[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11675-11711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5175.

                              {time}  1235


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5175) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government 
contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, 
and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to 
spending in such elections, and for other purposes, with Mr. Salazar in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. Pursuant to the rule and the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) will control 20 minutes, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) will control 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand with the American people and the House 
leadership in support of H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by 
Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, or the DISCLOSE Act.
  The legislation is designed to bring greater disclosure and 
transparency to election spending. The importance of this objective was 
reinforced in the Supreme Court's accompanying 8-1 decision that 
reaffirmed ``the constitutionality and necessity of laws that require 
the disclosure of political spending.''
  Our democracy requires transparency and accountability in our 
political campaigns. Knowing the source of political spending allows 
voters to investigate the motives and to better assess the truthfulness 
and accuracy of the claims of the spenders and the candidates.
  The DISCLOSE Act is a careful response to address the likely 
consequences of the Citizens United decision. The bill enhances 
disclosure requirements for corporations, unions, and other groups that 
decide to make campaign-related expenditures or to transfer funds to 
other organizations for the purpose of engaging in campaign-related 
activity.
  This improvement to current disclosure requirements allows voters to 
follow the money and ensure that special-interest money cannot hide 
behind sham organizations and shell corporations. If outside groups 
spend their funds in campaigns, the Supreme Court has recognized it as 
essential to hold them accountable. Voters have a right to know who is 
trying to buy our elections.
  The bill expands disclaimers to require CEOs or highest-ranking 
officials of organizations that sponsor political advertisements to 
record ``stand by your ad'' disclaimers as well as to protect taxpayer 
dollars from misuse by preventing certain government contractors and 
TARP beneficiaries from making campaign-related expenditures.
  The DISCLOSE Act also closes a loophole created by Citizens United to 
ensure that foreign corporations and foreign governments are not able 
to influence American elections by spending unlimited sums through 
their U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates. By allowing these entities to 
fund campaign communications, foreign-controlled corporations could use 
potentially bottomless coffers to influence the course of political 
debate and play a role in writing U.S. policy.
  Considerable attention has been focused on a narrow exemption 
included in the bill, which is designed to accommodate nonprofit issue 
advocacy groups, which long have participated in political activity of 
which its dues-paying members are aware of and support. To be eligible 
for the exemption, an organization must have more than 500,000 dues-
paying members, with a presence in all 50 States, have had tax-exempt 
status for the previous 10 years, and derive no more than 15 percent of 
its funding from corporate or union sources. It cannot use any 
corporate or union money to pay for campaign-related expenditures.
  The narrowness of the existing exemption will prevent future 
organizations from being formed to function only as ``dummy,'' or sham 
groups, existing only to make campaign expenditures but without needing 
to disclose their major funders.

                              {time}  1240

  Exempted groups will still be required to file publicly available 
reports disclosing their campaign-related expenditures, and the CEOs of 
these groups will still have to appear in and take responsibility for 
all campaign-related ads run by their group.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional 
seconds.
  The DISCLOSE Act ensures transparency and enhances accountability. It 
provides prompt and honest disclosure of political spending by those 
seeking to influence our elections.
  A total of six hearings were held in the House and Senate, with more 
than 36 expert witnesses testifying. Concerned citizens have been vocal 
about the potential consequences of the Citizens United decision, 
sending nearly 2,500 emails and making roughly 4,500 phone calls in 1 
week to the Committee on House Administration, urging Congress to 
quickly consider legislation that addresses the loopholes created by 
the Citizens United ruling.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional 
seconds.
  This outcry of support reveals the DISCLOSE Act reflects the will of 
the American people and commands the support of their representatives. 
In addition, with 114 cosponsors and a broad spectrum of support, H.R. 
5175 promotes openness in our politics. If Congress does not adopt the 
DISCLOSE Act, the public will be left in the dark to wonder whose 
interests are truly being served by a flood of negative advertising 
that will come to dominate campaigns.
  I urge all Members to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chair, obviously, if you 
attempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you or 
they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent 
your constituents here--I yield myself such time as I may consume--and 
that is the problem with this bill. It does not allow the free exercise 
of the First Amendment right to speech.
  The Constitution of the United States refers to that First Amendment. 
And, unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the Supreme Court, 
they've talked about everything other than political speech. Yet in the 
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the court finally 
got it right. The majority opinion says the First Amendment stands 
against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints prohibited 
to or restrictions differing among different speakers allowing speech 
by some but not by others. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly 
what this bill does.
  Benjamin Franklin stated: Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a 
Nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Unfortunately, 
that is what we have here before us, Mr. Chairman. Just because you 
call something ``disclose'' or ``disclosure'' does not make it so. When 
you prohibit speech, as has been done here; when you have onerous 
disclosure obligations placed on some but not all; when you make no 
distinguishing, that is, constitutionally justifiable distinguishing 
differences between groups, that is, you cause some to be subjected

[[Page 11676]]

to provisions of disclosure and others not; when you specifically have 
five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to 
corporations of all stripes, then you have rendered the bill 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have asked if it were proper to have a 
unanimous consent request to extend our debate for 4 hours, but I know 
that's not in order. The majority has decided to stifle debate by 
allowing only a single hour of debate on this issue dealing directly 
with the First Amendment. We have spent in excess of 10 hours in this 
Congress talking about the naming of post offices, but we have 
determined that we do not have more time than an hour to discuss 
something as important as the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  When we allow ourselves to become an auction house for the First 
Amendment, where some, because of their power and influence, are 
allowed to exercise First Amendment rights, unfettered, and others are 
not, it is a sorry day. And to do it under the rubric of disclosure is 
even worse, but that's what we have here.
  Mr. Chairman, in the time given to us, I hope that we can explain 
exactly what this bill does and what it does not do and why it, in 
fact, not only is dangerous to the First Amendment but is directed at 
the heart of the First Amendment, which is vigorous political speech, 
particularly close to an election. It may make some Members 
uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, in some of the hearings and markup 
of this bill, we had Members saying, If I had my way, I'd make sure no 
one could say anything about our campaigns except those of us who are 
candidates. Unfortunately, there's something called the First 
Amendment. And I know it's bothersome to some on the other side. I know 
it's an obstacle to what they want to do. But when I came here, I took 
an oath to uphold the Constitution and all parts, not just the Second 
Amendment by way of specific exemption, but of all amendments, the 
first as well as the second, and every other.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the most disturbing debate 
that I have engaged in in the 111th Congress. And to hear what I've 
already heard from one of the most distinguished members of this 
Judiciary Committee is a little bit dismaying to me. Let me say this. 
I'll answer one of his questions. What does the bill do? And I agree, 
I'd love 4 hours. Perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote, 
regardless of its outcome.
  This bill rolls back the decision--the blatant decision--of Citizens 
United in the Supreme Court by using the three tools that the Court 
said that we could do to make their decision different. First, we can 
increase disclosure; two, we can require disclaimer requirements on 
advertisements; and, three, we can limit foreign influence in our 
elections. One, two, three.
  The danger of the Citizens United decision, the most shocking 
decision I have read in the Supreme Court in many, many years, is the 
threat of groups who attack candidates for office without ever having 
to tell people which corporations are bankrolling these ads. This is 
what the DISCLOSE Act, the bill on the floor, is designed to prevent. 
This bill permits some long-established advocacy groups to forego some 
of the new disclosure requirements. But if these groups take more than 
15 percent of their money from corporations, then all the requirements 
of the DISCLOSE Act kick in and they have to stand by their ads, just 
like candidates do.
  In Citizens United, Justice Stevens, who argued with much more 
persuasive reasoning his position in this case, dissenting, said this: 
``The Constitution does, in fact, permit numerous `restrictions on the 
speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many; 
for example, restrictions on ballot access and on legislators' floor 
time.''
  He stated that corporations are categorically different from 
individuals. Here's what he said: ``In the context of election to 
public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is 
significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, 
corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run 
for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, 
their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests 
of eligible voters.''

                              {time}  1250

  And then he closed with this sentence: ``Our lawmakers have a 
compelling constitutional basis, if not a democratic duty, to take 
measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects 
of corporate spending in local and national races.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a valued member of the 
Committee on House Administration.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court's 
decision in the Citizens United case fundamentally altered the 
political landscape. As a result of the Court's ruling, all 
organizations, corporations and unions are free to take unlimited 
corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. This could 
allow corporations to simply take over the political system.
  According to a report released late last year by Common Cause, the 
average amount spent for winning a House seat in the 2008 cycle was 
$1.4 million. During the same cycle, Exxon-Mobil recorded $80 billion 
in profits. If Exxon-Mobil chose to use just 1 percent of their profits 
on political activity, it would be more than what all 435 winning 
congressional candidates spent in that election cycle, and that's just 
1 percent of the profits of one corporation.
  Now according to the Supreme Court, we cannot limit what corporations 
can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose 
what they are doing to the American public. And I will read you what 
the Court said in its decision: ``The First Amendment protects 
political speech, and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to 
react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This 
transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give 
proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' And that's what 
this bill does. It does exactly what the Supreme Court said that we 
could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require 
transparency.
  In the past, transparency has been a bipartisan issue. Senator Mitch 
McConnell was quoted in April saying, ``We need to have real 
disclosure.'' Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of 
disclosure? Republican leader John Boehner in 2007 said, ``I think what 
we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure.'' And went on to 
say, ``I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.''
  This measure, the DISCLOSE Act, has been supported by government 
reform groups, including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, 
Public Citizens, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; and the chairman of 
the Senate Rules Committee have released a letter indicating their 
strong commitment to Senate action on the DISCLOSE Act. The White House 
strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act. The President says he will sign 
this bill when it comes to his desk.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, will you stand with the American people in 
calling for disclosure and transparency in the political process, or 
will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the 
expenditure of undisclosed, limitless amounts of money? I think that we 
should stand with the American people. We should vote for the DISCLOSE 
Act. Disclosure is good. Voters need to know who is saying what.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a 
valued member of our committee.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything the hearings on this 
bill

[[Page 11677]]

and the subsequent discussion taught us, it is that the bill is far 
from clear. The authors of the bill say it does one thing; the experts 
say it does another; the majority's own witnesses have said that it 
will be up to the FEC to decide what the language means.
  This confusion and ambiguity would be bad enough in any bill, but it 
is especially bad here. This bill has implementing language that makes 
it take effect 30 days after enactment regardless of whether the FEC 
has published regulations. Indeed, one of the majority's witnesses said 
at a hearing that it would be next to impossible for the FEC to 
promulgate regulations before the November elections. That means as we 
move toward elections just 4 months away and Americans consider how to 
express their views, there will be no guidance to clear up the bill's 
ambiguity, no instructions for how to comply, and no way to participate 
in the political process with confidence that your speech will not land 
you in jail.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is going to impose civil and criminal 
penalties on speakers without them having any notice that their 
behavior may be against the law. What that means is that rather than 
exercising their First Amendment rights, speakers are just going to 
stay silent. As former United States Solicitor General Ted Olson stated 
at our committee's May 6 hearing, ``So we are saying that you have to 
guess what the law is because the government can't even tell you what 
the law is. And if you guess wrong, you may be sent to jail or you may 
be prosecuted.''
  Those who seek to challenge this bill's ambiguous and potentially 
unconstitutional provisions in court are going to be faced with a 
judicial review process designed for delay and frustration. The 
procedure in this bill conflicts with the processes created in both the 
Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 
opening the door to collateral litigation to decide what court to be in 
before the case is even heard. Section 401 of this bill is 
congressional forum shopping.
  The only conclusion one can draw from the immediate implementation 
without regulatory guidance and the protracted court process is that 
this bill is designed to affect the outcome of the 2010 elections. 
Indeed, one need not guess to know that this is true. A letter sent 
earlier this week from Senate majority leadership to House majority 
leadership pledged to work ``tirelessly'' so that the bill ``can be 
signed by the President in time to take effect for the 2010 
elections.''
  And there it is, Mr. Chairman. The proponents of the bill want this 
House to pass legislation in time to affect the outcomes of the 2010 
elections. They have refused our proposals to make this bill effective 
in 2011 because they want to change the law this year to affect this 
election--no matter that there will be no explanatory regulations and 
no review to ensure that the law complies with the Constitution.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. HARPER. So the end result is the bill's proponents are rushing it 
into effect before the regulators or the regulated community are ready, 
doing what they can to delay court review, and taking those steps 
despite their obvious expectation that parts of the bill will not 
survive judicial scrutiny. The only reason that makes sense has to do 
with the elections coming up in just over 4 months. The House should 
reject this attempt to pass a law that can alter the outcome of its own 
upcoming elections, and let the voters decide this for themselves. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I want to start by thanking Chairman 
Brady, Ms. Lofgren, and the other members of the committee, as well as 
Chairman Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and those on the Judiciary Committee, and 
to Mike Castle and all the other cosponsors of this legislation, which 
addresses the very serious threats to our democracy created by the 
Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which in a very radical 
departure from precedent said that major corporations, including 
foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States, will be 
treated like American citizens for the purposes of being able to spend 
unlimited amounts of money in our elections.
  This bill addresses this issue in three ways. First we say, if you're 
a foreign-controlled corporation--if you are British Petroleum, if you 
are a Chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation here in the 
United States, if you are Citgo, controlled by Hugo Chavez, you have no 
business spending money in U.S. elections overtly or secretly. And if 
we don't do something about that now, they will be able to do either of 
those things.

                              {time}  1300

  Number two, we say if you are a Federal contractor, if you are 
getting over $10 million from the American taxpayer or you are AIG, you 
shouldn't be recycling those moneys into elections to try and influence 
the body that gave you the contracts because there is a greater danger 
of corruption in the expenditure of those moneys.
  Third, we require disclosure. We believe that the voter has the right 
to know. You would think from the comments from the other side of the 
aisle we are restricting what people can say. That is not true. You can 
say anything you want in any ad you want. What you can't do is hide 
behind the darkness, not tell people who you are. Voters have a right 
to know when they see an ad going on with a nice-sounding name, the 
Fund For a Better America, they have the right to know who is paying 
for it. They have a right to know if BP is paying for it. They have a 
right to know if any corporation or big-bucks individual is paying for 
it because it is a way to give them information to assess the 
credibility of the ad.
  You vote ``no'' on this, you are saying go ahead and spend millions 
of dollars, corporations or individuals, and say whatever you want, 
which is fine, but we are not going to let the voters know who you are. 
That is what a lot of these interests want. And the reason the League 
of Women Voters--no big special interest group there--League of Women 
Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21, all of the 
organizations that have devoted themselves to clean and fair elections 
support this legislation because they understand that the American 
voter has a right to know who is spending all of these moneys on these 
ads, and they don't want foreign-controlled corporations dumping 
millions of dollars into U.S. elections.
  So, my colleagues, I hope we will move forward on this to make sure 
that the voice of citizens is not drowned out by secret spending by the 
biggest corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
DISCLOSE Act.
  Earlier this year, a majority of the Supreme Court reversed decades 
of precedent and struck down a whole series of reform laws limiting the 
influence of corporate money in elections. The court ruled that 
corporations are people, just like you and me, and have a corresponding 
absolute constitutional right to pump as much money as they want into 
our elections. It revived the fears of concentrated corporate powers, 
distorting our democratic process, fears that have been held by 
believers in a republican form of government from the days of Jefferson 
and Madison and Jackson.
  The very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use 
vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political 
process and drown out the voices of everyone else. Without action, as a 
result of this latest activist Supreme Court decision, our electoral 
system will once again be at the mercy of large moneyed interests.

[[Page 11678]]

  This bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. The 
most important one is that it would require disclosure by corporations 
and labor unions of donors providing money for political purposes in 
certain circumstances, and would mandate that corporate CEOs appear in 
company political ads to say that they ``approve this message,'' just 
as candidates would do.
  With these and several other provisions, the DISCLOSE Act will 
constitutionally set some limits on the role of big money in politics, 
not by limiting the corporate money, unfortunately, but by requiring 
disclosure of the sources of the corporate money, and thus providing 
voters with valuable information on which wealthy interests are behind 
which political advertising so voters can better evaluate that 
advertising.
  I know many people on the other side of the aisle who opposed 
contribution limits previously, in the McCain-Feingold Act, for 
instance, always said, Don't limit political expenditures. The solution 
is disclosure. Let people know who is sponsoring the ads, that will 
safeguard the integrity of our elections. Well, I don't think 
disclosure is enough, but it is all the Supreme Court will allow us to 
do. And to hear all of the people on the other side of the aisle now, 
people who argued for disclosure for years, now suddenly claim that 
requiring disclosure is a limit on free speech is very disturbing, to 
put it mildly.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. It is important that voters know whether the 
ad sponsored by Citizens for a Clean Environment are really bank-rolled 
by British Petroleum, or perhaps by the Sierra Club, in order to judge 
the ad's credibility.
  Now, I know there is a great deal of concern by some people about one 
part of the legislation which would exempt the category of 
organizations from the obligation to disclose their contributors, not 
from other obligations of the bill, but from the obligation to disclose 
their contributors. By limiting the exemption of this one requirement 
to include only those organizations which have been in existence for at 
least a decade, have 500,000 dues-paying members, have dues-paying 
members in each of the 50 States, and receive no more than 15 percent 
of their funding from corporations and unions, the bill would still 
require disclosure from the kind of corporations who seek to buy 
elections secretly and with unlimited cash. We cannot allow the perfect 
to become the enemy of the good. The DISCLOSE Act would make a vast and 
substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections, 
and I cannot think of a more important bill if this country is going to 
remain a democracy with a small ``d'' and not a captive of large 
corporations.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill despite its 
imperfections.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a valued member of our 
committee.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, just a block away from this 
Capitol stands the Supreme Court. Like many other courthouses across 
this country, it bears the image of the Goddess of Justice. Many of you 
know the statue. She holds a set of scales symbolizing the fairness and 
equality of law. She wears a blindfold symbolizing impartiality. 
Unfortunately, this bill does not represent either of those issues.
  Like so many other bills this House Democratic leadership has forced 
onto the floor, this bill suffers the same taint. The provisions in 
this bill are a result of backroom negotiations and special deals to 
exempt some powerful interest groups at the expense of smaller ones.
  But the unfortunate thing about this bill today is rather than 
respecting the First Amendment promise to protect the speech of all 
Americans, it attempts to use the First Amendment as a partisan 
sledgehammer to silence certain speakers in favor of others, especially 
unions.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill bans corporations with government contracts 
over $10 million from political speech. The sponsor says that is 
because those contractors might try to influence decisions by 
government officials. But this bill does nothing for the labor unions 
who are parties to collective bargaining agreements with the 
government. Even though unions have huge amounts of money at stake and 
every incentive to influence decisions about the contracts by 
government officials, it does nothing.
  We offered an amendment to uphold fairness and equality, but that was 
rejected in committee.
  A second example, Mr. Chairman, is we all agree that foreign citizens 
shouldn't influence our elections, whether they are foreign citizens 
that are part of the foreign corporation, or foreign citizens that are 
part of a union with interests in the United States.
  This bill requires CEOs to certify, under penalty of perjury, that 
their companies are not foreign nationals, under the newly expanded 
standard of the bill. But the bill does nothing to ensure that when 
labor unions are spending money on elections, that money did not come 
from people who are themselves prohibited from spending money to 
influence American elections.
  Again, we offered an amendment to treat corporations and unions 
equally under the bill by requiring the same certification of labor 
union chiefs, but again, it was rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, a third example: I point to the centerpiece provision 
of this bill, the so-called disclosure requirement. The bill requires 
organizations to disclose information about the individuals who gave 
more than $600. But the Federal Election Committee asked everybody else 
to do it at $200.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. As one of the majority members of our 
committee asked, Where did that number come from? Well, it is just high 
enough to make sure that unions will not have to report any of their 
dues, because as you see, the average for a union is $377 in 2004, so 
it treats them different than we treat every other American and every 
other campaign. So while candidates and political parties have to 
itemize contributions from donors above $200, we have a different rule 
in this bill, a rule apparently designed for the convenience of unions.
  Again, we offered an amendment to make this disclosure requirement 
the same as how all Federal laws have long required disclosure of 
donors to candidates and political parties, but again, it was rejected.

