[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16145-16147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              DISCLOSE ACT

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak, as 
many of my colleagues have today, on the DISCLOSE Act, which is being 
sponsored by Senator Schumer, primarily, and other Members of the 
Senate, to try to fix and make significant adjustments to an area of 
law that is very important to many Americans and actually is at the 
basis of the operation of our democracy.
  Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to express their concern 
about the importance of fixing this, and the DISCLOSE Act is how many 
of us intend to try to get something fixed that needs to be fixed. No 
matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, or 
if you are a progressive or a centrist, I think you think it is right 
to be honest. I think that is a principle everybody can agree to, to be 
honest and to be forthright and to be truthful and to have been 
aboveboard.
  The problem, as you know, with the outcome of the Court case has to 
do with the way we run our elections. If we do not fix this, we are 
going to be in a situation in this democracy where people can spend 
unlimited amounts of money in a secret way. That is the problem. It is 
not that corporations can do it or labor unions can do it or 
conservatives or liberals, it is that it can be done at all in secret.
  I do not think Americans want this. I know the people I represent do 
not want this. They want to have an honest debate. They want to have an 
open debate. They want people to stand and say: Hi. My name is Joe. My 
name is Jane. This is my position. This is my position. Debate it. Then 
people can vote. The problem, if we do not fix this Court case, is that 
you will never know who is saying what, and that is not right.
  That is akin to walking out into the school yard and getting hit from 
behind and you do not even know who hit you and no one will tell you. 
How can you fight someone you do not know? How can you participate in 
something like that? So this loophole has to be closed. I think, and 
most people in my State believe, that elections should be open, should 
be honest, should be transparent. Corporations can participate, labor 
unions can participate, big companies, small businesses. But you do 
need to disclose who you are in a report.
  I have an article from the Washington Post. I wanted to have it blown 
up, but we had difficulty. I will try to explain it, and I will hold it 
up so maybe the cameras can see it. This says in the last cycle in 
2008, 117 entities reported donations, and there were 372 that didn't. 
That ratio is about one-third reported, and the other two-thirds did 
not. The trend is going in the wrong direction. More people are 
participating but not saying who they are so nobody knows. The report 
for this year, 2010, is already a ratio of 1 to 6. So we are not even 
into the end of this election cycle. We are getting close to it. The 
ratio is 15 have been reporting, 85 haven't, which means about only 1 
in 6. It is all becoming secret.
  I don't think that is right for our people. I think our people should 
know who is saying what, what money is behind what ad so it helps them 
understand better the arguments and why they might be seeing such ads.
  I have a real problem, and I will give an example. The Presiding 
Officer may

[[Page 16146]]

