gigantic corporate 
checkbook that had previously been illegal and tells them: Get out 
there and spend, it is fine. Get out there and spend anonymously, it is 
fine. If you are an international corporation--if you are not even an 
American company--get out there and spend, we don't mind. Every day we 
make choices about whether corporations or people are going to have the 
upper hand in this society. Our Supreme Court just gave corporations 
the upper hand, and we have to fight back because it is not just about 
who wins this election, this is about a democracy that has been through 
over 200 years of stress and strain. This is about an idea the Founders 
put together that was unheard of at the time. It was radical, it was 
exceptional, and it created a society that has shown a light in this 
world that is brighter than any other government in the history of 
humankind.
  This government has lasted through Civil War and world war, through 
depression. It has lasted through every kind of stress. Its value is, 
as probably our greatest President said, very simply, that it is a 
``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Our 
purpose is that it not perish from this Earth. This is not a government 
of the CEOs, by the big corporations, and for their shareholders. It is 
not an anonymous government where you don't know who is on the air with 
millions of dollars in advertisements slamming away. It is not a 
government where a candidate would be embarrassed to have a big 
corporation on their side that laundered their money through corporate 
screens so when it finally appeared in the waning days of the race it 
was all phonied up with a name such as ``Americans For Peace and Love'' 
or whatever the group is going to be called. That is not what America 
is all about.
  So this may seem like a small issue about reporting of corporate 
expenditures, but I would submit that when corporations make more in a 
week than an entire U.S. Presidential election costs and they can throw 
that kind of money around, there is a lot at stake in trying to make 
sure American elections are honest and honorable ones. To allow the big 
corporations, even the international corporations, to continue to spend 
unlimited amounts of money in our elections, with no reporting 
requirement, with the ability to launder through phony-baloney shell 
organizations before people see it, the risk of damage is very great.
  So I know it is easy for me to say, because the money is coming in 85 
percent against Democrats and for Republicans, and it looks like this 
is what that is about, but it is not. It is about making sure that a 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people does not 
perish from this Earth.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________