                              {time}  1310

  Rather than spending time today listening to Americans and addressing 
the number one priority in this country, helping to create jobs and 
grow our economy, again and again I watch this Congress mired in its 
own partisan priorities. I listened to the gentleman from Maryland. He 
happens also to be the chairman of the Democratic Congressional 
Committee.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. As I listened, I remembered last week as 
we sat on this floor thinking this bill would come together, but the 
backroom deal was not done. As I started the speech, thinking of the 
Goddess of Justice, and I go through this bill, the blindfold is taken 
off and the thumb is put on the scale to weigh to one side. This does 
not honor the First Amendment. This does not honor the fairness of what 
this building represents.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), another valued 
member of the House Administration Committee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the DISCLOSE Act. Under current law, yes, it

[[Page 11679]]

is correct that groups must disclose their name in advertisements and 
file a disclosure form, but, you know, that doesn't tell anyone very 
much at all.
  Right now, voters see TV ads sponsored by organizations they have 
never heard of, groups like the American Future Fund, American 
Leadership Project, Citizens for Strength and Security, Common Sense in 
America, and today I am getting calls from the Campaign for Liberty. 
But they will not tell us who they are. Does anybody know who they are?
  In 2008, there were over 80 of these groups, and they bought $135 
million in advertisements. I, for one, don't think our constituents 
should go through another election cycle in the dark. Voters want to 
know: Who's behind that ad? Who stands to gain from it? Why isn't an 
actual person, a corporation, or a union taking responsibility for it? 
The DISCLOSE Act will finally put that information in voters' hands 
with tough disclosure and disclaimer requirements.
  I want to tell you because the DISCLOSE Act also sets some important 
limits to protect taxpayer dollars. I ask those opposed to the bill: Do 
we want ads from banks that still have TARP funds? Do we want 
subsidiaries of foreign-controlled companies meddling in our elections? 
Well, I would think the answer is clearly ``no.''
  The DISCLOSE Act is just like other consumer protection bills this 
body has passed. I can think of no single time that I regretted giving 
my constituents more information so they can make wise, informed 
decisions.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
DISCLOSE Act, a bill that I am proud to cosponsor. Several months ago, 
in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court made a dangerous 
decision to allow unlimited corporate and union money into our 
elections. The consequences of this decision for our democracy are 
dire.
  Unless we act, massive corporations can secretly funnel hundreds of 
millions of dollars through shadowy front groups to influence 
elections. A foreign company like British Petroleum could even 
retaliate against Members of Congress who want to hold them accountable 
by secretly funding millions in attack ads.
  If we don't act to stop this injustice, limitless corporate money 
will flood into our political system and drown out the voice of the 
American people. Debates between citizens will be replaced by hours of 
televised ads secretly funded by corporate interests.
  Some people say this is a First Amendment free speech issue. Of 
course it is. The court decision actually lets foreign corporations 
influence our elections. What this bill does is protect the speech of 
American citizens.
  Mr. Chair, the DISCLOSE Act says free speech is for people. The 
DISCLOSE Act also says pick a side. Do you support protecting the voice 
of the American people?
  I ask everyone to support the bill.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, at this time I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the 
ranking member of this committee, and my colleague on the Judiciary 
Committee, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, in Citizens United v. Federal 
Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions 
of Federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' First 
Amendment rights. Yet the DISCLOSE Act would subject corporations and 
other organizations to yet more regulations that unduly restrict their 
freedom of speech. It would do this while unfairly sparing unions and 
other preferred groups from the same regulations.
  This legislation is plainly unconstitutional. The DISCLOSE Act would 
unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and 
companies with as much as 80 percent ownership by U.S. citizens. It 
would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that 
organizations can include in ads stating their political opinions. It 
would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's 
donors, in violation of their right to free association. And it would 
unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements.
  The DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional, and it should be soundly 
rejected by the House today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to Jared Polis 
of Colorado, a great member of our committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5175, the 
DISCLOSE Act.
  Corporations are not human beings. Corporations may employ and be 
owned by human beings, all of whom in their individual capacity enjoy 
their constitutional rights, but corporations themselves are not alive. 
Their mothers can't die of cancer. Their sons can't be sent off to war. 
Corporations are political zombies, knowing only the pursuit of the 
flesh of profit, which is fine in an economic context, which is the 
economic reason that corporations exist. But in the political context, 
there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially without the 
reasonable restrictions that were tossed out by the recent Supreme 
Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
  In a capitalist system, when government gives politically connected 
corporations an advantage over their less politically connected 
competitors, everyone suffers, and it undermines the confidence of 
liberals, conservatives, all citizens. That's why the DISCLOSE Act is 
so urgently needed: to provide safeguards, disclosure about the flood 
of special interest money into our elections, and to protect the free 
speech of individual Americans.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support 
H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens 
United was disastrous and gave corporations not just the rights of 
persons, but way more rights than persons have. You or I as an 
individual, any citizen, has a limit on how much they can donate in any 
given campaign cycle; whereas, under the current court decision, 
corporations have no limit.
  One of the most important provisions of the bill we are talking about 
would prevent foreign-owned companies from buying U.S. elections. And I 
would like to thank Chairman Van Hollen's willingness to work with me 
in including a similar provision in the bill to one that I introduced 
in my Freedom from Foreign-Based Manipulation in American Elections 
Act, to prevent companies like BP from deciding who is elected to 
Congress.
  This should be about representing our people, and our friends on both 
sides of the aisle like to say that we represent the people. Well, a 
poll just came out showing 87 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of 
Independents--91 percent of Independents--support this bill.
  I urge all Members to vote for it.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups 
that support this bill. Interestingly enough, as debate started on the 
rule today, we have received word from 18 more groups that they oppose 
this bill. Now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, 
including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life, 
and the Sierra Club.
  Let me quote, if I might, from the ACLU's letter that is dated June 
17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of 
groups that support this, but yet why not talk about groups that are 
known for protecting the First Amendment. The ACLU says in their 
letter:
  ``To the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated 
at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on 
the identity of

[[Page 11680]]

the speaker.'' And they're referring specifically to this bill.
  ``The ACLU welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by 
improving the information available to voters. While some elements of 
this bill move in that direction, the system is not strengthened by 
chilling free speech and invading the privacy of even modest donors to 
controversial causes.''
  That, of course, refers to the seminal case on this by the Supreme 
Court and I believe in 1948, NCAA v. Alabama where they showed that 
revelation of members or donors to certain groups that are disfavored 
can lead to intimidation.
  They go on to say here: ``Indeed, our Constitution embraces public 
discussion of matters that are important to our Nation's future, and it 
respects the right of individuals to support those conversations 
without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or 
embarrassment. Only reforms that promote speech, rather than limit it, 
and apply evenhandedly, rather than selectively, will bring positive 
change to our elections. Because the DISCLOSE Act misses both of these 
targets, the ACLU opposes its passage and urges a `no' vote on H.R. 
5175.''
  I made a mistake earlier when I referred to the amount of time we are 
allowed to debate the naming of post offices in this Congress. As a 
matter of fact, 41 hours have been granted by the Rules Committee or 
under suspension under our rules to the debate on the naming of post 
offices, but we could only give 1 hour to this debate.
  Ironic, isn't it, that they talk about this being the DISCLOSE Act. 
The guts of the bill were not disclosed to those of us on the 
committee. I even asked if I could see a copy. In fact, I asked a 
Member of this House who had received a copy, and he was told that he 
was prohibited from showing it to those of us on the Republican side 
because the leadership on the Democratic side did not want us to know 
what they were doing.
  The DISCLOSE Act? They didn't disclose the actual bill that we have 
here until 2 hours before we went to the Rules Committee yesterday. And 
maybe one of the reasons they didn't want to disclose it is that in 
addition to those exemptions specifically given to labor unions, 
allowing labor unions to be exempt from the disclosure that all other--
not just the major corporations you keep talking about. Remember, 
corporations are the usual associated legal apparatus used by most 
advocacy groups. So that's who you are talking about.
  And you keep saying, well, you can have foreign companies and foreign 
countries under this decision by the Supreme Court control the message 
and campaign. That's just utterly untrue. It's not allowed by law 
before. It wasn't changed by the Supreme Court decision, and so at 
least you ought to talk about what the law is. It is not true. That's a 
dog that won't hunt, and you keep putting it up here and you keep 
putting it up here, and either you haven't read your own bill, you 
haven't read the Supreme Court decision, or there's an attempt to not 
tell people exactly what is happening.
  But one of the reasons I believe that perhaps we didn't get an 
opportunity to see the latest version of the bill is because it 
contains a huge, new, big union loophole; and it allows the transfer of 
all kinds of funds, unlimited funds among affiliated unions so long as 
not a single member is responsible for $50,000. I doubt that many 
members are responsible for $50,000, which means there will be no 
limitation whatsoever with respect to unions here.
  So let's get the facts straight. There was an auction in this House 
behind closed doors. Certain groups won the auction; other groups did 
not. That's one of the reasons the ACLU is against it. That's why we 
should be against it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman on Courts and Competition.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Let's get right down to it. Why are the 
Republicans opposed to restricting campaign donations in American 
campaigns both local, State, and Federal? Why? It's because Republicans 
favor Big Business and Big Business favors Republicans. With all of 
these unlimited dollars flowing through, we'll see more Republicans 
getting elected, both local, State, and Federal.
  What it means is that BP, a corporate wrongdoer, foreign corporation, 
can influence elections. It means Goldman Sachs and other corporate 
miscreants can influence elections, no limit, no boundaries. That's 
what will happen if we don't pass the DISCLOSE Act.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
is left?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) has 6 minutes, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 45 seconds, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased 
to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DISCLOSE Act. I would like to 
thank Mr. Van Hollen and his office for their work on this as well.
  I believe that this is relatively simple. I think that all of us in 
this country have a right to know who is putting forth ads for or 
against candidates as the campaigns run on. We do that as elected 
officials. The political parties do that. We also file all those who 
contribute money to us above certain amounts, and that I believe also 
should be done.
  This act that we are trying to pass basically is one of transparency. 
You can call it DISCLOSE, whatever you wish; but it basically indicates 
that foreign corporations cannot spend dollars in U.S. elections, and 
Federal contractors cannot get involved. But those who can, the 
corporations, unions, not-for-profits, must disclose who is paying for 
it in terms of the CEO coming forward and major contributors being 
posted so that people know who is paying for it.
  It does not limit what they can say. I do not believe it's in any way 
a violation of the First Amendment as has been stated here on repeated 
occasions.
  I will be the first to tell you I do not like the manager's amendment 
that was in the rule with respect to the exemptions for certain 
entities--not because there's anything wrong with the entities--but my 
judgment is this should be applicable to everybody who would fall into 
these categories. Perhaps that will be fixed in the Senate.

                              {time}  1330

  But the bottom line is, this is a disclosure act so that the people 
of this country will know who is advertising. We've all been subjected 
to it. We've all seen these ads where you wonder just who is running 
that ad, and now we'll have a pretty good idea. I hope our body will 
support it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would extend 1 minute of my 
time to the gentleman from Michigan, who I understand needs more time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Could the gentleman spare us a couple minutes?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, let's start with 1 minute 
and we'll see where we go from there.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am very pleased now to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 
leadership and boldness on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a version of the Constitution that is 
in this very distinct book of rules. And clearly I think it is 
important for the American people to understand really the action items 
of this legislation.
  Can you imagine a government contractor being paid by your tax 
dollars--they might be doing the right thing, we don't know--but 
advocating with your tax dollars for a position you do not want without 
you knowing that that is occurring?

[[Page 11681]]

  This bill is under the First Amendment because it says that we give 
you more transparency. If we read the Constitution in its entirety, the 
opening says that ``We have come together to form a more perfect 
Union.'' That means if people are dissatisfied with this bill, they 
have a right to petition the courts. But we believe we are erring on 
the side of rightness, breaking those bold chains of big money around 
your neck and allowing people to either be elected or run for office, 
dominated, slammed down on the basis of big money.
  This is a good change. I ask for my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175. I 
have said repeatedly that this has been one of the most difficult 
decisions of my political career. However, I strongly believe that if 
we do not support H.R. 5175, we will be overwhelmed during this 
election cycle by the richest corporations and individuals in the U.S. 
I do not believe we will be able to even begin to estimate how much 
might be spent in the mid-term elections.
  I do know that without some mechanism to prevent political opponents 
from tapping into an unlimited supply of cash, we will be setting the 
stage for our own demise, as well as a dangerous precedent for future 
elections. U.S. politics will never be the same after the midterm 
elections if we do not pass the DISCLOSE Act.
  Of course, arguments have been made involving the First Amendment. 
Many arguments opposing the bill on constitutional grounds are 
legitimate. Yet, these arguments negate the fact that the DISCLOSE Act 
will actually expand First Amendment rights that might otherwise be 
drowned out because the legislation provides fair access for all 
parties, while breaking the chain big money has in American politics. 
Sitting on the fence on this bill might be considered tempting, 
although if we sit on the fence today we will pay a price tomorrow.
  While the DISCLOSE Act exempts large established 501(c)(4) from some 
of the bill's disclosure requirements, it addresses the fundamental 
issue of eliminating the possibility that a rich corporation or 
individual can hide behind their money. Transparency as it relates to 
campaign financing is the principle behind the DISCLOSE Act.
  After years of the Abramoff scandal, special interests lobbyists 
writing legislation and an explosion of earmarks, the New Direction 
Congress is working to restore honest leadership and open government.
  Congressional Republicans support Wall Street banks, credit card 
companies, Big Oil, and insurance companies--special interests that 
benefited from Bush's policies and created the worst financial crisis 
since the Great Depression--and are working to be rewarded by their 
corporate friends.
  The DISCLOSE ACT will accomplish a number of things, including:
  Prevent Large Government Contractors from Spending Money on 
Elections: Prevents government contractors with over $10 million in 
contract money from making independent expenditures and electioneering 
communications. Before the Citizens United case, corporations could not 
make political expenditures in federal elections.
  Prevent TARP recipients from Spending Money on Elections: Prohibits 
bailout beneficiaries from making independent expenditures or 
electioneering communications in federal elections until the government 
money is repaid.
  Limit Foreign Influence in American Elections: Extends existing 
prohibitions on campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign 
nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign nationals own more 
than 20% of voting shares, make up a majority of the board of 
directors, and/or have the power to dictate decision-making of the 
domestic corporation.
  Strengthen Disclosure of Election Ads: Expands electioneering 
communications that must be disclosed under the bill to broadcast ads 
referring to a candidate in the 120 days before the general election, 
expanded from 60 days before the general under current law.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased again to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I just want to emphasize again, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his 
dissent, that the Supreme Court decision did open the door to foreign-
controlled corporations spending money directly in U.S. elections. If 
you have a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation that's controlled 
by that corporation, when the Supreme Court essentially said all 
corporations could spend money directly in U.S. elections, they opened 
the door very clearly to that. And it's an area where it's also clear 
Congress can move to legislate.
  Number two, it's no surprise that you have lots of organizations on 
the right and the left--love what they stand for or hate what they 
stand for--that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters 
in many instances to know who is funding their ads. That's not a 
surprise at all. That's why those organizations who are devoted solely 
to clean campaign elections, like the League of Women Voters and Common 
Cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it.
  Let me say something with respect to unions. There is no such thing 
as a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign union. So this is a red herring 
issue.
  Second, under U.S. law, we have never defined collective bargaining 
agreements as Federal contracts like those contracts that go to the 
corporations themselves.
  Number three, I draw to the attention of the body a statement that 
was made by Trevor Potter, President of the Campaign Legal Center, who 
was the Republican Commissioner on the FEC, the Federal Election 
Commission, from 1991 to 1995, who said, ``This bill requires funding 
disclosure for all election advertising--union and corporate,'' and 
goes on to say, ``Based on the legislative language's equality of 
treatment, claims of union favoritism seem to be unsupported efforts to 
discredit the bill and stave off its primary goal: disclosure of those 
underwriting the massive independent expenditure campaigns that are 
coming to dominate our elections.'' That's the Republican commissioner.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it instructive that one of the Members on the 
other side of the aisle, when she got down here to talk about the 
Constitution, said, I have this version of the Constitution. As far as 
I know there's only one version of the Constitution, except if you 
happen to be on the majority side dealing with this bill. Why do I say 
that? Because the Constitution very clearly in the First Amendment 
says, ``Congress shall make no law''--no law--``abridging free 
speech.'' What is it about ``no'' that you don't understand--I would 
say rhetorically because I can't address the majority on this floor. 
But I would say, if I could, what is it about ``no'' that you don't 
understand? It says no law.
  Now, if some would say, well, wait a second, the courts do allow some 
laws in the area of campaign finance and disclosure and so forth; yes, 
they do. But what are they predicated on? They say the countervailing 
principle or concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. 
That's the only basis upon which you can create these laws. And they, 
therefore, say you can not distinguish between two sets of groups where 
that same analysis would come forward. In other words, you can't say 
we're going to favor unions but disfavor corporations who stand 
essentially in the same shoes in the area of potential corruption. They 
say if you have a government contract over $10 million--and they 
started at $5 million, now they're up to $10 million to include certain 
groups, we're not sure exactly who they are, but there have been some 
whispers as to who they are--but the whole argument is that there is a 
potential corruption between those who have government contracts and 
those who might have influence in giving those contracts. So we said, 
okay, what about unions that represent the workers for those companies 
whose pay comes from the taxpayers by virtue of these contracts? It's 
the same argument. And they said, oh, no, we can't do that, that would 
be unfair to unions. And we said, what about the fact where you have 
union bargaining agreements with government entities, wouldn't that be 
the same? Oh, no, no, that's different than corporations. What's the 
basis? There is no basis. And what they do, by the terms of the bill, 
is render this bill unconstitutional because the courts say you can't 
distinguish among different groups unless you use the same basis.

[[Page 11682]]

  And they use the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny. Why? 
Because it involves an essential right protected under the 
Constitution. That's what is so disturbing here today, not because we 
disagree on the legislation because we do that often, but the fact of 
the matter is that we are so cavalierly dealing with the First 
Amendment. We are so cavalierly dealing with free speech. We are so 
cavalierly dealing with essential political free speech, particularly 
when it's involved in elections. That's when it's most important. And 
yet we have seen a bidding war here, an auction--not on the floor 
because it took place behind closed doors--and yet we're told--just 
look at the title, look at the title. You know, if you put the name 
Cadillac on a Yugo, it would still be a Yugo. If it can't drive, 
putting another name on it is not going to make it better.
  And to say this is the DISCLOSE Act when you refuse to disclose the 
parts of it to us until 2 hours before the Rules Committee yesterday 
undercuts everything you argue that this bill is about. This is not 
sunlight. This is putting some in the cellar where there is no light 
and others get the light. This is allowing some to be involved in the 
debate and others not.
  Our Founding Fathers did not think the antidote to bad speech was to 
prohibit speech. It was to encourage robust debate and give others the 
opportunity. We can agree on disclosure, but not when you bring it in 
this form because it isn't disclosure that is fairly imposed on all 
parties.
  And I am sure of this; this will be declared unconstitutional. But 
the dirty little secret in this is you have put in here the appellate 
process so it won't be decided until after this election, so that those 
who should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights will be 
afraid to exercise them for fear they might make a mistake. What a 
tragedy. What a travesty.
  We should do better on this floor. We owe it to ourselves. And if we 
don't think we're worthy, maybe the Constitution is worthy. Maybe our 
constituents are worthy. To hide behind the words ``disclosure'' and 
``disclose'' when in fact that's not what you're doing is the ultimate 
in insult to the Constitution.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Members of the House, I have been on the Judiciary Committee longer 
than anyone in the House of Representatives. Save one other court 
decision, there has been no decision that they have ever rendered that 
I have considered more abhorrent and more onerous than the results that 
will flow from this measure of the Citizens United decision. I say that 
because what we are doing is a matter of whether corporate control of 
the body politic now goes completely and totally without any halt or 
reservation whatsoever.
  So, please, support this measure.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it 
is my distinct honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of 
the Republicans here in the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. I want to thank my colleague for yielding.
  ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.''
  We all know that that is part of our First Amendment to the 
Constitution. It is first for a reason, because freedom of speech is 
the basis for our democracy, but today, the majority wants to pass a 
bill restricting speech, violating that very First Amendment to the 
Constitution. Oh, no, they don't want to restrict it for everyone. They 
want to use their majority here in the House to silence their political 
opponents, pure and simple, for just one election.
  Is there any other explanation for this bill? Is there any other 
reason why, under this bill, small businesses will get muffled, but big 
businesses are going to be fine? Labor unions, they're not going to 
have to comply with this. They are exempted from this. They are going 
to get their rights protected.
  Why is the National Rifle Association protected but not the National 
Right to Life organization? Obviously, no one wants to answer.
  The National Rifle Association is carved out of this bill, and they 
get a special deal. Now, the NRA is a big defender of the Second 
Amendment of the Constitution--the right to bear arms. Yet they think 
it's all right to throw everybody else under the table, so they can get 
a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all of the 
rules outlined in this bill. Frankly, I think it is disappointing.
  Why does the Humane Society of America get to speak freely but not 
the national Farm Bureau? Why does AARP get protected under this bill, 
but if you belong to 60 Plus, no, you've got to comply with all of 
this?
  Since the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the First Amendment, 
Democrats here have maintained their bill would apply equally across 
the board to corporations, to labor unions, and to advocacy 
organizations alike. Instead, they have produced a bill that is full of 
loopholes, designed to help their friends while silencing their 
political opponents.
  We in this House take an oath to preserve, to protect, and to defend 
our Constitution. Anyone who votes for this bill today, I'll tell you, 
is violating the oath that they took when they became Members of this 
organization.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been privileged to serve in this House for a 
number of years. During that period of time, I have had the opportunity 
to vote, probably, thousands of times on many, many, many different 
issues. Sometimes the result of the votes, of the collective votes of 
this House and the Senate and the signature of the President during the 
course of time that I have been here, has resulted in legislation which 
subsequently was ruled to be, in part or in whole, unconstitutional.
  I have had conversations on the floor of the House with Members who 
have said at times, I'm not concerned about the Constitution. I mean 
don't let me worry about that. The courts decide that.
  I've always said to them in response, We have an obligation when we 
take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and we ought to do 
it as we consider legislation.
  Though, I am not sure that I have ever seen a frontal assault on the 
Constitution as this bill is. Why do I say that? I say that because 
this deals with the First Amendment. It deals with political speech. It 
deals with political speech at its most effective, which is in the 
context of a political campaign, and we ought to deal with that very, 
very carefully.
  I would say to my friend from Michigan, if we were so concerned about 
the Constitution, why did our committee waive jurisdiction here after 
only having this bill for a day? Other times, we insist on dealing with 
constitutional questions, but yet we gave it up.
  You look at this bill, and you see that it violates the contours of 
the decision by the Supreme Court. If you want to amend the 
Constitution, bring an amendment to the floor. It violates it in so 
many ways, and it is a continual violation, as the auction block was 
established on the other side of the aisle. We kept hearing day after 
day, week after week, They don't have the votes. They don't have the 
votes. They're going to make this deal. They're going to make that 
deal.
  What did they do? They expanded the exemption.
  They decided, yes, the National Rifle Association got a special 
exemption. I guess AARP did. I guess the Humane Society did. We don't 
know who else did because they've just changed the definition in the 
last couple of days from a million members to a half a million members, 
but we know that most groups now will not be exempt, just a privileged 
few. That violates what the decisions of the courts going back decades 
tell us. You cannot discriminate among groups. You cannot