have this problem in Minnesota. We have a big problem in Louisiana and 
Florida with Chinese drywall. This product came in from China, and it 
is rotten. When people put it in their house, they get sick. Their kids 
get sick. Their copper piping starts rotting. It is horrible. Our 
people had their homes flooded, and we had to gut their homes. We 
didn't have enough drywall in the United States so we started needing 
it so much, it came from lots of other places. Some of it is really 
bad.
  So a couple of us have a bill that says: Don't send us any more 
rotten Chinese drywall. We are going to try to pass that bill.
  I think my constituents would like to know, if they see an ad on 
television saying how great drywall is, these ads that say this is a 
fabulous product, tell Senator Landrieu to support this product, I 
think my constituents would like to know if that is actually the 
Chinese drywall company that is behind that product telling them not to 
vote for me because I am trying to protect them from this company. That 
is one example, but I could give 100 examples. I am not saying the 
Chinese drywall company that sent us rotten drywall should not 
advertise, although I don't think foreign companies should be 
advertising in elections in America. But let's say it was an American 
company that sent us this bad drywall. If they want to argue against a 
bill, fine. But at least let people know that is what they are doing. 
If it is a labor union advocating for something, let people know.
  That is why I support the Schumer bill. That is why I support the 
DISCLOSE Act. That is why I think most people in Louisiana support it. 
They might make up their minds, but they would like to know who is 
paying for the ad. That is all this bill does.
  I know there have been some friends from the other side who have come 
down and tried to convince the Senate that we don't have to tell 
people, that we should have all of our elections in secret. I think 
democracy is best served when people are educated, intelligent, and 
informed about all aspects. Let them make their own judgments. We live 
or die by that; we are either in office or we are not.
  I wished to express my support. I hope we vote on it tomorrow. I wish 
we could get 60 votes in the Senate. It is mind numbing to me and mind 
boggling that we couldn't have a handful of Republicans stand and say 
they too believe we should have honest and open elections. It is not 
about corporate money or union money. It is not about trying to block 
corporate money or increase union money or block union money and 
increase corporate money. It is just about disclosing the money from 
wherever it comes and having reasonable limits that are fair to 
everyone. I don't think that is too much to ask. That is basically all 
this bill does.
  I support cloture and ending the debate on something we don't have to 
take that long to understand. It is pretty clear. One is either for 
transparency or not, for disclosure or not, and we fought fairly for 
everyone.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Risch pertaining to the introduction of S. 3825 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, when I was home in New Hampshire over 
the recess, I had the opportunity, as I am sure the Presiding Officer 
did, to see all of the television ads that are being run by various 
candidates and special interest groups. Already--again, I am sure this 
is true in Minnesota and it is true across the country--because of the 
Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, a decision many of my 
colleagues talked about earlier today, the airwaves in New Hampshire 
were flooded with ads from essentially anonymous, unaccountable special 
interests. I think the question we all should ask and certainly voters 
across this country should ask is, Who is really paying for these ads? 
Voters don't know. Sure, the ads give the special interest groups great 
mom-and-pop, apple pie-sounding names, but voters today have no way of 
knowing who is funding these groups and who is really putting up the 
money for these ads.
  Personally, I think there is too much money being spent on elections 
these days. During the 1990s when I first ran for election in New 
Hampshire for the State senate and then for Governor, in New Hampshire 
we had a voluntary spending cap law. I think the law worked extremely 
well in limiting the amount of money candidates could raise and spend. 
Under our State law, a candidate who didn't want to voluntarily limit 
campaign spending had to obtain a certain number of signatures from 
voters or pay a higher fee to get on the ballot. And when that law was 
in effect, almost every candidate chose to abide by the voluntary 
spending limit. That had two very positive effects. First, candidates 
could spend less time raising money and more time talking to voters 
about the issues they faced. Second, a candidate needed to rely more on 
volunteers to help get their message out because they didn't have as 
much money to spend on ads and staff. You also became very efficient at 
how you spent your money--something that I think is helpful when you 
get into elective office. Now, unfortunately, New Hampshire's voluntary 
spending cap law was struck down in a decision very similar to the 
Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
  When I look back at my three campaigns for the State senate in New 
Hampshire, I spent about $20,000 each time. Fast forward to today and 
the impacts of repealing that law by the Supreme Court in New 
Hampshire, and today candidates routinely raise and spend about five 
times that much. In my campaigns for Governor, I raised and spent about 
$1.25 million to $1.5 million based on what the campaign spending law 
was that year. Today, in New Hampshire, serious candidates for Governor 
raise and spend several times that amount.
  Now, because of the Citizens United decision, we can no longer limit 
the amount of spending by special interests on Federal elections. But 
what we can still do and what we should do is require these anonymous 
groups to disclose who is funding their ads. That is exactly what the 
DISCLOSE Act does. It also prohibits foreign corporations from spending 
money to influence American elections.
  I think unlimited election spending by anonymous groups and 
potentially foreign corporations poses a real threat to our democracy. 
This should be a bipartisan issue. For years, it was.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, because I have heard him talk about 
this, back in 1997 the minority leader said--this is back in 1997, so 
over 10 years ago--that ``public disclosure of campaign contributions 
and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves 
what is appropriate.''
  Then just this spring, even after the Citizens United decision, 
Senator Cornyn, the Senator who is leading the Republicans' election 
efforts, told the Wall Street Journal:

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

  I agree completely. If all the Senators who are on public record 
supporting disclosure of campaign contributions voted in support of the 
DISCLOSE Act, we would pass the DISCLOSE Act today by a wide bipartisan 
margin.

[[Page 16147]]

  I hope, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think about 
the DISCLOSE Act and about what is happening to manipulate our 
elections in this country, that they will join me--and all of us who 
believe that the best way to make sure that our democracy remains 
strong and that we address how money is being spent in elections--in 
supporting the transparency and the accountability that is available to 
voters in the DISCLOSE Act.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________