[[Page 11683]]

have disfavored and favored groups, and that is what we are doing right 
here on the floor, not just about something dealt with by the 
Constitution, but the essential of the First Amendment.
  I am surprised that my liberal friends are not down here on this 
floor, condemning provisions of this bill. They say it's not a perfect 
bill. No, it's not perfect. It's unconstitutional. It is 
unconstitutional by its very terms. In the last 2 weeks and even 
yesterday, it became more unconstitutional because they carved out 
exemptions even further for unions and for selected groups of large 
size.
  Mr. Chairman, we should do better than this. We should do better than 
this. If we are not concerned about protecting the Constitution, who 
is?
  You know, as was said basically by our leader, we take an oath to 
protect and to defend all parts of the Constitution--the First 
Amendment as well as the Second Amendment. The fact of the matter is we 
take an oath to uphold the Constitution. To only allow an hour's worth 
of debate when we give far more time to naming post offices is a 
disgrace in this House--a disgrace. To not allow amendments that deal 
with some of the very subjects that my friends on the other side talk 
about is a disgrace.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  First, let me thank the staff of House Administration--Jamie Fleet, 
Matt Pinkus, Tom Hicks, and Jennifer Daehn--for the hard work they've 
done on this bill. There was a lot of moving around and a lot of moving 
parts to be able to put it back together so we could be here today.
  I would also like to thank Karen Robb, who I am sure, right now, is 
probably the most relieved person in knowing that this is finally 
coming to an end, and I appreciate all her help.

                              {time}  1350

  Despite all the rhetoric that we've heard about this bill, the simple 
purpose, Mr. Chairman, is: Who's saying it; who's paying it. All I want 
to know when I run or if I run or anybody runs for reelection, if 
somebody's running an ad against me, I'd like to know who that person 
is, or if somebody is writing an ad in my favor, I'd like to know who 
that person is.
  We talked about the unions as opposed to corporations. The unions pay 
dues and they take out at an hourly rate a checkoff to go to a PAC 
committee, a PAC fund. They also have the right not to do that. They 
can say, I don't want to send any money to a PAC fund. But if they do, 
they now vote. They sit and vote for every single candidate that that 
union is supporting, whether or not they want to support that candidate 
or not, and every union puts a tagline saying who they're supporting 
and they're paying for that.
  Corporations. I could be a member and a stockholder of a corporation 
like AT&T and have stocks, and they can run against me and I don't even 
know it. Also, those corporations don't vote. I'm a stockholder; I 
don't vote. I can't vote to say what they do with my money, even though 
they spend the money for an opponent against me. Again, Mr. Chairman, 
all we're saying is, who's saying it and who's paying for it.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE 
Act, as a cosponsor and strong proponent of this legislation.
  The DISCLOSE Act is a bipartisan response to the Supreme Court's 
reckless decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to 
give corporations the same rights as American citizens with respect to 
political speech. The decision overturned decades of precedent 
upholding common-sense campaign finance laws that kept special 
interests at bay in our elections. Corporations--think Big Oil and Wall 
Street--can now speak louder and more forcefully than the ordinary 
American without any restrictions. Moreover, Citizens United opened up 
the very real possibility that other countries--many of which do not 
have America's best interest in mind--can spend money to influence our 
elections. Maybe the opponents of this legislation don't understand 
that by voting ``no'' they've allowed China Telecom or Venezuela's 
CITGO the same rights as ordinary Americans when it comes to spending 
money in our elections.
  Since we are not yet politically at a point where we have the votes 
to overturn this reckless Supreme Court decision, the DISCLOSE Act is a 
step towards ensuring corporations now have these rights, they must 
spend money in the light of day. For one thing, corporations cannot 
hide behind shadow groups that do not have to disclose their donors to 
the public. If corporations choose to advertise close to Election Day, 
they must report their donors to the Federal Election Commission and 
include a hyperlink to their disclosure report on their websites. 
Moreover, chief executive officers will have to stand behind their ads 
and top donors will be listed on advertisements. American citizens have 
the right to know and deserve to know who it is exactly that is telling 
them to vote for or against a candidate.
  The DISCLOSE Act prevents foreign cash in our elections, and also 
prevents corporations receiving large government contracts, and 
corporations that are using money out of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund 
from spending taxpayer money out of their general treasuries on 
American elections. These practical limitations are necessary to ensure 
that American elections are not co-opted by foreign entities and 
special interests looking out only for their own interests and bottom 
lines.
  Mr. Chair, the DISLCOSE Act represents months of hard work and 
compromise so that American citizens would still have a strong voice in 
our elections. Most Americans, in fact, did not agree with the Supreme 
Court's decision because they understand that corporations and 
individuals are not one in the same. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting ``yes'' on this legislation and ensure that 
American's voices are still heard in our elections.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support taking a first step in 
repairing our broken election system. The cornerstone of our democracy 
is that voters--not corporations and special interests--should decide 
elections. Congress must act to reserve the Supreme Court's mistaken 
decision in Citizens United and prevent corporations from completely 
taking over our elections.
  Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned important campaign 
finance reform laws that limited the ability of corporations to fund 
and influence federal elections. By overturning these restrictions, the 
Supreme Court has freed corporations to secretly spend millions of 
dollars on political campaigns and advertisements without any public 
disclosure of those expenditures. The American people have a right to 
know who is paying for all the expensive advertising during campaigns. 
The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175) would remedy this situation.
  This bill requires corporations, unions, and special interest groups 
to disclose both the identity of their organization and those of their 
top donors when they engage in electioneering. Campaign contributions 
from corporations with government contracts and those made by foreign 
nationals or foreign-controlled domestic corporations would be 
prohibited. Individuals spending more than $10,000 on electioneering 
communications are required to file an electronic report with the 
Federal Elections Commission (FEC) that will be publicly available.
  I oppose the inclusion of a donor disclosure exemption that primarily 
benefits the National Rifle Association. The NRA still has the ability 
to kill a bill in Congress. The overall impact of the bill is still 
positive and an improvement on the status quo.
  We must go further on campaign finance reform and rid our politics of 
corporate money. I am a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 
1826), which would provide public financing for federal campaigns. 
Candidates who raise a specified number of small donations would be 
eligible for matching funds. This would return fundraising to its 
proper place--from community support rather than special interests.
  I will keep working for public financing. The DISCLOSE Act is a first 
step in the right direction. Special interests representing oil 
companies, Wall Street, and health insurance companies should not be 
able to buy elections. I will vote for the DISCLOSE Act and urge all of 
my colleagues to support stronger campaign finance laws.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5175, 
the DISCLOSE Act.
  Fair, free elections are the foundation of our democracy. As Members 
of Congress, it is our duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure the 
voices of our constituents are heard. But in its

[[Page 11684]]

Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court overturned nearly a century 
of precedent and threatened the legitimacy of our elections by opening 
the flood gates to unlimited corporate spending on elections.
  This ruling is sadly just a continuation of the failed policies that 
thrived under Republican leadership, when special interests dominated 
Washington. Fueled by big donations from special interests, for years 
Republicans allowed Big Oil to run amok, stood by and watched as Wall 
Street's greed nearly destroyed our financial system, and sat on their 
hands as health insurers raked in record profits at the expense of 
struggling American families.
  Thankfully, things have changed under Democratic leadership. Under 
Democratic leadership, corporate influence in Washington is 
diminishing. Health Reform. Wall Street Reform. Energy Reform. Special 
interests have fought these efforts tooth and nail from the start, and 
they have failed.
  The DISCLOSE Act is Democrats' latest effort to fight back against 
corporate special interests. This legislation begins to roll back the 
gaping loopholes in Citizens United that threaten the integrity of our 
elections and will drown out the voices of everyday American voters.
  It prevents corporations controlled by foreign--or even hostile--
governments from dumping in secret money to influence U.S. elections 
and drown out the voice of American voters.
  It prohibits government contractors and TARP recipients from making 
political expenditures with taxpayer dollars.
  And it throws a little sunshine on who is behind the ads in our 
elections. It does that by requiring disclosure by corporations, unions 
and advocacy groups that spend money on elections. It requires 
corporate CEOs to show their face and stand by their ads just like 
candidates must do.
   The DISCLOSE Act helps ensure transparency and accountability in our 
federal elections. Voters deserve to know when Wall Street, Big Oil or 
credit card companies are the ones behind political advertisements. 
Shareholders deserve to know what their companies are spending their 
investment dollars on. And Americans deserve to know when special 
interests like health insurers and energy companies set up sham 
organizations meant to trick and deceive them into voting against their 
own interests.
  Mr. Chair, transparency works. We need look no further than my home 
state of California, where just weeks ago voters soundly defeated a 
ballot measure after learning that the sham group ``Californians to 
Protect the Right to Vote'' that supported it was actually funded by 
energy giant Pacific Gas & Electric.
  Mr. Chair, it is time to act. It is time to stop special interests 
and their billions of dollars from drowning out the voices of American 
voters. It is time to put the interests of American voters above those 
of corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the DISCLOSE Act.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chair, as a member of the House 
Progressive Caucus, I am proud to say that it has been progressives who 
have fought the undue influence of corporations in campaigns, beginning 
since at least the late 1800s. In 1907, the Tillman Act was signed into 
law, which prohibits any contribution by any corporation and national 
bank to federal political campaigns. This ban remains in effect to this 
very day.
  Michigan has a particular role in corporations and campaign finance 
issues. In the Supreme Court case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of 
Commerce in 1990, in which the Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to 
use its general funds to run a newspaper ad supporting a specific 
candidate against Michigan State law, the Court upheld Michigan law. 
Furthermore, the Court found that the government must prevent ``the 
corrosive and distorting effects'' of corporate money in politics.
  I agree, and I do believe that the ruling in Citizens United will 
allow wealthy corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on 
campaigns. President Barack Obama criticized this decision during his 
annual State of the Union address, saying, ``. . . last week the 
Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the 
floodgates for special interests--including foreign corporations--to 
spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections 
should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by 
foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And 
I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct 
some of these problems.''
  Unfortunately, this is not that bill. Congress must take action to 
counteract the negative effect of the Citizens United decision. I 
believe in the basic principle that Americans have the right to know 
the identities of groups spending money to influence elections. I 
believe in transparency. I believe in fairness. This bill, designed to 
protect against undue, unfair, and unwanted influence by corporations, 
contains a carve-out or exemption for the National Rifle Association. 
This exemption is not good policy, is not right, and is not fair. It is 
simply baffling to me that the party that has led the fight against 
assault weapons, in support of stronger handgun registration 
requirements, and helped to see the Brady law come to reality would 
support such an exemption for the one organization against stronger gun 
laws.
  In Detroit, Michigan, we have regrettably seen too many young people 
die due to gun violence. This is almost a direct result of simply 
this--there are too many guns on our streets. Combine the plethora of 
guns on the street with record high unemployment, home foreclosures, 
and industries leaving Michigan, and it is no secret why deaths due to 
gun violence in our nation are soaring.
  Like most Americans, I want to keep the light on who, what and how 
campaigns are financed. Amendments to level the playing field for all 
organizations were offered, but rejected. Congress should defeat this 
bill in its current form, and take a stand against the National Rifle 
Association.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chair, there are valid concerns that the DISCLOSE 
Act, H.R. 5175, could unconstitutionally hinder the free speech of 
certain long-standing, member-driven organizations that have 
historically acted in good faith. In an effort to fix this, I filed an 
amendment with the House Rules Committee to exempt any 501(c)(4) 
organization that meets certain criteria from the Disclose Act's 
reporting and disclosure requirements.
  A modified version of my amendment was included as part of 
Representative Brady's ``manager's amendment'' made in order by the 
Rules Committee. The manager's amendment creates a special class of 
exempt 501(c)(4) organizations to which the reporting and disclosure 
provisions of H.R. 5175 do not apply.
  These ``exempt 501(c)(4) organizations'' would need to:
  Be a 501(c)(4) organization for each of the past 10 years;
  Have at least 500,000 dues-paying members;
  Have at least one dues-paying member in each of the 50 states;
  Receives no more than 15 percent of its annual revenue from 
corporations, excluding revenue from commercial transactions occurring 
in the ordinary course of business;
  Not use any funds received from corporations for electioneering 
communications.
  The organization's CEO would need to certify to the Federal Election 
Commission (FEC) that it meets these qualifications. To protect 
individuals rights of freedom of speech the FEC would not be allowed to 
require any donor lists, or financial or membership information of any 
kind from organizations seeking exemption. Such compelled disclosure to 
the FEC would raise serious First Amendment questions.
  There is no question that we need to prevent enormous amounts of 
corporate and foreign money from flooding campaigns without 
transparency, and to prevent illegitimate shadow organizations from 
cropping up and overpowering the voice of Americans. However, many 
organizations exist solely to give individuals with common interests a 
voice in the political process. This narrowly tailored exemption for 
this special class of exempt 501(c)(4) organizations is necessary to 
achieve the compelling government interest that non-profit membership 
organizations funded largely by individuals be allowed to speak freely 
in the political arena. Long-standing, member-driven, non-profit 
organizations are at the heart of the First Amendment's protections of 
political speech and association and are distinct from for-profit 
corporations, just as media corporations are distinct from other for-
profit corporations.
  Including this exemption for exempt 501(c)(4) organizations is 
critical to passage and enactment of H.R. 5175. Were a court to try and 
sever the exemption from the bill and leave the remainder of its 
provisions intact, it would violate the clear intent of Congress. We 
need to ensure that these long-standing, non-profit membership 
organizations funded largely by individuals can continue to speak 
freely on behalf of their members.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Democracy is 
Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, known as 
the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation, quite simply, is about giving 
voters information on who is trying to influence an election and how 
much money they are spending to do so. The American people deserve the 
benefit of this information as they decide how to vote.
  Unfortunately, the trend in recent years has been toward less 
transparency in election

[[Page 11685]]

spending. Organizations hiding behind generic or even misleading names 
have spent millions of dollars in political advertising, often not to 
promote their own ideas but to attack a candidate or cause. Posing as 
grassroots citizens groups, too often advertisements turn out to be 
astroturf campaigns funded by corporations, industry trade 
associations, and political interests. Their purposes may be to confuse 
or even deceive voters and, without the ability to know an 
advertisement's sponsors, the voters are missing vital information that 
would help them arrive at their own conclusions.
  This trend in political advertisements was already on an 
unsustainable path when the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on 
direct corporate and union spending on elections. This decision opened 
the floodgates to a wave of new money, all of which could be spent from 
behind a curtain of secrecy.
  The DISCLOSE Act pulls back the curtain. It requires the CEO or 
President of the sponsoring corporation, union, or advocacy 
organization to stand by their ad, just as candidates must. The bill 
requires these organizations to inform their members or shareholders of 
their election-related spending so that the decision makers can be held 
accountable. It requires spending amounts to be posted online and, for 
those shadow groups that seem to form overnight, advertisements will be 
required to list their top five funders, and the organization will need 
to make a list of their large donors available to the public.
  The DISCLOSE Act also steps in to bar spending from those who should 
not be able to interfere in elections: corporations controlled by 
foreigners as well as government contractors and TARP recipients who 
should not be able to spend taxpayer money on election activities.
  There is no doubt that the DISCLOSE Act represents a significant 
improvement over current law and a step worth taking. It is time to 
pull back the curtain and I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair,


                    Internet Rules Remain Unchanged

  H.R. 5175 extends the existing rules on coordination to apply to any 
``covered communication,'' and defines the term ``covered 
communication.'' In so doing, the bill repeats the language of the 
existing media exemption and incorporates that exemption into the 
definition of ``covered communication.'' The existing language of the 
media exemption has been interpreted by FEC regulation to include an 
exemption for media activities on the Internet. 11 CFR 100.132. By 
incorporating the existing language of the media exemption into the 
coordination provisions in the DISCLOSE Act, the sponsors intend to 
ensure that the media exemption in the DISCLOSE Act will be interpreted 
by the FEC in the same way that the FEC has interpreted the media 
exemption in existing law, to include media activities on the Internet 
within the media exemption.


          Independent Expenditures Influence Elected Officials

  Independent expenditures and electioneering communications can 
influence elected officials and produce gratitude, indebtedness, and 
access. Although such influence is not per se problematic, it may be 
improper in certain contexts. In particular, such influence is improper 
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of federal contracting 
decisions or if it is exercised by a foreign-controlled entity.
  According to a recent report by Professor Wilcox of Georgetown 
University, ``Donors who seek to gain access and influence care 
primarily that their contribution is noticed and appreciated, not that 
it is handled directly by the candidate's campaign treasurer.'' The 
report notes that contributions to groups that make independent 
expenditures ``can be conceived as indirect contributions--instead of 
giving the money directly to the candidate's campaign committee, they 
are given to an independent committee that also helps the candidate 
win.'' Indeed some experts believe that large independent expenditures 
on behalf of candidates can produce greater influence than direct 
campaign contributions that are subject to legal limits: ``With almost 
all of the 527s associating themselves with the two major parties and 
their candidates, and with the great majority of contributions coming 
from donors giving in the millions, rather than thousands or even tens 
of thousands of dollars, big 527 donors today are positioned to garner 
more attention and consideration from parties and candidates than those 
who give the maximum direct contribution of $2,000-$25,000.''
  In California, recent legislation limiting direct contributions has 
produced an ``explosion'' of independent expenditures. According to 
Ross Johnson, Chairman of the California Fair Political Practices 
Commission and a former Republican Party leader in both houses of the 
California legislature, ``independent expenditures have provided 
sophisticated wealthy individuals and special interests the means to 
circumvent [contribution] limits and create the appearance of 
corruption, or gain undue influence on, candidates and officeholders.''
  Recent examples illustrate that independent expenditures are used to 
try to influence elected officials.
  In 1998 a group with an interest in gaming issues attempted to bribe 
former Republican Kansas Congressman Snowbarger by signaling that they 
would conduct an independent spending campaign on his behalf. According 
to Snowbarger's campaign manager, the offer ``was an attempt to get him 
to change his position by offering to do independent spending that 
would help him win re-election.'' Congressman Snowbarger rejected the 
offer. His campaign manager later explained the rationale behind the 
proposal: ``[T]he people behind th[e] effort offered to do an 
independent expenditure rather than make contributions because 
contributions are limited. If only a small number of people are 
involved, they are unable to promise to give that much. Even a corrupt 
Congressman would not risk accepting a bribe of only $5,000.00 or 
$6,000.00. Independent expenditures, on the other hand, can involve 
sums of money of an entirely different magnitude.''
  Former Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Chvala was convicted on 
corruption charges in 2005 for illegally soliciting funds in exchange 
for political favors. According to Wisconsin lobbyist Michael Bright, 
who lobbied Chvala on numerous occasions, ``[t]here was essentially a 
`menu' of different ways that clients could contribute: they could give 
directly to candidates in contested races, to the parties, or to groups 
that made independent expenditures or independent candidate-focused 
`issue' ads . . . These were all acceptable ways to meet Chvala's 
contribution expectations, to get `credit' in Chvala's world.'' 
(emphasis added). Chvala would indicate to interested parties that 
``whichever bucket [they] put the money into, it would be used 
effectively to support Democratic senate candidates and would be 
appreciated by those candidates.'' According to Bright, ``there was not 
any ambiguity about it: he was suggesting that the candidates benefited 
would properly credit the client for the contributions no matter which 
entity they were made to, and the candidate would be just as 
appreciative as if the money had all been given directly to the 
candidate's campaign.''
  Recent polling reveals that independent expenditures also create an 
appearance of influence. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 82 percent of 
respondents believe ``that if an individual contributed $100,000 or 
more to a group to spend on an advertising campaign supporting a 
congressional candidate it is likely that the candidate will do a 
political favor for the contributor once elected to office.''


  The Unique Contexts of Government Contracting and Foreign Influence

  Although Citizens United prohibits restrictions on independent 
expenditures that apply to corporations and unions generally, 
independent expenditures and electioneering communications by 
government contractors and foreign-controlled entities pose unique 
concerns. Congress has a substantial interest in protecting a merit-
based government contracting process and in protecting U.S. interests 
from foreign influence, and Congress therefore has the power to 
regulate independent expenditures and electioneering communications in 
these particular domains.
  Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by 
government contractors warrant distinct concern. Government contracting 
decisions should be based on an objective evaluation of how well 
potential contractors meet the relevant legal criteria. Elaborate 
federal regulations reflect this commitment to a fairly and 
impartially-administered contracting system. However, contractors may 
seek to improperly influence elected officials in order to maximize 
their chances of receiving contracts. Contractors may also feel 
pressure, whether explicitly exerted by government officials or not, to 
make expenditures in order to obtain contracts. A company seeking to 
renew an existing contract may be especially vulnerable to such 
pressure because it is likely to have significant reliance interests in 
maintaining its business relationship with the government.
  The need to protect the integrity of government contracting is 
evidenced by recent pay-to-play scandals. Former Illinois Gov. George 
Ryan went to federal prison in 2007 for issuing state contracts in 
exchange for financial contributions and gifts over a period of 10 
years. In Connecticut, a pay-to-play probe brought down former Governor 
Rowland, who admitted taking gifts from state contractors. In 1998, New 
Jersey awarded a seven-year, $392 million contract to Parsons 
Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc. to privatize automobile 
inspections. A subsequent state investigation

[[Page 11686]]

found that Parsons had tainted the competitive bidding process by 
contributing more than a half million dollars to state officials and 
that the ``mammoth boondoggle'' cost taxpayers an additional $200 
million after the contract was awarded. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham 
resigned from Congress in 2005 after pleading guilty to using his 
official position to extract bribes from multiple defense contractors. 
In March, 2010, the New York state pension fund's former chief 
investment officer pleaded guilty to directing public dollars to firms 
that made political contributions to former Democratic state 
comptroller Alan G. Hevesi. Financial companies have so far paid $120 
million in settlements to resolve their roles in the ongoing pay to 
play scandal. Even when a direct quid-pro-quo cannot be definitively 
proven, the relationship between political expenditures and contract 
awards can still give rise to the appearance of improper influence. For 
instance, a University of Michigan study found that donors to former 
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign were awarded an average of 
$20 million in contracts, while non-contributors were only awarded an 
average of $870,000.
  Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by 
foreign-controlled domestic corporations also warrant distinct concern. 
In 2005, the general treasuries of these companies totaled 
approximately $3.5 trillion. After Citizens United, these companies are 
now free to spend unlimited sums from their general treasuries to 
influence federal elections, and undermine U.S. interests. The DISCLOSE 
Act would prevent this foreign intervention in U.S. elections.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5175, the 
Democracy is Served by Casting Light on Spending in Elections--
DISCLOSE--Act.
  However, I must say, rarely has a bill fallen so short of doing what 
its title says. In fact, this bill does the opposite of its name by 
limiting free speech in the political process.
  The First Amendment says ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging 
the freedom of speech.'' That right is cherished by all Americans and 
is to be protected by this Congress. Unfortunately, this bill is a 
naked attempt to cloud the free speech rights of millions of Americans; 
rights that were clearly affirmed in January by the Supreme Court.
  It's for that reason that I am profoundly disappointed that the 
Democratic majority is trying to overturn the High Court's Citizens 
United decision. The justices were clear about the freedom of Americans 
to collectively participate in the political process through 
organizations. And the fact that the Court overturned a 20-year 
precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.
  But, instead of standing on the side of free speech and the American 
people, this bill will cloud the court's decision and cause uncertainty 
about federal election law. And that would happen during the months 
leading up to the November midterm elections.
  Democrats suggest that the bill deals with corporations and unions 
even-handedly. That is false. In the interest of full disclosure, the 
American people should know that this legislation is sponsored by the 
two Democrats who are chiefly responsible for the election of Democrats 
to the House and Senate this fall.
  Perhaps that explains why this bill's provisions include enormous 
exclusions for union expenditures but place extraordinary limits on 
corporations to hinder their ability to participate in the political 
process, despite the clear directive of the Citizens United case.
  Corporations will have to make burdensome new identifying 
disclaimers.
  Companies that are government contractors or that received TARP 
bailout money will be banned from political speech. And this bill will 
suppress speech by those who choose to speak out through associations, 
a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
  This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to bring confusion 
to the political process and to discourage millions of Americans and 
thousands of organizations from becoming involved in the political 
debate.
  Campaign finance is an issue that I've been committed to since I 
first came to Congress. I've worked with Republicans and Democrats 
alike in an effort to bring more freedom to everyone involved in the 
political process.
  This bill sets back the freedoms affirmed just months ago by the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chair, I believe that instead of greater government control of 
political speech, more freedom is the answer. And while such liberty 
may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for some in the political 
class, as Thomas Jefferson said, ``I would rather be exposed to the 
inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too 
small a degree of it.''
  The answer to problems in politics in a free society is more freedom, 
not less.
  I urge this body not to diminish the First Amendment for the sake of 
politics. Let's reject this bill and allow the American people to 
exercise their right of free speech and participate fully in the 
political process, as our Constitution intended.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chair, the passage today of the so-called DISCLOSE 
Act, is a travesty. This bill is a hasty, ill-conceived, un-
Constitutional response to the near unanimous decision of the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Citizens United vs The Federal Election Committee. The 
DISLOSE Act takes us down a familiar road of the Democratic majority 
attempting to remove the First Amendment rights of the minority, 
including the rights of those who are fighting to defend the sanctity 
of life. For over a year, the Democrat majority in Congress and the 
White House have held the voice of the American people in contempt, 
whether at town halls or on the National Mall. Instead of listening, 
they would rather find ways to silence us. This bill is a direct attack 
on our rights and will not stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. This 
hallowed body should not have even considered it. I urge the Senate to 
send this bill back to where it deserves to go, the trash bin.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the DISCLOSE Act, 
legislation to boost transparency and accountability in U.S. elections.
  The January, 5-4 Supreme Court decision in the Citizen's United v. 
FEC case allows for unprecedented corporate and union influence in our 
elections, overturning many years of banning these groups from spending 
their general treasury funds on political expenditures in Federal 
elections.
  With the 2010 election season months away, it is imperative that we 
not let individual voices be drowned out by billions of dollars in 
special interest funds. For this reason, I am pleased to have worked 
with Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on the bill before us 
today, the DISCLOSE Act.
  Critics have argued that this legislation stifles free speech in 
election advertising, when in reality, under this bill, campaign 
advertisements will continue as before, only now, we will know who is 
spending money to air the ad. Opponents have also claimed that the bill 
gives special treatment to unions over corporations, yet the bill 
requires the same disclosure for both unions and corporations alike. I 
believe in protecting the right of every American to know who is behind 
the advertisements they see every campaign season, and under the 
disclosure requirements in this bill, they will know this information.
  The DISCLOSE Act will require corporations and unions to disclose to 
the FEC and to the American people who is funding their campaign 
advertisements; and it also requires a CEO, Union Leader, or leader of 
any other covered organization, to ``stand by their ad'' and say they 
approve a campaign message, just like candidates are currently 
required.
  I have worked to ensure all groups that seek to influence the outcome 
of elections--both unions and corporations--are equally subject to the 
same disclosure and disclaimer provisions set forth in this bill. As a 
longtime supporter of strengthening the nation's campaign finance laws, 
I remain deeply concerned with efforts to carve out exemptions from 
this requirement for certain groups, and continue to oppose creating 
loopholes that will weaken them. For this reason, I opposed the 
Manager's Amendment.
  The DISCLOSE Act will help bring greater transparency to political 
advertising, and I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this 
important measure.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chair, I stand in vehement opposition to H.R. 5175, 
the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections 
Act. The DISCLOSE Act is a hasty, ill-conceived, un-Constitutional 
response to the near unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
Citizens United vs The Federal Election Committee. In that ruling, 
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that:

       When Government seeks to use its full power, including the 
     criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her 
     information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, 
     it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The 
     First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

  The DISCLOSE Act takes us down a familiar road of the majority acting 
to remove the First Amendment rights of the minority, including the 
rights of those who are fighting to defend the sanctity of life. For 
over a year, the Democrat majority in Congress and the White House have 
held the voice of the American people in contempt, whether at town 
halls or on the National Mall. Instead of listening, they would rather 
find ways to silence us.
  The DISCLOSE Act is designed to impact this year's election by 
immediately placing its provisions into effect without the normal 
regulatory vetting process that occurs when a bill

[[Page 11687]]

is signed into law. It is also a discriminatory bill, with requirements 
that do not apply equally to all citizens, but are based on the type of 
activity or speech they are involved in. Nowhere in the Constitution 
does the Federal Government have the right to decide who has the right 
to speak up. It is specifically designed to exempt most Unions from the 
reporting requirements. It requires CEOs of corporations to appear in 
any ads that their companies have funded, in whole or in part, and 
state the name of the company, twice. These limits on First Amendment 
rights are not in keeping with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
  This bill is an abhorrent attack on our rights and it will not stand 
up to the scrutiny of the courts. This hallowed body should not even be 
considering it. I urge my colleagues to send this bill back to where it 
deserves to go, the dust bin.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the DISCLOSE Act. I 
believe this appropriately named piece of legislation is a critical 
step forward to improving transparency and limiting the influence of 
corporations in electoral politics, and I'm pleased to be a cosponsor 
of it.
  In January, the Supreme Court issued its controversial ruling in 
Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, overturning limits 
on corporate campaign activity that had been settled law for over 100 
years. This created a guarantee of a free-for-all in campaign spending. 
I strongly disagree with the decision, and I'm pleased that the 
DISCLOSE Act will reverse the damage that the Supreme Court has 
created.
  I have been a supporter of campaign finance reform since I was first 
elected to Congress. Over a decade ago I was proud to cosponsor the 
Shays-Meehan campaign reform legislation to prevent corporations from 
buying elections.
  Today's legislation takes a number of important steps forward. It 
prevents corporations from spending money in campaigns, including those 
who receive large government contracts; those who are controlled by 
foreign entities; or those who received a government bailout through 
the TARP program.
  It also forces corporations to stand by their ads by requiring their 
CEOs to appear on camera to say they endorse the message, just as 
candidates must do. The bill would also strengthen disclosure 
requirements in the critical weeks before an election.
  Under DISCLOSE, corporations will not be able to hide behind 
organizations with innocuous or vague sounding names when they run 
political ads. Organizations that sprout up overnight to participate in 
campaigns will be required to disclose their donors so voters will know 
who is sponsoring their ads, while at the same time allowing well-
established issue-advocacy groups to protect the privacy of their donor 
base.
  The American people deserve to know who attempts to influence their 
elections. Once they know who sponsors an ad, they can judge the 
content for themselves and vote accordingly. The DISCLOSE Act will help 
voters make their own decisions, a principle that is at the core of our 
democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this highly important legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5175, the 
Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or 
DISCLOSE Act. This legislation addresses serious concerns raised by the 
recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC by increasing 
transparency in our electoral process. My colleague from Maryland, Mr. 
Van Hollen, and my fellow New Yorker, Senator Schumer deserve thanks 
for their leadership on this issue.
  The recent Supreme Court ruling grants even greater influence to 
powerful special interests--effectively drowning out the voices of 
average Americans. This legislation provides voters with the 
opportunity to make informed decisions--shedding light on the millions 
of dollars being spent with the intent to influence elections and 
politicians in Washington.
  The DISCLOSE Act eliminates ``pay-to-play'' by preventing government 
contractors--and TARP recipients--from spending money on elections. The 
bill extends the current ban on political spending by foreign nationals 
to include domestic corporations controlled by foreign nationals, 
requires corporate CEOs to stand by their political ads in the same way 
candidates must, and enhances disclosure requirements for political 
expenditures by organizations who lobby government officials.
  The legislation before us today is not a perfect bill, but it is a 
necessary first step to rein in the influence of special interests in 
our political process. The American people are greatly concerned by the 
recent Supreme Court ruling, and they rightly fear that only big money 
and special interests get a hearing in Washington. Passage of the 
DISCLOSE Act will bring transparency and accountability to campaigns 
and ensure Americans' voices are not drowned out by corporate dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5175, the 
Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections 
(DISCLOSE) Act and I urge my colleagues to support this important 
bipartisan bill that will improve transparency and accountability in 
our federal elections. I would like to thank Chairman Brady and 
Congressman Van Hollen for their efforts to quickly move this bill to 
the floor.
  I share the concern of many Rhode Islanders who were disappointed 
with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which 
would allow corporations to fund political ads without disclosing their 
funding sources. Unfortunately, this could facilitate unlimited 
political spending by anonymous donors in campaigns across the nation, 
allowing special interests and corporations to go unchecked in our 
democratic process.
  Contrary to some arguments that have been made on this Floor today, 
this bill does nothing to restrict free speech. It simply ensures that 
our citizens know who is speaking.
  This legislation takes several critical steps to protect the 
integrity of our elections and shine light on who is funding campaign 
advertisements. First, it prohibits large government contractors, those 
with over $10 million in contracts, from making campaign expenditures. 
The bill further bars those companies that received TARP funding from 
participating in federal campaigns until the government is repaid. 
Additionally, this bill ensures that foreign governments do not 
influence our elections by banning corporations controlled by foreign 
nationals from making campaign contributions and expenditures.
  I am especially pleased that the DISCLOSE Act contains strong 
language to require CEOs to stand by their ads by requiring them to 
appear on camera to ``approve the message,'' just as candidates do 
today. Additionally, top donors must be listed in ads so that 
individuals know exactly who is financing the message. Again, this does 
not curb the freedom to speak or advocate for an issue or candidate, it 
simply ensures transparency. Finally, this legislation requires 
corporations and other organizations to disclose campaign related 
expenditures to their shareholders, members, and on their websites.
  While I am disappointed with the inclusion of an exemption for 
certain organizations, I believe that this bill takes an enormous step 
towards improving our laws to bring greater transparency and 
accountability to our nation's campaigns. As a former Secretary of 
State and a proud representative of Rhode Island, I believe free and 
fair elections are fundamental to our democracy, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, in January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens 
United v. Federal Election Commission held that corporations and unions 
alike have the right under the First Amendment to speak out in 
political races. What that decision overturned was the portion of 
current law that allows political speech to be banned based on the 
speaker's corporate identity. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban is 
unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment right to free speech 
and I share this sentiment.
  The Constitution clearly states ``Congress shall make no law, 
abridging the freedom of speech.'' Upholding the Constitution and our 
freedoms does not in any way degrade our democratic process. The First 
Amendment has long been applied not only to isolated individuals but 
also to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety 
of purposes ranging from political to commercial.
  Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a republic 
and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. 
If the government can ban expenditures related to political speech, it 
could easily apply that to any communication. In the argument before 
the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart even 
asserted that under current law the government has the authority to 
``prohibit the publication'' of books and movies by corporations 
containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for 
public office. That statement is chilling.
  During the drafting of H.R. 5175, the so-called ``DISCLOSE'' Act, 
Democrats dismissed Republican requests to collaborate and wrote the 
bill behind closed doors. Due to lack of support for this 
unconstitutional bill, they were forced to pull it from consideration 
on at least two occasions. After weeks of opposition to this very bad 
bill which was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens 
Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union, the Democrats 
were able to craft language acceptable to the NRA which then lifted

[[Page 11688]]

its opposition because it became exempt from the bill. That action 
alone violates what the Supreme Court said which is that all groups 
must be treated the same.
  The DISCLOSE Act's effort to limit political speech is not even-
handed, those favored by the Democrats are excluded from the 
requirements, and it encourages partisan advantages. But the bill is 
more than inequitable treatment; it is an outright attack on free 
speech and the First Amendment. It is government censorship and I 
oppose H.R. 5175.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5175, and 
strongly believe that the legislation is vital to our democracy.
  While I believe that personal speech should be protected by the First 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, I feel that corporate speech was 
never meant to be protected and extending Constitutional safeguards to 
it is corrosive to our democracy. By providing unprecedented 
transparency, H.R. 5175 goes a long way to hold corporations who 
participate in U.S. elections accountable to the American people.
  At its core, H.R. 5175 protects the constitutional right of voters to 
know the identity of the organizations spending money to influence 
their elections and the sources of the money they are spending.
  Without the establishment of strong new disclosure rules, the Supreme 
Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC will give corporations 
incredible power to influence elections. That is why I believe that 
H.R. 5175 is necessary to ensure that people know who is trying to 
influence our country's elections.
  I also believe that this legislation prevents those who should not 
interfere in our elections, such as corporations controlled by foreign 
interests, from doing so.
  This legislation strikes the appropriate balance and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important measure.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the underlying bill, the DISCLOSE Act. I strongly 
support the DISCLOSE Act, which recognizes the significant 
contributions of libraries, librarians, and library workers to our 
nation's communities.
  In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court 
opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest campaign 
donations in American elections--even from entities controlled by 
foreign governments. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that all 
organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited 
corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures.
  The DISCLOSE Act would strengthen disclosure of election ads and 
would force corporate CEO's to stand by their ads by appearing on 
camera to say that he or she ``approves this message.''
  This bipartisan legislation would control the flood of special 
interest money into America's elections. Powerful special interests and 
their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the 
American people with their pocketbooks.
  The DISCLOSE Act would establish touch disclosure requirements for 
election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and 
other special interests, so the American people can follow the money 
and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign 
activity and trying to buy representation in our government. This 
legislation would also prohibit foreign entities from manipulating the 
outcomes of American elections and help close other special interest 
loopholes.
  Further, the DISCLOSE Act would ensure that social welfare 
organizations with membership of 500,000 or more, stand by their 
political ads and prohibits them from using corporate dollars for 
campaign purposes, while respecting privacy of their contributors.
  I believe that people need to know who is paying to influence their 
elections.
  According to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll, the American people 
agree. Eight in ten Americans opposed the high court's ruling, 
including seven out of ten Republicans, and 72 percent favored 
congressional action to curb the ruling.
  Congress should act now to pass this important bill.
  I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 111-511 is adopted. The 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5175

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Democracy 
     is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections 
     Act'' or the ``DISCLOSE Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

           TITLE I--REGULATION OF CERTAIN POLITICAL SPENDING

Sec. 101. Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering 
              communications by government contractors.
Sec. 102. Application of ban on contributions and expenditures by 
              foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic 
              corporations.
Sec. 103. Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as 
              contributions.
Sec. 104. Treatment of political party communications made on behalf of 
              candidates.
Sec. 105. Restriction on internet communications treated as public 
              communications.

 TITLE II--PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY

 Subtitle A--Treatment of Independent Expenditures and Electioneering 
                   Communications Made by All Persons

Sec. 201. Independent expenditures.
Sec. 202. Electioneering communications.
Sec. 203. Mandatory electronic filing by persons making independent 
              expenditures or electioneering communications exceeding 
              $10,000 at any time.

     Subtitle B--Expanded Requirements for Corporations and Other 
                             Organizations

Sec. 211. Additional information required to be included in reports on 
              disbursements by covered organizations.
Sec. 212. Rules regarding use of general treasury funds by covered 
              organizations for campaign-related activity.
Sec. 213. Optional use of separate account by covered organizations for 
              campaign-related activity.
Sec. 214. Modification of rules relating to disclaimer statements 
              required for certain communications.

      Subtitle C--Reporting Requirements for Registered Lobbyists

Sec. 221. Requiring registered lobbyists to report information on 
              independent expenditures and electioneering 
              communications.

   TITLE III--DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON 
                       CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY

Sec. 301. Requiring disclosure by covered organizations of information 
              on campaign-related activity.

                       TITLE IV--OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Judicial review.
Sec. 402. Severability.
Sec. 403. Effective date.

           TITLE I--REGULATION OF CERTAIN POLITICAL SPENDING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND 
                   ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Prohibition Applicable to Government Contractors.--
       (1) Prohibition.--
       (A) In general.--Section 317(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``purpose or use; or'' and inserting the following: 
     ``purpose or use, to make any independent expenditure, or to 
     disburse any funds for an electioneering communication; or''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 317 of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 441c) is amended by striking 
     ``contributions'' and inserting ``contributions, independent 
     expenditures, and electioneering communications''.
       (2) Threshold for application of ban.--Section 317 of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 441c) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) To the extent that subsection (a)(1) prohibits a 
     person who enters into a contract described in such 
     subsection from making any independent expenditure or 
     disbursing funds for an electioneering communication, such 
     subsection shall apply only if the value of the contract is 
     equal to or greater than $10,000,000.''.
       (b) Application to Recipients of Assistance Under Troubled 
     Asset Program.--Section 317(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) who enters into negotiations for financial assistance 
     under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et

[[Page 11689]]

     seq.) (relating to the purchase of troubled assets by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury), during the period--
       ``(A) beginning on the later of the commencement of the 
     negotiations or the date of the enactment of the Democracy is 
     Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act; 
     and
       ``(B) ending with the later of the termination of such 
     negotiations or the repayment of such financial assistance;

     directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or 
     other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly 
     to make any such contribution to any political party, 
     committee, or candidate for public office or to any person 
     for any political purpose or use, to make any independent 
     expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering 
     communication; or''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 317 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441c) is amended by striking ``section 321'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``section 316''.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF BAN ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND 
                   EXPENDITURES BY FOREIGN NATIONALS TO FOREIGN-
                   CONTROLLED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.

       (a) Application of Ban.--Section 319(b) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) any corporation which is not a foreign national 
     described in paragraph (1) and--
       ``(A) in which a foreign national described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) directly or indirectly owns 20 percent or more of 
     the voting shares;
       ``(B) with respect to which the majority of the members of 
     the board of directors are foreign nationals described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2);
       ``(C) over which one or more foreign nationals described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) has the power to direct, dictate, or 
     control the decision-making process of the corporation with 
     respect to its interests in the United States; or
       ``(D) over which one or more foreign nationals described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) has the power to direct, dictate, or 
     control the decision-making process of the corporation with 
     respect to activities in connection with a Federal, State, or 
     local election, including--
       ``(i) the making of a contribution, donation, expenditure, 
     independent expenditure, or disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 
     304(f)(3)); or
       ``(ii) the administration of a political committee 
     established or maintained by the corporation.''.
       (b) Certification of Compliance.--Section 319 of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Certification of Compliance Required Prior to 
     Carrying Out Activity.--Prior to the making in connection 
     with an election for Federal office of any contribution, 
     donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication by a 
     corporation during a year, the chief executive officer of the 
     corporation (or, if the corporation does not have a chief 
     executive officer, the highest ranking official of the 
     corporation), shall file a certification with the Commission, 
     under penalty of perjury, that the corporation is not 
     prohibited from carrying out such activity under subsection 
     (b)(3), unless the chief executive officer has previously 
     filed such a certification during the year. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to apply to any contribution, 
     donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement from a separate segregated fund established and 
     administered by a corporation under section 316(b)(2)(C).''.
       (c) No Effect on Certain Activities of Domestic 
     Corporations.--Section 319 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441e), as 
     amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) No Effect on Certain Activities of Domestic 
     Corporations.--
       ``(1) Separate segregated funds.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to prohibit any corporation which is not a 
     foreign national described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) 
     from establishing, administering, and soliciting 
     contributions to a separate segregated fund under section 
     316(b)(2)(C), so long as none of the amounts in the fund are 
     provided by any foreign national described in paragraph (1) 
     or (2) of subsection (b) and no foreign national described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) has the power to 
     direct, dictate, or control the establishment or 
     administration of the fund.''.
       ``(2) State and local elections.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to prohibit any corporation which is not a 
     foreign national described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) 
     from making a contribution or donation in connection with a 
     State or local election to the extent permitted under State 
     or local law, so long as no foreign national described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) has the power to 
     direct, dictate, or control such contribution or donation.
       ``(3) Other permissible corporate contributions and 
     expenditures.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prohibit any corporation which is not a foreign national 
     described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) from carrying 
     out any activity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     section 316(b)(2), so long as none of the amounts used to 
     carry out the activity are provided by any foreign national 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) and no 
     foreign national described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b) has the power to direct, dictate, or control 
     such activity.''
       (d) No Effect on Other Laws.--Section 319 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441e), as amended by subsections (b) and (c), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) No Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the determination of whether a 
     corporation is treated as a foreign national for purposes of 
     any law other than this Act.''.

     SEC. 103. TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS FOR COORDINATED 
                   COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 301(8)(A) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) any payment made by any person (other than a 
     candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate, or a 
     political committee of a political party) for a coordinated 
     communication (as determined under section 324).''.
       (b) Coordinated Communications Described.--Section 324 of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 441k) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 324. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS.

       ``(a) Coordinated Communications Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this Act, the term 
     `coordinated communication' means--
       ``(A) a covered communication which, subject to subsection 
     (c), is made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, 
     or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, an 
     authorized committee of a candidate, or a political committee 
     of a political party; or
       ``(B) any communication that republishes, disseminates, or 
     distributes, in whole or in part, any broadcast or any 
     written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared 
     by a candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate, or 
     their agents.
       ``(2) Exception.--The term `coordinated communication' does 
     not include--
       ``(A) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other 
     periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or 
     controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate; or
       ``(B) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate 
     or forum conducted pursuant to the regulations adopted by the 
     Commission to carry out section 304(f)(3)(B)(iii), or which 
     solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on 
     behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum.''.
       ``(b) Covered Communication Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), for 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `covered communication' 
     means, for purposes of the applicable election period 
     described in paragraph (2) and with respect to the 
     coordinated communication involved, a public communication 
     (as defined in section 301(22)) that refers to the candidate 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or an opponent of such 
     candidate and is publicly distributed or publicly 
     disseminated during such period.
       ``(2) Applicable election period.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the `applicable election period' with respect 
     to a communication means--
       ``(A) in the case of a communication which refers to a 
     candidate for the office of President or Vice President, the 
     period--
       ``(i) beginning with the date that is 120 days before the 
     date of the first primary election, preference election, or 
     nominating convention for nomination for the office of 
     President which is held in any State; and
       ``(ii) ending with the date of the general election for 
     such office; or
       ``(B) in the case of a communication which refers to a 
     candidate for any other Federal office, the period--
       ``(i) beginning with the date that is 90 days before the 
     earliest of the primary election, preference election, or 
     nominating convention with respect to the nomination for the 
     office that the candidate is seeking; and
       ``(ii) ending with the date of the general election for 
     such office.
       ``(3) Special rule for public distribution of 
     communications involving congressional candidates.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), in the case of a communication 
     involving a candidate for an office other than President or 
     Vice President, the communication shall be considered to be 
     publicly distributed or publicly disseminated only if the 
     dissemination or distribution occurs in the jurisdiction of 
     the office that the candidate is seeking.
       ``(c) No Finding of Coordination Based Solely on Sharing of 
     Information Regarding Legislative or Policy Position.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a)(1), a covered communication shall 
     not be considered to be made in cooperation, consultation, or 
     concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a 
     candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate, or a 
     political committee of a political party solely on the 
     grounds that a person or an agent thereof engaged in 
     discussions with the candidate or committee regarding that 
     person's position on a legislative or policy matter 
     (including urging the candidate or party to adopt that 
     person's position), so long as there is no discussion between 
     the person and the candidate or committee regarding the 
     candidate's campaign plans, projects, activities, or needs.

[[Page 11690]]

       ``(d) Preservation of Certain Safe Harbors and Firewalls.--
     Nothing in this section may be construed to affect 11 CFR 
     109.21(g) or (h), as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending 
     in Elections Act.
       ``(e) Treatment of Coordination With Political Parties for 
     Communications Referring to Candidates.--For purposes of this 
     section, if a communication which refers to any clearly 
     identified candidate or candidates of a political party or 
     any opponent of such a candidate or candidates is determined 
     to have been made in cooperation, consultation, or concert 
     with or at the request or suggestion of a political committee 
     of the political party but not in cooperation, consultation, 
     or concert with or at the request or suggestion of such 
     clearly identified candidate or candidates, the communication 
     shall be treated as having been made in cooperation, 
     consultation, or concert with or at the request or suggestion 
     of the political committee of the political party but not 
     with or at the request or suggestion of such clearly 
     identified candidate or candidates.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply with respect to payments made on or 
     after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     or not the Federal Election Commission has promulgated 
     regulations to carry out such amendments.
       (2) Transition rule for actions taken prior to enactment.--
     No person shall be considered to have made a payment for a 
     coordinated communication under section 324 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended by subsection (b)) 
     by reason of any action taken by the person prior to the date 
     of the enactment of this Act. Nothing in the previous 
     sentence shall be construed to affect any determination under 
     any other provision of such Act which is in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act regarding whether a 
     communication is made in cooperation, consultation, or 
     concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a 
     candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate, or a 
     political committee of a political party.

     SEC. 104. TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PARTY COMMUNICATIONS MADE ON 
                   BEHALF OF CANDIDATES.

       (a) Treatment of Payment for Public Communication as 
     Contribution if Made Under Control or Direction of 
     Candidate.--Section 301(8)(A) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)), as amended by 
     section 103(a), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) any payment by a political committee of a political 
     party for the direct costs of a public communication (as 
     defined in paragraph (22)) made on behalf of a candidate for 
     Federal office who is affiliated with such party, but only if 
     the communication is controlled by, or made at the direction 
     of, the candidate or an authorized committee of the 
     candidate.''.
       (b) Requiring Control or Direction by Candidate for 
     Treatment as Coordinated Party Expenditure.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 315(d) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Special Rule for Direct Costs of Communications.--The 
     direct costs incurred by a political committee of a political 
     party for a communication made in connection with the 
     campaign of a candidate for Federal office shall not be 
     subject to the limitations contained in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) unless the communication is controlled by, or made at the 
     direction of, the candidate or an authorized committee of the 
     candidate.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 315(d) 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended by striking 
     ``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)'' and inserting ``paragraphs 
     (2) and (3)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall apply with respect to payments made on 
     or after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to 
     whether or not the Federal Election Commission has 
     promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments.

     SEC. 105. RESTRICTION ON INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS TREATED AS 
                   PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 301(22) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``A communication 
     which is disseminated through the Internet shall not be 
     treated as a form of general public political advertising 
     under this paragraph unless the communication was placed for 
     a fee on another person's Web site.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

 TITLE II--PROMOTING EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY

 Subtitle A--Treatment of Independent Expenditures and Electioneering 
                   Communications Made by All Persons

     SEC. 201. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Revision of Definition.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is 
     the functional equivalent of express advocacy because it can 
     be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the 
     election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account 
     whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a 
     political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a 
     position on a candidate's character, qualifications, or 
     fitness for office; and''.
       (b) Uniform 24-Hour Reporting For Persons Making 
     Independent Expenditures Exceeding $10,000 at Any Time.--
     Section 304(g) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(g)) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Independent expenditures exceeding threshold 
     amount.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than 
     the threshold amount described in paragraph (2) shall 
     electronically file a report describing the expenditures 
     within 24 hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall electronically file 
     an additional report within 24 hours after each time the 
     person makes or contracts to make independent expenditures in 
     an aggregate amount equal to or greater than the threshold 
     amount with respect to the same election as that to which the 
     initial report relates.
       ``(C) Threshold amount described.--In this paragraph, the 
     `threshold amount' means--
       ``(i) during the period up to and including the 20th day 
     before the date of an election, $10,000; or
       ``(ii) during the period after the 20th day, but more than 
     24 hours, before the date of an election, $1,000.
       ``(2) Public availability.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the Commission shall ensure that 
     the information required to be disclosed under this 
     subsection is publicly available through the Commission 
     website not later than 24 hours after receipt in a manner 
     that is downloadable in bulk and machine readable.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to contributions and expenditures made on 
     or after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to 
     whether or not the Federal Election Commission has 
     promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments.
       (2) Reporting requirements.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall apply with respect to reports required 
     to be filed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Expansion of Period Covering General Election.--Section 
     304(f)(3)(A)(i)(II)(aa) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(A)(i)(II)(aa)) is amended by 
     striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``120 days''.
       (b) Effective Date; Transition for Communications Made 
     Prior to Enactment.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to communications made on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to 
     whether or not the Federal Election Commission has 
     promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments, except 
     that no communication which is made prior to the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall be treated as an electioneering 
     communication under section 304(f)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)) unless the communication would be treated as 
     an electioneering communication under such section if the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) did not apply.

     SEC. 203. MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING BY PERSONS MAKING 
                   INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES OR ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATIONS EXCEEDING $10,000 AT ANY TIME.

       Section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (g)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, any person who is 
     required to file a statement under subsection (f) or 
     subsection (g) shall file the statement in electronic form 
     accessible by computers, in a manner which ensures that the 
     information provided is searchable, sortable, and 
     downloadable.''.

     Subtitle B--Expanded Requirements for Corporations and Other 
                             Organizations

     SEC. 211. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN 
                   REPORTS ON DISBURSEMENTS BY COVERED 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Independent Expenditure Reports.--Section 304(g) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(g)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Disclosure of additional information by covered 
     organizations making payments for public independent 
     expenditures.--
       ``(A) Additional information.--If a covered organization 
     makes or contracts to make public independent expenditures in 
     an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $10,000 in a 
     calendar year, the report filed by the organization under 
     this subsection shall include, in addition to the information 
     required under paragraph (3), the following information 
     subject to Subparagraph (B)(iv)):
       ``(i) If any person made a donation or payment to the 
     covered organization during the

[[Page 11691]]

     covered organization reporting period which was provided for 
     the purpose of being used for campaign-related activity or in 
     response to a solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-
     related activity--

       ``(I) subject to subparagraph (C), the identification of 
     each person who made such donations or payments in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $600 during such 
     period, presented in the order of the aggregate amount of 
     donations or payments made by such persons during such period 
     (with the identification of the person making the largest 
     donation or payment appearing first); and
       ``(II) if any person identified under subclause (I) 
     designated that the donation or payment be used for campaign-
     related activity with respect to a specific election or in 
     support of a specific candidate, the name of the election or 
     candidate involved, and if any such person designated that 
     the donation or payment be used for a specific public 
     independent expenditure, a description of the expenditure.

       ``(ii) The identification of each person who made 
     unrestricted donor payments to the organization during the 
     covered organization reporting period--

       ``(I) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $600 
     during such period, if any of the disbursements made by the 
     organization for any of the public independent expenditures 
     which are covered by the report were not made from the 
     organization's Campaign-Related Activity Account under 
     section 326; or
       ``(II) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $6,000 
     during such period, if the disbursements made by the 
     organization for all of the public independent expenditures 
     which are covered by the report were made exclusively from 
     the organization's Campaign-Related Activity Account under 
     section 326 (but only if the organization has made deposits 
     described in subparagraph (D) of section 326(a)(2) into that 
     Account during such period in an aggregate amount equal to or 
     greater than $10,000),

     presented in the order of the aggregate amount of payments 
     made by such persons during such period (with the 
     identification of the person making the largest payment 
     appearing first).
       ``(B) Treatment of transfers made to other persons.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for purposes of 
     the requirement to file reports under this subsection 
     (including the requirement under subparagraph (A) to include 
     additional information in such reports), a covered 
     organization which transfers amounts to another person (other 
     than the covered organization itself) for the purpose of 
     making a public independent expenditure by that person or by 
     any other person, or (in accordance with clause (ii)) which 
     is deemed to have transferred amounts to another person 
     (other than the covered organization itself) for the purpose 
     of making a public independent expenditure by that person or 
     by any other person, shall be considered to have made a 
     public independent expenditure.
       ``(ii) Rules for deeming transfers made for purpose of 
     making expenditures.--For purposes of clause (i), in 
     determining whether a covered organization which transfers 
     amounts to another person shall be deemed to have transferred 
     the amounts for the purpose of making a public independent 
     expenditure, the following rules apply:

       ``(I) The covered organization shall be deemed to have 
     transferred the amounts for the purpose of making a public 
     independent expenditure if--

       ``(aa) the covered organization designates, requests, or 
     suggests that the amounts be used for public independent 
     expenditures and the person to whom the amounts were 
     transferred agrees to do so;
       ``(bb) the person making the public independent expenditure 
     or another person acting on that person's behalf expressly 
     solicited the covered organization for a donation or payment 
     for making or paying for any public independent expenditures;
       ``(cc) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred engaged in written or oral 
     discussion regarding the person either making, or paying for, 
     any public independent expenditure, or donating or 
     transferring the amounts to another person for that purpose;
       ``(dd) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     knew or had reason to know that the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred intended to make public independent 
     expenditures; or
       ``(ee) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     or the person to whom the amounts were transferred made one 
     or more public independent expenditures in an aggregate 
     amount of $50,000 or more during the 2-year period which ends 
     on the date on which the amounts were transferred.''.
       ``(II) The covered organization shall not be deemed to have 
     transferred the amounts for the purpose of making a public 
     independent expenditure if--
       ``(aa) the transfer was a commercial transaction occurring 
     in the ordinary course of business between the covered 
     organization and the person to whom the amounts were 
     transferred, unless there is affirmative evidence that the 
     amounts were transferred for the purpose of making a public 
     independent expenditure; or
       ``(bb) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred mutually agreed (as provided in 
     section 325(b)(1)) that the person will not use the amounts 
     for campaign-related activity.''.
       ``(iii) Special rule regarding transfers among 
     affiliates.--
       ``(I) Special rule.--In the case of an amount transferred 
     by one covered organization to another covered organization 
     which is treated as a transfer between affiliates under 
     subclause (II), clause (i) and (ii) shall apply to the 
     covered organization which transfers the amount only if the 
     aggregate amount transferred during the year by such covered 
     organization is equal to or greater than $50,000.
       ``(II) Description of transfers between affiliates.--A 
     transfer of amounts from one covered organization to another 
     covered organization shall be treated as a transfer between 
     affiliates if--
       ``(aa) one of the organizations is an affiliate of the 
     other organization; or
       ``(bb) each of the organizations is an affiliate of the 
     same organization,

     except that the transfer shall not be treated as a transfer 
     between affiliates if one of the organizations is established 
     for the purpose of disbursing funds for campaign-related 
     activity.
       ``(III) Determination of affiliate status.--For purposes of 
     subclause (II), a covered organization is an affiliate of 
     another covered organization if--
       ``(aa) the governing instrument of the organization 
     requires it to be bound by decisions of the other 
     organization;
       ``(bb) the governing board of the organization includes 
     persons who are specifically designated representatives of 
     the other organization or are members of the governing board, 
     officers, or paid executive staff members of the other 
     organization, or whose service on the governing board is 
     contingent upon the approval of the other organization; or
       ``(cc) the organization is chartered by the other 
     organization.
       ``(IV) Coverage of transfers to affiliated section 
     501(c)(3) organizations.--This clause shall apply with 
     respect to an amount transferred by a covered organization to 
     an organization described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) of such Code in the same manner as this 
     clause applies to an amount transferred by a covered 
     organization to another covered organization.
       ``(iv) Special threshold for disclosure of donors.-- 
     Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), if a 
     covered organization is required to include the 
     identification of a person described in such clause in a 
     report filed under this subsection because the covered 
     organization is deemed (in accordance with clause (ii)) to 
     have transferred amounts for the purpose of making a public 
     independent expenditure, the organization shall include the 
     identification of the person only if the person made 
     donations or payments (in the case of a person described in 
     clause (i)(I) of subparagraph (A)) or unrestricted donor 
     payments (in the case of a person described in clause (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A)) to the covered organization during the 
     covered organization reporting period involved in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $10,000.
       ``(v) Waiver of requirement to file report.--
     Notwithstanding clause (i), a covered organization which is 
     considered to have made a public independent expenditure 
     under such clause shall not be required to file a report 
     under this subsection if--
       ``(I) the organization would be required to file the report 
     solely because the organization is deemed (in accordance with 
     clause (ii)) to have transferred amounts for the purpose of 
     making a public independent expenditure;
       ``(II) no person made donations or payments (in the case of 
     a person described in clause (i)(I) of subparagraph (A)) or 
     unrestricted donor payments (in the case of person described 
     in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A)) to the covered 
     organization during the covered organization reporting period 
     involved in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding 
     $10,000; and
       ``(III) all of the persons who made donations or payments 
     (in the case of a person described in clause (i)(I) of 
     subparagraph (A)) or unrestricted donor payments (in the case 
     of a person described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A)) to 
     the covered organization during the covered organization 
     reporting period in any amount were individuals.''.
       ``(C) Exclusion of amounts designated for other campaign-
     related activity.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), in 
     determining the amount of a donation or payment made by a 
     person which was provided for the purpose of being used for 
     campaign-related activity or in response to a solicitation 
     for funds to be used for campaign-related activity, there 
     shall be excluded any amount which was designated by the 
     person to be used--
       ``(i) for campaign-related activity described in clause (i) 
     of section 325(d)(2)(A) (relating to independent 
     expenditures) with respect to a different election, or with 
     respect to a candidate in a different election, than an 
     election which is the subject of any of the public 
     independent expenditures covered by the report involved; or
       ``(ii) for any campaign-related activity described in 
     clause (ii) of section 325(d)(2)(A) (relating to 
     electioneering communications).
       ``(D) Exclusion of amounts paid from separate segregated 
     fund.--In determining the amount of public independent 
     expenditures made by a covered organization for purposes of 
     this paragraph, there shall be excluded any amounts paid from 
     a separate segregated fund established and administered by 
     the organization under section 316(b)(2)(C).
       ``(E) Determination of amount of certain payments among 
     affiliates.--For purposes of determining the amount of any 
     donation, payment, or transfer under this subsection which is 
     made by a covered organization to another covered 
     organization which is an affiliate of the

[[Page 11692]]

     covered organization or each of which is an affiliate of the 
     same organization (as determined in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B)(iii)), to the extent that the donation, 
     payment, or transfer consists of funds attributable to dues, 
     fees, or assessments which are paid by individuals on a 
     regular, periodic basis in accordance with a per-individual 
     calculation which is made on a regular basis, the donation, 
     payment, or transfer shall be attributed to the individuals 
     paying the dues, fees, or assessments and shall not be 
     attributed to the covered organization.''.
       ``(F) Covered organization reporting period described.--In 
     this paragraph, the `covered organization reporting period' 
     is, with respect to a report filed by a covered organization 
     under this subsection--
       ``(i) in the case of the first report filed by a covered 
     organization under this subsection which includes information 
     required under this paragraph, the shorter of--

       ``(I) the period which begins on the effective date of the 
     Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in 
     Elections Act and ends on the last day covered by the report, 
     or
       ``(II) the 12-month period ending on the last day covered 
     by the report; and

       ``(ii) in the case of any subsequent report filed by a 
     covered organization under this subsection which includes 
     information required under this paragraph, the period 
     occurring since the most recent report filed by the 
     organization which includes such information.
       ``(G) Covered organization defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `covered organization' means any of the following:
       ``(i) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a) 
     ``, other than a corporation which is an organization 
     described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) 
     of such Code.''.
       ``(ii) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(iii) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), 
     or (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code ``, 
     other than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as 
     defined in section 301(27)).''.
       ``(iv) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.
       ``(H) Other definitions.--In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the terms `campaign-related activity' and 
     `unrestricted donor payment' have the meaning given such 
     terms in section 325; and
       ``(ii) the term `public independent expenditure' means an 
     independent expenditure for a public communication (as 
     defined in section 301(22)).''.
       (b) Electioneering Communication Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(f) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(f)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) Disclosure of additional information by covered 
     organizations.--
       ``(A) Additional information.--If a covered organization 
     files a statement under this subsection, the statement shall 
     include, in addition to the information required under 
     paragraph (2), the following information (subject to 
     subparagraph (B)(iv)):''.
       ``(i) If any person made a donation or payment to the 
     covered organization during the covered organization 
     reporting period which was provided for the purpose of being 
     used for campaign-related activity or in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity--

       ``(I) subject to subparagraph (C), the identification of 
     each person who made such donations or payments in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $1,000 during such 
     period, presented in the order of the aggregate amount of 
     donations or payments made by such persons during such period 
     (with the identification of the person making the largest 
     donation or payment appearing first); and
       ``(II) if any person identified under subclause (I) 
     designated that the donation or payment be used for campaign-
     related activity with respect to a specific election or in 
     support of a specific candidate, the name of the election or 
     candidate involved, and if any such person designated that 
     the donation or payment be used for a specific electioneering 
     communication, a description of the communication.

       ``(ii) The identification of each person who made 
     unrestricted donor payments to the organization during the 
     covered organization reporting period--

       ``(I) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $1,000 
     during such period, if the organization made any of the 
     disbursements which are described in subclause (II) from a 
     source other than the organization's Campaign-Related 
     Activity Account under section 326; or
       ``(II) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $10,000 
     during such period, if the organization made from its 
     Campaign-Related Activity Account under section 326 all of 
     its disbursements for electioneering communications during 
     such period which are, on the basis of a reasonable belief by 
     the organization, subject to treatment as disbursements for 
     an exempt function for purposes of section 527(f) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (but only if the organization 
     has made deposits described in subparagraph (D) of section 
     326(a)(2) into that Account during such period in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or greater than $10,000),''

     presented in the order of the aggregate amount of payments 
     made by such persons during such period (with the 
     identification of the person making the largest payment 
     appearing first).
       ``(B) Treatment of transfers made to other persons.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for purposes of 
     the requirement to file statements under this subsection 
     (including the requirement under subparagraph (A) to include 
     additional information in such statements), a covered 
     organization which transfers amounts to another person (other 
     than the covered organization itself) for the purpose of 
     making an electioneering communication by that person or by 
     any other person, or (in accordance with clause (ii)) which 
     is deemed to have transferred amounts to another person 
     (other than the covered organization itself) for the purpose 
     of making an electioneering communication by that person or 
     by any other person, shall be considered to have made a 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication.
       ``(ii) Rules for deeming transfers made for purpose of 
     making communications.--For purposes of clause (i), in 
     determining whether a covered organization which transfers 
     amounts to another person shall be deemed to have transferred 
     the amounts for the purpose of making an electioneering 
     communication, the following rules apply:

       ``(I) The covered organization shall be deemed to have 
     transferred the amounts for the purpose of making an 
     electioneering communication if--

       ``(aa) the covered organization designates, requests, or 
     suggests that the amounts be used for electioneering 
     communications and the person to whom the amounts were 
     transferred agrees to do so;
       ``(bb) the person making the electioneering communication 
     or another person acting on that person's behalf expressly 
     solicited the covered organization for a donation or payment 
     for making or paying for any electioneering communications;
       ``(cc) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred engaged in written or oral 
     discussion regarding the person either making, or paying for, 
     any electioneering communications, or donating or 
     transferring the amounts to another person for that purpose;
       ``(dd) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     knew or had reason to know what the person to whom the 
     amounts wee transferred intended to make electioneering 
     communications; or
       ``(ee) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     or the person to whom the amounts were transferred made one 
     or more electioneering communications in an aggregate amount 
     of $50,000 or more during the 2-year period which ends on the 
     date on which the amounts were transferred.''.
       ``(II) The covered organization shall not be deemed to have 
     transferred the amounts for the purpose of making an 
     electioneering communication if--
       ``(aa) the transfer was a commercial transaction occurring 
     in the ordinary course of business between the covered 
     organization and the person to whom the amounts were 
     transferred, unless there is affirmative evidence that the 
     amounts were transferred for the purpose of making an 
     electioneering communication; or
       ``(bb) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred mutually agreed (as provided in 
     section 325(b)(1)) that the person will not use the amounts 
     for campaign-related activity.''.
       ``(iii) Special rule regarding transfers among 
     affiliates.--
       ``(I) Special rule.--In the case of an amount transferred 
     by one covered organization to another covered organization 
     which is treated as a transfer between affiliates under 
     subclause (II), clause (i) and (ii) shall apply to the 
     covered organization which transfers the amount only if the 
     aggregate amount transferred during the year by such covered 
     organization to that same covered organization is equal to or 
     greater than $50,000.
       ``(II) Description of transfers between affiliates.--A 
     transfer of amounts from one covered organization to another 
     covered organization shall be treated as a transfer between 
     affiliates if--
       ``(aa) one of the organizations is an affiliate of the 
     other organization; or
       ``(bb) each of the organizations is an affiliate of the 
     same organization,

     except that the transfer shall not be treated as a transfer 
     between affiliates if one of the organizations is established 
     for the purpose of disbursing funds for campaign-related 
     activity.
       ``(III) Determination of affiliate status.--For purposes of 
     subclause (II), a covered organization is an affiliate of 
     another covered organization if--
       ``(aa) the governing instrument of the organization 
     requires it to be bound by decisions of the other 
     organization;
       ``(bb) the governing board of the organization includes 
     persons who are specifically designated representatives of 
     the other organization or are members of the governing board, 
     officers, or paid executive staff members of the other 
     organization, or whose service on the governing board is 
     contingent upon the approval of the other organization; or
       ``(cc) the organization is chartered by the other 
     organization.
       ``(IV) Coverage of transfers to affiliated section 
     501(c)(3) organizations.--This clause shall apply with 
     respect to an amount transferred by a covered organization to 
     an organization described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c)

[[Page 11693]]

     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) of such Code in the same manner as this 
     clause applies to an amount transferred by a covered 
     organization to another covered organization.
       ``(iv) Special threshold for disclosure of donors.--
     Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), if a 
     covered organization is required to include the 
     identification of a person described in such clause in a 
     statement filed under this subsection because the covered 
     organization is deemed (in accordance with clause (ii)) to 
     have transferred amounts for the purpose of making an 
     electioneering communication, the organization shall include 
     the identification of the person only if the person made 
     donations or payments (in the case of a person described in 
     clause (i)(I) of subparagraph (A)) or unrestricted donor 
     payments (in the case of a person described in clause (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A)) to the covered organization during the 
     covered organization reporting period involved in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $10,000.
       ``(v) Waiver of requirement to file statement.--
     Notwithstanding clause (i), a covered organization which is 
     considered to have made a disbursement for an electioneering 
     communication under such clause shall not be required to file 
     a report under this subsection if--
       ``(I) the organization would be required to file the report 
     solely because the organization is deemed (in accordance with 
     clause (ii) to have transferred amounts for the purpose of 
     making an electioneering communication;
       ``(II) no person made donations or payments (in the case of 
     a person described in clause (i)(I) of subparagraph (A)) or 
     unrestricted donor payments (in the case of a person 
     described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A)) to the covered 
     organization during the covered organization reporting period 
     involved in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding 
     $10,000; and
       ``(III) all of the persons who made donations or payments 
     (in the case of a person described in clause (i)(I) of 
     subparagraph (A)) or unrestricted donor payments (in the case 
     of a person described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A)) to 
     the covered organization during the covered organization 
     reporting period in any amount were individuals.''.
       ``(C) Exclusion of amounts designated for other campaign-
     related activity.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), in 
     determining the amount of a donation or payment made by a 
     person which was provided for the purpose of being used for 
     campaign-related activity or in response to a solicitation 
     for funds to be used for campaign-related activity, there 
     shall be excluded any amount which was designated by the 
     person to be used--
       ``(i) for campaign-related activity described in clause 
     (ii) of section 325(d)(2)(A) (relating to electioneering 
     communications) with respect to a different election, or with 
     respect to a candidate in a different election, than an 
     election which is the subject of any of the electioneering 
     communications covered by the statement involved; or
       ``(ii) for any campaign-related activity described in 
     clause (i) of section 325(d)(2)(A) (relating to independent 
     expenditures consisting of a public communication).
       ``(D) Determination of amount of certain payments among 
     affiliates.--For purposes of determining the amount of any 
     donation, payment, or transfer under this subsection which is 
     made by a covered organization to another covered 
     organization which is an affiliate of the covered 
     organization or each of which is an affiliate of the same 
     organization (as determined in accordance with subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)), to the extent that the donation, payment, or 
     transfer consists of funds attributable to dues, fees, or 
     assessments which are paid by individuals on a regular, 
     periodic basis in accordance with a per-individual 
     calculation which is made on a regular basis, the donation, 
     payment, or transfer shall be attributed to the individuals 
     paying the dues, fees, or assessments and shall not be 
     attributed to the covered organization.''.
       ``(E) Covered organization reporting period described.--In 
     this paragraph, the `covered organization reporting period' 
     is, with respect to a statement filed by a covered 
     organization under this subsection--
       ``(i) in the case of the first statement filed by a covered 
     organization under this subsection which includes information 
     required under this paragraph, the shorter of--

       ``(I) the period which begins on the effective date of the 
     Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in 
     Elections Act and ends on the disclosure date for the 
     statement, or
       ``(II) the 12-month period ending on the disclosure date 
     for the statement; and

       ``(ii) in the case of any subsequent statement filed by a 
     covered organization under this subsection which includes 
     information required under this paragraph, the period 
     occurring since the most recent statement filed by the 
     organization which includes such information.
       ``(F) Covered organization defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `covered organization' means any of the following:
       ``(i) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a), 
     other than a corporation which is an organization described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such 
     Code.
       ``(ii) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(iii) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), 
     or (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, other 
     than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as defined in 
     section 301(27)).
       ``(iv) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.
       ``(G) Other definitions.--In this paragraph, the terms 
     `campaign-related activity' and `unrestricted donor payment' 
     have the meaning given such terms in section 325.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(f)(2) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(f)(2)) is amended by striking ``If the 
     disbursements'' each place it appears in subparagraphs (E) 
     and (F) and inserting the following: ``Except in the case of 
     a statement which is required to include additional 
     information under paragraph (6), if the disbursements''.
       (c) Exemption of Certain Section 501(c)(4) Organizations.--
     Section 301 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(27) Exempt section 501(c)(4) organization.--The term 
     `exempt section 501(c)(4) organization' means, with respect 
     to disbursements made by an organization during a calendar 
     year, and organization for which the chief executive officer 
     of the organization certifies to the Commission (prior to the 
     first disbursement made by the organization during the year) 
     that each of the following applies:
       ``(A) The organization is described in paragraph (4) of 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, and was so 
     described and so exempt during each of the 10 previous 
     calendar years.
       ``(B) The organization has at least 500,000 individuals who 
     paid membership dues during the previous calendar year 
     (determined as of the last day of that year).
       ``(C) The dues-paying membership of the organization 
     includes at least one individual from each State. For 
     purposes of this subparagraph, the term `State' means each of 
     the several States, the District of Columbia, and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(D) During the previous calendar year, the portion of 
     funds provided to the organization by corporations (as 
     described in section 316) or labor organizations (as defined 
     in section 316), other than funds provided pursuant to 
     commercial transactions occurring in the ordinary course of 
     business, did not exceed 15 percent of the total amount of 
     all funds provided to the organization from all sources.
       ``(E) The organization does not use any of the funds 
     provided to the organization by corporations (as described in 
     section 316) or labor organizations (as defined in section 
     316) for campaign-related activity (as defined in section 
     325).''.

     SEC. 212. RULES REGARDING USE OF GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS BY 
                   COVERED ORGANIZATIONS FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED 
                   ACTIVITY.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 325. SPECIAL RULES FOR USE OF GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS 
                   BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED 
                   ACTIVITY.

       ``(a) Use of Funds for Campaign-Related Activity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to any applicable restrictions 
     and prohibitions under this Act, a covered organization may 
     make disbursements for campaign-related activity using--
       ``(A) amounts paid or donated to the organization which are 
     designated by the person providing the amounts to be used for 
     campaign-related activity;
       ``(B) unrestricted donor payments made to the organization; 
     and
       ``(C) other funds of the organization, including amounts 
     received pursuant to commercial activities in the regular 
     course of a covered organization's business.
       ``(2) No effect on use of separate segregated fund.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the 
     authority of a covered organization to make disbursements 
     from a separate segregated fund established and administered 
     by the organization under section 316(b)(2)(C).
       ``(b) Mutually Agreed Restrictions on Use of Funds for 
     Campaign-Related Activity.--
       ``(1) Agreement and certification.--If a covered 
     organization and a person mutually agree, at the time the 
     person makes a donation, payment, or transfer to the 
     organization which would require the organization to disclose 
     the person's identification under section 304(g)(5)(A)(ii) or 
     section 304(f)(6)(A)(ii), that the organization will not use 
     the donation, payment, or transfer for campaign-related 
     activity, then not later than 30 days after the organization 
     receives the donation, payment, or transfer the organization 
     shall transmit to the person a written certification by the 
     chief financial officer of the covered organization (or, if 
     the organization does not have a chief financial officer, the 
     highest ranking financial official of the organization) 
     that--
       ``(A) the organization will not use the donation, payment, 
     or transfer for campaign-related activity; and
       ``(B) the organization will not include any information on 
     the person in any report filed by the organization under 
     section 304 with respect to independent expenditures or 
     electioneering communications, so that the person will not be 
     required to appear in a significant funder statement or a Top 
     5 Funders list under section 318(e).
       ``(2) Exception for payments made pursuant to commercial 
     activities.--Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to any 
     payment or

[[Page 11694]]

     transfer made pursuant to commercial activities in the 
     regular course of a covered organization's business.
       ``(c) Certifications Regarding Disbursements for Campaign-
     Related Activity.--
       ``(1) Certification by chief executive officer.--If, at any 
     time during a calendar quarter, a covered organization makes 
     a disbursement of funds for campaign-related activity using 
     funds described in subsection (a)(1), the chief executive 
     officer of the covered organization or the chief executive 
     officer's designee (or, if the organization does not have a 
     chief executive officer, the highest ranking official of the 
     organization or the highest ranking official's designee) 
     shall file a statement with the Commission which contains the 
     following certifications:
       ``(A) None of the campaign-related activity for which the 
     organization disbursed the funds during the quarter was made 
     in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the 
     request or suggestion of, any candidate or any authorized 
     committee or agent of such candidate, or political committee 
     of a political party or agent of any political party.
       ``(B) The chief executive officer or highest ranking 
     official of the covered organization (as the case may be) has 
     reviewed and approved each statement and report filed by the 
     organization under section 304 with respect to any such 
     disbursement made during the quarter.
       ``(C) Each statement and report filed by the organization 
     under section 304 with respect to any such disbursement made 
     during the quarter is complete and accurate.
       ``(D) All such disbursements made during the quarter are in 
     compliance with this Act.
       ``(E) No portion of the amounts used to make any such 
     disbursements during the quarter is attributable to funds 
     received by the organization ``that were subject to a mutual 
     agreement (as provided in subsection (b)(1)) that the 
     organization will not use the funds for campaign-related 
     activity'', by the person who provided the funds from being 
     used for campaign-related activity pursuant to subsection 
     (b).
       ``(2) Application of electronic filing rules.--Section 
     304(d)(1) shall apply with respect to a statement required 
     under this subsection in the same manner as such section 
     applies with respect to a statement under subsection (c) or 
     (g) of section 304.
       ``(3) Deadline.--The chief executive officer or highest 
     ranking official of a covered organization (as the case may 
     be) shall file the statement required under this subsection 
     with respect to a calendar quarter not later than 15 days 
     after the end of the quarter.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Covered organization.--The term `covered 
     organization' means any of the following:
       ``(A) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a), 
     other than a corporation which is an organization described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such 
     Code.''.
       ``(B) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(C) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), or 
     (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code ``, 
     other than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as 
     defined in section 301(27).''.
       ``(D) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.
       ``(2) Campaign-related activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `campaign-related activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) an independent expenditure consisting of a public 
     communication (as defined in section 301(22)), a transfer of 
     funds to another person (other than the transferor itself) 
     for the purpose of making such an independent expenditure by 
     that person or by any other person (subject to subparagraph 
     (c)), or (in accordance with subparagraph (B) and subject to 
     subparagraph (C)) a transfer of funds to another person 
     (other than the transferor itself) which is deemed to have 
     been made for the purpose of making such an independent 
     expenditure by that person or by any other person; or
       ``(ii) an electioneering communication, a transfer of funds 
     to another person (other than the transferor itself) for the 
     purpose of making an electioneering communication by that 
     person or by any other person (subject to subparagraph C)), 
     or in accordance with subparagraph (B) and subject to 
     subparagraph (C)) a transfer of funds to another person 
     (other than the transferor itself) which is deemed to have 
     been made for the purpose of making an electioneering 
     communication by that person or by any other person.
       ``(B) Rule for deeming transfers made for purpose of 
     campaign-related activity.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     in determining whether a transfer of funds by a covered 
     organization to another person shall be deemed to have been 
     made for the purpose of making an independent expenditure 
     consisting of a public communication or an electioneering 
     communication, the following rules apply:
       ``(i) The transfer shall be deemed to have been made for 
     the purpose of making such an independent expenditure or an 
     electioneering communication if--

       ``(I) the covered organization designates, requests, or 
     suggests that the amounts be used for such independent 
     expenditures or electioneering communications and the person 
     to whom the amounts were transferred agrees to do so;
       ``(II) the person making such independent expenditures or 
     electioneering communications or another person acting on 
     that person's behalf expressly solicited the covered 
     organization for a donation or payment for making or paying 
     for any such independent expenditure or electioneering 
     communication;
       ``(III) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred engaged in written or oral 
     discussion regarding the person either making, or paying for, 
     such independent expenditures or electioneering 
     communications, or donating or transferring the amounts to 
     another person for that purpose;
       ``(IV) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     knew or had reason to know that the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred intended to make such independent 
     expenditures or electioneering communications; or
       ``(V) the covered organization which transferred the funds 
     or the person to whom the amounts were transferred made one 
     or more such independent expenditures or electioneering 
     communications in an aggregate amount of $50,000 or more 
     during the 2-year period which ends on the date on which the 
     amounts were transferred''.

       ``(ii) The transfer shall not be deemed to have been made 
     for the purpose of making such an independent expenditure or 
     an electioneering communication if--
       ``(I) the transfer was a commercial transaction occurring 
     in the ordinary course of business between the covered 
     organization and the person to whom the amounts were 
     transferred, unless there is affirmative evidence that the 
     amounts were transferred for the purpose of making such an 
     independent expenditure or electioneering communication; or
       ``(II) the covered organization and the person to whom the 
     amounts were transferred mutually agreed (as provided in 
     subsection (b)(1)) that the person will not use the amounts 
     for campaign-related activity.
       ``(C) Special rule regarding transfers among affiliates.--

       ``(I) Special rule.--In the case of a transfer of an amount 
     by one covered organization to another covered organization 
     which is treated as a transfer between affiliates under 
     clause (ii), subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to the 
     transfer only if the aggregate amount transferred during the 
     year by such covered organization to that same covered 
     organization is equal to or greater than $50,000.

       ``(ii) Determination of amount of certain transfers among 
     affiliates.--In determining the amount of a transfer between 
     affiliates for purposes of clause (I), to the extent that the 
     transfer consists of funds attributable to dues, fees, or 
     assessments which are paid by individuals on a regular, 
     periodic basis in accordance with a per-individual 
     calculation which is made on a regular basis, the transfer 
     shall be attributed to the individuals paying the dues, fees, 
     or assessments and shall not be attributed to the covered 
     organization.
       ``(iii) Description of transfers between affiliates.--A 
     transfer of amounts from one covered organization to another 
     covered organization shall be treated as a transfer between 
     affiliates if--
       ``(I) one of the organizations is an affiliate of the other 
     organization; or
       ``(II) each of the organizations is an affiliate of the 
     same organization, except that the transfer shall not be 
     treated as a transfer between affiliates if one of the 
     organizations is established for the purpose of disbursing 
     funds for campaign-related activity.
       ``(iv) Determination of affiliate status.--For purposes of 
     clause (ii), a covered organization is an affiliate of 
     another covered organization if--
       ``(I) the governing instrument of the organization requires 
     it to be bound by decisions of the other organization;
       ``(II) the governing board of the organization includes 
     persons who are specifically designated representatives of 
     the other organization or are members of the governing board, 
     officers, or paid executive staff members of the other 
     organization, or whose service on the governing board is 
     contingent upon the approval of the other organization; or
       ``(III) the organization is chartered by the other 
     organization.
       ``(v) Coverage of transfers to affiliated section 501(c)(3) 
     organizations.--This subparagraph shall apply with respect to 
     an amount transferred by a covered organization to an 
     organization described in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code in the same manner as this 
     subparagraph applies to an amount transferred by a covered 
     organization to another covered organization.
       ``(3) Unrestricted donor payment.--The term `unrestricted 
     donor payment' means a payment to a covered organization 
     which consists of a donation or payment from a person other 
     than the covered organization, except that such term does not 
     include--
       ``(A) any payment made pursuant to commercial activities in 
     the regular course of a covered organization's business; or
       ``(B) any donation or payment which is designated by the 
     person making the donation or payment to be used for 
     campaign-related activity or made in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity.''.

     SEC. 213. OPTIONAL USE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNT BY COVERED 
                   ORGANIZATIONS FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.),

[[Page 11695]]

     as amended by section 212, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 326. OPTIONAL USE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNT BY COVERED 
                   ORGANIZATIONS FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY.

       ``(a) Optional Use of Separate Account.--
       ``(1) Establishment of account.--
       ``(A) In general.--At its option, a covered organization 
     may make disbursements for campaign-related activity using 
     amounts from a bank account established and controlled by the 
     organization to be known as the Campaign-Related Activity 
     Account (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Account'), which shall be maintained separately from all 
     other accounts of the organization and which shall consist 
     exclusively of the deposits described in paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Mandatory use of account after establishment.--If a 
     covered organization establishes an Account under this 
     section, it may not make disbursements for campaign-related 
     activity from any source other than amounts from the Account, 
     other than disbursements for campaign-related activity which, 
     on the basis of a reasonable belief by the organization, 
     would not be treated as disbursements for an exempt function 
     for purposes of section 527(f) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.''.
       ``(C) Exclusive use of account for campaign-related 
     activity.--Amounts in the Account shall be used exclusively 
     for disbursements by the covered organization for campaign-
     related activity. After such disbursements are made, 
     information with respect to deposits made to the Account 
     shall be disclosed in accordance with section 304(g)(5) or 
     section 304(f)(6).
       ``(2) Deposits described.--The deposits described in this 
     paragraph are deposits of the following amounts:
       ``(A) Amounts donated or paid to the covered organization 
     by a person other than the organization for the purpose of 
     being used for campaign-related activity, and for which the 
     person providing the amounts has designated that the amounts 
     be used for campaign-related activity with respect to a 
     specific election or specific candidate.
       ``(B) Amounts donated or paid to the covered organization 
     by a person other than the organization for the purpose of 
     being used for campaign-related activity, and for which the 
     person providing the amounts has not designated that the 
     amounts be used for campaign-related activity with respect to 
     a specific election or specific candidate.
       ``(C) Amounts donated or paid to the covered organization 
     by a person other than the organization in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity.
       ``(D) Amounts transferred to the Account by the covered 
     organization from other accounts of the organization, 
     including from the organization's general treasury funds.
       ``(3) No treatment as political committee.--The 
     establishment and administration of an Account in accordance 
     with this subsection shall not by itself be treated as the 
     establishment or administration of a political committee for 
     any purpose of this Act.
       ``(b) Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Available for Account 
     in Response to Demand of General Donors.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a covered organization which has 
     established an Account obtains any revenues during a year 
     which are attributable to a donation or payment from a person 
     other than the covered organization, and if the organization 
     and any such person have mutally agreed (as provided in 
     section 325(b)(1)) that the organization will not use the 
     person's donation, payment, or transfer for campaign-related 
     activity, the organization shall reduce the amount of its 
     revenues available for deposits to the Account which are 
     described in subsection (a)(3)(D) during the year by the 
     amount of the donation or payment which is subject to the 
     mutual agreement.''.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect 
     to any payment made pursuant to commercial activities in the 
     regular course of a covered organization's business.
       ``(c) Covered Organization Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `covered organization' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a), 
     other than a corporation which is an organization described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such 
     code.''.
       ``(2) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(3) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), or 
     (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, other 
     than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as defined in 
     section 301(27)).''.
       ``(4) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.
       ``(d) Campaign-Related Activity Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `campaign-related activity' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 325.''.
       (b) Clarification of treatment as Separate Segregated 
     Fund.--A Campaign-Related Activity Account (within the 
     meaning of section 326 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as added by subsection (a)) may be treated as a 
     separate segregated fund for purposes of section 527(f)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 214. MODIFICATION OF RULES RELATING TO DISCLAIMER 
                   STATEMENTS REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Applying Requirements to All Independent Expenditure 
     Communications.--Section 318(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441d(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``for the purpose of financing communications 
     expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate'' and inserting ``for an independent 
     expenditure consisting of a public communication''.
       (b) Stand by Your Ad Requirements.--
       (1) Maintenance of existing requirements for communications 
     by political parties and other political committees.--Section 
     318(d)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d(d)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``others'' and inserting 
     ``political committees'';
       (B) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a) which is paid for by a political committee 
     (including a political committee of a political party), other 
     than a political committee which is described in subsection 
     (e)(7)(B)''; and
       (C) by striking ``or other person'' each place it appears.
       (2) Special disclaimer requirements for certain 
     communications.--Section 318 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Communications by Others.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any communication described in paragraph 
     (3) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through radio or 
     television (other than a communication to which subsection 
     (d)(2) applies because the communication is paid for by a 
     political committee, including a political committee of a 
     political party, other than a political committee which is 
     described in paragraph (7)(b)) shall include, in addition to 
     the requirements of that paragraph, the following:
       ``(A) The individual disclosure statement described in 
     paragraph (2) (if the person paying for the communication is 
     an individual) or the organizational disclosure statement 
     described in paragraph (3) (if the person paying for the 
     communication is not an individual).
       ``(B) If the communication is an electioneering 
     communication or an independent expenditure consisting of a 
     public communication and is paid for in whole or in part with 
     a payment which is treated as a disbursement by a covered 
     organization for campaign-related activity under section 325, 
     the significant funder disclosure statement described in 
     paragraph (4) (if applicable), unless, on the basis of 
     criteria established in regulations promulgated by the 
     Commission, the communication is of such short duration that 
     including the statement in the communication would constitute 
     a hardship to the person paying for the communication by 
     requiring a disproportionate amount of the communication's 
     content to consist of the statement.
       ``(C) If the communication is an electioneering 
     communication or an independent expenditure consisting of a 
     public communication and is paid for in whole or in part with 
     a payment which is treated as a disbursement by a covered 
     organization for campaign-related activity under section 325, 
     the Top Five Funders list described in paragraph (5) (if 
     applicable), unless, on the basis of criteria established in 
     regulations promulgated by the Commission, the communication 
     is of such short duration that including the Top Five Funders 
     list in the communication would constitute a hardship to the 
     person paying for the communication by requiring a 
     disproportionate amount of the communication's content to 
     consist of the Top Five Funders list.
       ``(2) Individual disclosure statement described.--The 
     individual disclosure statement described in this paragraph 
     is the following: `I am _______, and I approve this 
     message.', with the blank filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual.
       ``(3) Organizational disclosure statement described.--The 
     organizational disclosure statement described in this 
     paragraph is the following: `I am _______, the _______ of 
     _______, and _______ approves this message.', with--
       ``(A) the first blank to be filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(B) the second blank to be filled in with the title of 
     the applicable individual; and
       ``(C) the third and fourth blank each to be filled in with 
     the name of the organization or other person paying for the 
     communication.
       ``(4) Significant funder disclosure statement described.--
       ``(A) Statement if significant funder is an individual.--If 
     the significant funder of a communication paid for in whole 
     or in part with a payment which is treated as a disbursement 
     by a covered organization for campaign-related activity under 
     section 325 is an individual, the significant funder 
     disclosure statement described in this paragraph is the 
     following: `I am _______. I helped to pay for this message, 
     and I approve it.', with the blank filled in with the name of 
     the applicable individual.
       ``(B) Statement if significant funder is not an 
     individual.--If the significant funder of a communication 
     paid for in whole or in part with a payment which is treated 
     as a disbursement by a covered organization for campaign-
     related activity under section 325 is not an individual, the 
     significant funder disclosure statement described in this 
     paragraph is the following: `I am _______, the _______ of 
     _______. _______ helped to pay for this message, and _______ 
     approves it.', with--
       ``(i) the first blank to be filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(ii) the second blank to be filled in with the title of 
     the applicable individual; and

[[Page 11696]]

       ``(iii) the third, fourth, and fifth blank each to be 
     filled in with the name of the significant funder of the 
     communication.
       ``(C) Significant funder defined.--
       ``(i) Independent expenditures.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the `significant funder' with respect to an 
     independent expenditure consisting of a public communication 
     paid for in whole or in part with a payment which is treated 
     as a disbursement by a covered organization for campaign-
     related activity under section 325 shall be determined as 
     follows:

       ``(I) If any report filed by any organization with respect 
     to the independent expenditure under section 304 during the 
     12-month period which ends on the date of disbursement 
     includes information on any person who made a payment to the 
     organization in an amount equal to or exceeding $100,000 
     which was designated by the person to be used for campaign-
     related activity consisting of that specific independent 
     expenditure (as required to be included in the report under 
     section 304(g)(5)(A)(i)), the person who is identified among 
     all such reports as making the largest such payment.
       ``(II) If any report filed by any organization with respect 
     to the independent expenditure under section 304 during the 
     12-month period which ends on the date of disbursement 
     includes information on any person who made a payment to the 
     organization in an amount equal to or exceeding $100,000 
     which was designated by the person to be used for campaign-
     related activity with respect to the same election or in 
     support of the same candidate (as required to be included in 
     the report under section 304(g)(5)(A)(i)) but subclause (I) 
     does not apply, the person who is identified among all such 
     reports as making the largest such payment.
       ``(III) If any report filed by any organization with 
     respect to the independent expenditure under section 304 
     during the 12-month period which ends on the date of 
     disbursement includes information on any person who made a 
     payment to the organization in an amount equal to or 
     exceeding $10,000 which was provided for the purpose of being 
     used for campaign-related activity or in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity (as required to be included in the report under 
     section 304(g)(5)(A)(i)) but subclause (I) or subclause (II) 
     does not apply, the person who is identified among all such 
     reports as making the largest such payment.
       ``(IV) If none of the reports filed by any organization 
     with respect to the independent expenditure under section 304 
     during the 12-month period which ends on the date of the 
     disbursement includes information on any person (other than 
     the organization) who made a payment to the organization in 
     an amount equal to or exceeding $10,000 which was provided 
     for the purpose of being used for campaign-related activity 
     or in response to a solicitation for funds to be used for 
     campaign-related activity, but any of such reports includes 
     information on any person who made an unrestricted donor 
     payment to the organization (as required to be included in 
     the report under section 304(g)(5)(A)(ii)) in an amount equal 
     to or exceeding $10,000, the person who is identified among 
     all such reports as making the largest such unrestricted 
     donor payment.

       ``(ii) Electioneering communications.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the `significant funder' with respect to an 
     electioneering communication paid for in whole or in part 
     with a payment which is treated as a disbursement by a 
     covered organization for campaign-related activity under 
     section 325, shall be determined as follows:

       ``(I) If any report filed by any organization with respect 
     to the electioneering communication under section 304 during 
     the 12-month period which ends on the date of the 
     disbursement includes information on any person who made a 
     payment to the organization in an amount equal to or 
     exceeding $100,000 which was designated by the person to be 
     used for campaign-related activity consisting of that 
     specific electioneering communication (as required to be 
     included in the report under section 304(f)(6)(A)(i)), the 
     person who is identified among all such reports as making the 
     largest such payment.
       ``(II) If any report filed by any organization with respect 
     to the electioneering communication under section 304 during 
     the 12-month period which ends on the date of the 
     disbursement includes information on any person who made a 
     payment to the organization in an amount equal to or 
     exceeding $100,000 which was designated by the person to be 
     used for campaign-related activity with respect to the same 
     election or in support of the same candidate (as required to 
     be included in the report under section 304(f)(6)(A)(i)) but 
     subclause (I) does not apply, the person who is identified 
     among all such reports as making the largest such payment.
       ``(III) If any report filed by any organization with 
     respect to the electioneering communication under section 304 
     during the 12-month period which ends on the date of the 
     disbursement includes information on any person who made a 
     payment to the organization in an amount equal to or 
     exceeding $10,000 which was provided for the purpose of being 
     used for campaign-related activity or in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity (as required to be included in the report under 
     section 304(f)(6)(A)(i)) but subclause (I) or subclause (II) 
     does not apply, the person who is identified among all such 
     reports as making the largest such payment.
       ``(IV) If none of the reports filed by any organization 
     with respect to the electioneering communication under 
     section 304 during the 12-month period which ends on the date 
     of the disbursement includes information on any person who 
     made a payment to the organization in an amount equal to or 
     exceeding $10,000 which was provided for the purpose of being 
     used for campaign-related activity or in response to a 
     solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related 
     activity, but any of such reports includes information on any 
     person who made an unrestricted donor payment to the 
     organization (as required to be included in the report under 
     section 304(f)(6)(A)(ii)) in an amount equal to or exceeding 
     $10,000, the person who is identified among all such reports 
     as making the largest such unrestricted donor payment.

       ``(5) Top 5 funders list described.--With respect to a 
     communication paid for in whole or in part with a payment 
     which is treated as a disbursement by a covered organization 
     for campaign-related activity under section 325, the Top 5 
     Funders list described in this paragraph is--
       ``(A) in the case of a disbursement for an independent 
     expenditure consisting of a public communication, a list of 
     the 5 persons (or, in the case of a communication transmitted 
     through radio, the 2 persons) who provided the largest 
     payments of any type in an aggregate amount equal to or 
     exceeding $10,000 which are required under section 
     304(g)(5)(A) to be included in the reports filed by any 
     organization with respect to that independent expenditure 
     under section 304 during the 12-month period which ends on 
     the date of the disbursement, together with the amount of the 
     payments each such person provided; or
       ``(B) in the case of a disbursement for an electioneering 
     communication, a list of the 5 persons (or, in the case of a 
     communication transmitted through radio, the 2 persons) who 
     provided the largest payments of any type in an aggregate 
     amount equal to or exceeding $10,000 which are required under 
     section 304(f)(6)(A) to be included in the reports filed by 
     any organization with respect to that electioneering 
     communication under section 304 during the 12-month period 
     which ends on the date of the disbursement, together with the 
     amount of the payments each such person provided.
       ``(6) Method of conveyance of statement.--
       ``(A) Communications transmitted through radio.--In the 
     case of a communication to which this subsection applies 
     which is transmitted through radio, the disclosure statements 
     required under paragraph (1) shall be made by audio by the 
     applicable individual in a clearly spoken manner.
       ``(B) Communications transmitted through television.--In 
     the case of a communication to which this subsection applies 
     which is transmitted through television, the information 
     required under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) shall appear in writing at the end of the 
     communication in a clearly readable manner, with a reasonable 
     degree of color contrast between the background and the 
     printed statement, for a period of at least 6 seconds; and
       ``(ii) except in the case of a Top 5 Funders list described 
     in paragraph (5), shall also be conveyed by an unobscured, 
     full-screen view of the applicable individual, or by the 
     applicable individual making the statement in voice-over 
     accompanied by a clearly identifiable photograph or similar 
     image of the individual.
       ``(7) Application to certain pacs.--
       ``(A) Application.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to an electioneering communication, and to an 
     independent expenditure consisting of a public communication, 
     which is paid for in whole or in part with a payment by a 
     political committee described in subparagraph
       (B) in the same manner as this subsection applies with 
     respect to an electioneering communication and an independent 
     expenditure consisting of a public communication which is 
     paid for in whole or in part with a payment which is treated 
     as a disbursement by a covered organization under section 
     325, except that--
       ``(i) in applying paragraph (4)(C), the `significant 
     funder' with respect to such an electioneering communication 
     or such an independent expenditure shall be the person who is 
     identified as providing the largest aggregate amount of 
     contributions, donations, or payments to the political 
     committee during the 12-month period which ends on the date 
     the committee made the disbursement for the electioneering 
     communication or independent expenditure (as determined on 
     the basis of the information contained in all reports filed 
     by the committee under section 304 during such period); and
       ``(ii) in applying paragraph (5), the ``Top 5 Funders list' 
     shall be a list of the 5 persons who are identified as 
     providing the largest aggregate amounts of contributions, 
     donations, or payments to the political committee during such 
     12- month period (as determined on the basis of the 
     information contained in all such reports).
       ``(B) Political committee described.--A political committee 
     described in this subparagraph is a political committee which 
     receives or accepts contributions or donations which do not 
     comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions of 
     this Act.''.
       ``(8) Applicable individual defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `applicable individual' means, with respect to a 
     communication to which this paragraph applies--
       ``(A) if the communication is paid for by an individual or 
     if the significant funder of the communication under 
     paragraph (4) is an individual, the individual involved;
       ``(B) if the communication is paid for by a corporation or 
     if the significant funder of the communication under 
     paragraph (4) is a corporation, the chief executive officer 
     of the corporation (or, if the corporation does not have a

[[Page 11697]]

     chief executive officer, the highest ranking official of the 
     corporation);
       ``(C) if the communication is paid for by a labor 
     organization or if the significant funder of the 
     communication under paragraph (4) is a labor organization, 
     the highest ranking officer of the labor organization; or
       ``(D) if the communication is paid for by any other person 
     or if the significant funder of the communication under 
     paragraph (4) is any other person, the highest ranking 
     official of such person.
       ``(9) Covered organization defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `covered organization' means any of the following:
       ``(A) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a), 
     other than a corporation which is an organization described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such 
     Code.''.
       ``(B) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(C) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), or 
     (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, other 
     than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as defined in 
     section 301(27)).''.
       ``(D) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.
       ``(10) Other definitions.--In this subsection, the terms 
     `campaign-related activity' and `unrestricted donor payment' 
     have the meaning given such terms in section 325.''.
       (3) Application to certain mass mailings.--Section 
     318(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d(a)(3)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized 
     political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall 
     clearly state--
       ``(A) the name and permanent street address, telephone 
     number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for 
     the communication;
       ``(B) if the communication is an independent expenditure 
     consisting of a mass mailing (as defined in section 301(23)) 
     which is paid for in whole or in part with a payment which is 
     treated as a disbursement by a covered organization for 
     campaign-related activity under section 325, or which is paid 
     for in whole or in part by a political committee described in 
     subsection (e)(7)(B), the name and permanent street address, 
     telephone number, or World Wide Web address of--
       ``(i) the significant funder of the communication, if any 
     (as determined in accordance with subsection (e)(4)(C)(i) or 
     (e)(7)(A)(i)); and
       ``(ii) each person who would be included in the Top 5 
     Funders list which would be submitted with respect to the 
     communication if the communication were transmitted through 
     television, if any (as determined in accordance with 
     subsection (e)(5)) or (e)(7)(A)(ii)); and
       ``(C) that the communication is not authorized by any 
     candidate or candidate's committee.''.
       (4) Application to political robocalls.--Section 318 of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 441d), as amended by paragraph (2), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Special Rules for Political Robocalls.--
       ``(1) Requiring communications to include certain 
     disclaimer statements.--Any communication consisting of a 
     political robocall which would be subject to the requirements 
     of subsection (e) if the communication were transmitted 
     through radio or television shall include the following:
       ``(A) The individual disclosure statement described in 
     subsection (e)(2) (if the person paying for the communication 
     is an individual) or the organizational disclosure statement 
     described in subsection (e)(3) (if the person paying for the 
     communication is not an individual).
       ``(B) If the communication is an electioneering 
     communication or an independent expenditure consisting of a 
     public communication and is paid for in whole or in part with 
     a payment which is treated as a disbursement by a covered 
     organization for campaign-related activity under section 325 
     or which is paid for in whole or in part by a political 
     committee described in subsection (e)(7)(B), the significant 
     funder disclosure statement described in subsection (e)(4) or 
     (e)(7) (if applicable).
       ``(2) Timing of certain statement.--The statements required 
     to be included under paragraph (1) shall be made at the 
     beginning of the political robocall, unless, on the basis of 
     criteria established in regulations promulgated by the 
     Commission, the communication is of such short duration that 
     including the statement in the communication would constitute 
     a hardship to the person paying for the communication by 
     requiring a disproportionate amount of the communication's 
     content to consist of the statement.''.
       ``(3) Political robocall defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `political robocall' means any outbound telephone call--
       ``(A) in which a person is not available to speak with the 
     person answering the call, and the call instead plays a 
     recorded message; and
       ``(B) which promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a 
     candidate for election for Federal office.''.

     SEC. 215. INDEXING OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 
     amended by section 213, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 327. INDEXING OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS.

       ``(a) Indexing.--In any calendar year after 2010--
       ``(1) each of the amounts referred to in subsection (b) 
     shall be increased by the percent difference determined under 
     subparagraph (A) of section 315(c)(1), except that for 
     purposes of this paragraph, such percent difference shall be 
     determined as if the base year referred to in such 
     subparagraph were 2009;
       ``(2) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(3) if any amunt after adjustment under paragraph (1) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(b) Amounts Described.--The amounts referred to in this 
     subsection are as follows:
       ``(1) The amount referred to in section 304(g)(5)(A)(i)(I).
       ``(2) The amount referred to in section 
     304(g)(5)(A)(ii)(I).
       ``(3) Each of the amounts referred to in section 
     304(g)(5)(A)(ii)(II).
       ``(4) The amount referred to in section 
     304(g)(5)(B)(ii)(I)(ee).
       ``(5) The amount referred to in section 
     304(g)(5)(B)(iii)(I).
       ``(6) The amount referred to in section 304(f)(6)(A)(i)(I).
       ``(7) The amount referred to in section 
     304(f)(6)(A)(ii)(I).
       ``(8) Each of the amounts referred to in section 
     304(f)(6)(A)(ii)(II).
       ``(9) The amount referred to in section 
     304(f)(6)(B)(ii)(I)(ee).
       ``(10) The amount referred to in section 
     304(f)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
       ``(11) The amount referred to in section 317(b).
       ``(12) Each of the amounts referred to in section 
     318(e)(4)(C).
       ``(13) The amount referred to in section 
     325(d)(2)(B)(i)(V).
       ``(14) The amount referred to in section 
     325(d)(2)(C)(i).''.

      Subtitle C--Reporting Requirements for Registered Lobbyists

     SEC. 221. REQUIRING REGISTERED LOBBYISTS TO REPORT 
                   INFORMATION ON INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND 
                   ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(d)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (I); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(G) the amount of any independent expenditure (as defined 
     in section 301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) equal to or greater than $1,000 made 
     by such person or organization, and for each such expenditure 
     the name of each candidate being supported or opposed and the 
     amount spent supporting or opposing each such candidate;
       ``(H) the amount of any electioneering communication (as 
     defined in section 304(f)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)) 
     equal to or greater than $1,000 made by such person or 
     organization, and for each such communication the name of the 
     candidate referred to in the communication; and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to reports for semiannual periods 
     described in section 5(d)(1) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 that begin after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

   TITLE III--DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF INFORMATION ON 
                       CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY

     SEC. 301. REQUIRING DISCLOSURE BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS OF 
                   INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 215, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 328. DISCLOSURES BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS TO 
                   SHAREHOLDERS, MEMBERS, AND DONORS OF 
                   INFORMATION ON DISBURSEMENTS FOR CAMPAIGN-
                   RELATED ACTIVITY.

       ``(a) Including Information in Regular Periodic Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered organization which submits 
     regular, periodic reports to its shareholders, members, or 
     donors on its finances or activities shall include in each 
     such report the information described in paragraph (2) with 
     respect to the disbursements made by the organization for 
     campaign-related activity during the period covered by the 
     report.
       ``(2) Information described.--The information described in 
     this paragraph is, for each disbursement for campaign-related 
     activity--
       ``(A) the date of the independent expenditure or 
     electioneering communication involved;
       ``(B) the amount of the independent expenditure or 
     electioneering communication involved;
       ``(C) the name of the candidate identified in the 
     independent expenditure or electioneering communication 
     involved and the office sought by the candidate;
       ``(D) in the case of a transfer of funds to another person, 
     the information required by subparagraphs (A) through (C), as 
     well as the name of the recipient of the funds and the date 
     and amount of the funds transferred;
       ``(E) the source of such funds; and
       ``(F) such other information as the Commission determines 
     is appropriate to further the purposes of this subsection.
       ``(b) Hyperlink to Information Included in Reports Filed 
     With Commission.--

[[Page 11698]]

       ``(1) Requiring posting of hyperlink.--If a covered 
     organization maintains an Internet site, the organization 
     shall post on such Internet site a hyperlink from its 
     homepage to the location on the Internet site of the 
     Commission which contains the following information:
       ``(A) The information the organization is required to 
     report under section 304(g)(5)(A) with respect to public 
     independent expenditures.
       ``(B) The information the organization is required to 
     include in a statement of disbursements for electioneering 
     communications under section 304(f)(6).
       ``(2) Deadline; duration of posting.--The covered 
     organization shall post the hyperlink described in paragraph 
     (1) not later than 24 hours after the Commission posts the 
     information described in such paragraph on the Internet site 
     of the Commission, and shall ensure that the hyperlink 
     remains on the Internet site of the covered organization 
     until the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the 
     date of the election with respect to which the public 
     independent expenditures or electioneering communications are 
     made.
       ``(c) Covered Organization Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `covered organization' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a), 
     other than a corporation which is an organization described 
     in paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such 
     Code.''.
       ``(2) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
       ``(3) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), or 
     (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, other 
     than an exempt section 501(c)(4) organization (as defined in 
     section 301(27)).
       ``(4) Any political organization under section 527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political 
     committee under this Act.''.

                       TITLE IV--OTHER PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional 
     Grounds.--If any action is brought for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia, and an appeal from a 
     decision of the District Court may be taken to the Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act is raised, any member of the 
     House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate who satisfies the 
     requirements for standing under Article III of the 
     constitution shall have the right to intervene either in 
     support of or opposition to the position of a party to the 
     case regarding the constitutionality of the provision or 
     amendment. To avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the 
     burdens placed on the parties to the action, the court in any 
     such action may make such orders as it considers necessary, 
     including orders to require intervenors taking similar 
     positions to file joint papers or to be represented by a 
     single attorney at oral argument.
       (c) Challenge by Members of Congress.--Any Member of the 
     House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate may bring an action, 
     subject to the special rules described in subsection (a), for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the 
     constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act.

     SEC. 402. NO EFFECT ON PROTECTIONS AGAINST THREATS, 
                   HARASSMENTS, AND REPRISALS.

       Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act 
     shall be construed to affect any provision of law or any rule 
     or regulation which waives a requirement to disclose 
     information relating to any person in any case in which there 
     is a reasonable probability that the disclosure of the 
     information would subject the person to threats, harassments, 
     or reprisals.

     SEC. 403. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 404. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 
     30-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and shall take effect without regard to whether or 
     not the Federal Election Commission has promulgated 
     regulations to carry out such amendments.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order 
except those printed in part B of the report. Each further amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ackerman

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-511.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 85, line 10, strike ``such report'' and insert ``such 
     report, in a clear and conspicuous manner,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE 
Act and offer a very simple but also very important amendment which 
simply adds the words ``clear and conspicuous'' as a requirement to the 
disclosures that covered organizations are required to submit to 
shareholders, members, or donors under the bill.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, 
corporations now have a First Amendment right to spend millions or even 
billions of dollars of shareholder money to defeat or support 
candidates for public political office. While this ruling is now United 
States law, the DISCLOSE Act takes the appropriate step of mandating 
that corporations tell their shareholders how they're using the money. 
After all, investors in a company have a right to know how their 
company is using their money. But the underlying bill fails to ensure 
that these corporate disclosures are made clearly and understandably or 
that they are printed in such a way that allows shareholders to see 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has insisted on disclosure requirements for 
corporations before, and anyone who receives a credit card offer knows 
that this is what we get--tiny, unreadable text in 5-point font. Even 
if you could read it, which you can't without a magnifying glass, you 
would have to have degrees in law or advanced mathematics to be able to 
understand it.
  The central theme of the DISCLOSE Act is empowering American 
investors by mandating that companies disclose their political 
expenditures. My amendment very simply imposes and adds the words 
``clear and conspicuous'' as a requirement for all organizations 
covered under the bill so that American investors have a chance to 
actually see and understand those disclosures. As Congress takes the 
very reasonable approach of mandating corporate disclosures of 
political expenditures, we must ensure that corporations present that 
information clearly and understandably to all of their shareholders.
  I thank the Rules Committee for making my very straightforward, 
commonsense amendment in order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Ackerman's amendment is an 
interesting amendment because, among other things, it was allowed to be 
considered on this floor, while any amendment offered by any Republican 
Member on the committee of jurisdiction was disallowed. We had, on our 
side, several amendments which would make it clear that the disclosure 
requirements in this bill are required equally of unions as of 
corporations.
  As I listened carefully to Mr. Ackerman's statement concerning his 
amendment, I noticed he referred only to corporations and to the 
obligation of corporations to make reports to their shareholders. There 
was not a single mention of the responsibility of unions to inform 
their members of how they spend their money in a political way in a 
``clear and conspicuous'' manner.
  He said his amendment is fairly straightforward, almost as if it's 
unnecessary or so obvious. And yet that

[[Page 11699]]

amendment was allowed to be in order, but one that would make it clear 
that his ``clear and conspicuous'' requirement and every other 
requirement of disclosure contained in this law which would affect 
corporations of all types--and remember, I'm talking about not just 
for-profit corporations but corporations of any type--would equally 
apply to the unions was not allowed. And so the gentleman has made the 
case that we have been making all along: This bill does not, in fact, 
treat unions the same as it does other organizations, many of whom, as 
I say, have a corporate structure but they would not be identified by 
the average person as a corporation. They'd be identified as an 
advocacy organization.
  And so, once again, we see in this amendment an attempt to unbalance 
the playing field by ensuring that a particular obligation that may be 
an appropriate obligation with respect to corporations is not placed on 
unions, once again. And, for that reason, I would have to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. But we can't have time to discuss whether unions 
ought to be dealt with.
  The argument that the potential corruption is there with contractors 
would certainly be there with representatives of union member public 
employees. I'm not saying they're corrupt. What I am saying is the 
legal analysis is the same. I don't think my friends on the other side 
of the aisle would suggest that every corporation is corrupt, but it is 
because of the possibilities of corruption that we're allowed, under 
the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, to have 
these kinds of disclosure requirements.
  All I'm saying is, once again, the gentleman's amendment proves the 
point we've been trying to make on the floor. This bill does not fairly 
treat everybody. There are those that are favored by the majority and 
there's the rest of the world. Those favored by the majority get 
special treatment. Those not favored by the majority do not get that 
special treatment. It will render this bill unconstitutional, as it 
should.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill, as I understand 
it, is for transparency and for people to understand what's happening 
out there as people spend lots of money--other people's money, very 
often--to advocate for or against candidates. In the case of unions, 
unions are very transparent in who they're supporting and who they're 
not supporting when they decide to take that kind of action. Union 
members pay voluntarily with their dues money, and the unions disclose 
who they are and who they're supporting.
  People who invest in corporations, presumably for the purpose of 
investing money and furthering America's economic and their own 
economic interest, have a right to know how those corporations are 
spending their money that they thought was being invested for the 
purpose of capitalism and free enterprise rather than to be diverted 
into anybody's personal political agendas. Unions do that because their 
members vote; corporations do not. And I would have no idea of a 
corporation that I may invest in, whether they're spending my initial 
investment money to work against my interests or even your interests--
or for them, for that matter. This is just to let people know.
  The second point, the amendment that I offer covers every 
organization that is covered under the bill equally.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Serrano). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House Report 111-511.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title I the following new section:

     SEC. 106. REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) The limitations established under this subsection 
     shall not apply to contributions made during calendar years 
     beginning after 2009.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple in its 
language and is perhaps a little more complicated when one starts to 
understand all the freedom that would be exercised, should my amendment 
become law. And it simply does this: my amendment eliminates--it 
strikes all limitations on Federal election campaign contributions. It 
takes out the $2,000 limit, the $5,000 limit, all of the limits set 
there because it reverts us back to the constitutional principle that 
contributions to campaigns are free speech, funding is free speech. And 
to limit our ability as individual Americans with constitutional 
rights, to make contributions to political campaigns is an 
unconstitutional limitation.
  And by the way, to react to a Supreme Court decision by bringing a 
piece of legislation like this, which is an immediate and exactly a 
reaction to the Citizens United case, I think tells America where this 
Congress would like to go in limiting the constitutional rights of the 
people in this country. I am for reestablishing those rights to the 
maximum amount. That's what this allows, the individuals and the 
corporations that choose to donate.
  We don't touch anything that has to do with disclosure. I am for full 
disclosure. I am for sunshine. And I think the American people and the 
voters can discern where they want to place their vote and where they 
want to place their political contributions if we just allow for the 
disclosure. But the limitations are unconstitutional limitations, and 
this amendment simply strikes all of those limitations that are in 
statute that are unconstitutional, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, Representative King's 
amendment would, as he has indicated, eliminate all limitations on 
Federal election campaign contributions, corporations and unions. 
Individuals could donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates, 
political parties, and committees. I think this is a fairly cynical 
amendment designed to undermine all support for additional disclosure 
and reasonable regulation.
  Since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was first challenged, 
the Supreme Court has always upheld reasonable contribution limits to 
candidates and political parties, and they did so as a reasonable means 
to prevent corruption. Even the Citizens United decision itself did not 
question the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on direct 
contributions to candidates, and they reaffirmed that the Court was 
concerned that large contributions could be given to secure a political 
quid pro quo.
  I quote the Court decision where they refer favorably to the Buckley 
court: ``Nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in 
order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption.'' That 
case did not extend the rationale to independent expenditures, and the 
Court didn't do so in Citizens United. But it did quote the Buckley 
court favorably on the limitation of expenditures when it came to 
candidates or political parties.
  Money has a corrosive effect on the electoral process, and 
eliminating campaign limits would start a political arms war. 
Candidates have to raise millions of dollars to run competitive 
campaigns; and if Mr. King's amendment passes, candidates are going to

[[Page 11700]]

turn to wealthy donors, special interests, corporations to get their 
money, and the voices of average Americans will not be heard. If this 
amendment is passed, the voices of the American people will be drowned 
out by wealthy corporations and other interest groups. This isn't what 
we should do. It's not what the Court suggested we do. And I would urge 
that we oppose the King amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would make a point in response to the remarks of the gentlelady 
from California that--and of course my recollection of the Citizens 
United case is that they didn't challenge those constitutional limits. 
There may have been a comment in the decision, but I don't believe they 
challenged them before the Court.
  And I would add to this that to put arbitrary limits on PAC 
contributions at $5,000, and let inflation then over time render those 
contributions to be of minimal value, even though they've indexed 
individual contributions to increase supposedly with inflation, 
distorts the balance that they tried to create in the very legislation 
itself. It shows what's wrong with contribution limits.
  Additionally, we just need full disclosure. We have that disclosure. 
But what's happening is, people like George Soros are pouring money 
into their entities and their organizations. Their voice is heard. 
They're not limited. They're exactly advantaged by the current scenario 
that we have. If we eliminate the limits, what we're able to do then is 
hold the candidates accountable for the expenditure of those dollars 
and directly analyze the positions of the candidates and their 
contributors. This way it's distorted.
  The real sunlight is to require the candidates to report when they do 
that reporting. Then we'll be able to evaluate their positions rather 
than having that money laundered through, or I'll say diffused through, 
a whole series of entities that are structured out there, like 527s, 
for example, that have added to the acrimony of our campaigns, and 
they've diminished the honesty that we have in our elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note, 
going back again to the Court decision, that although the Citizens 
United case did not attack--it was not about the constraint on 
individual contributions to candidates--the Court did, as I mentioned 
to you earlier and quoted, reference favorably the Buckley court, 
sustaining the constitutionality of those constraints.
  It's worth noting that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has 
been the law for nearly 40 years. It's 39 years. It's helped clean up 
the role of money in politics. It's been improved over the years. I 
mentioned earlier under general debate the case of how much is spent in 
any given year; and I used the example 2008, the last big election, 
where 435 Members of Congress spent about $840 million. That's the 
equivalent of 1 percent of the profits of Exxon-Mobil for 1 year.
  What Mr. King's amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation 
Member of Congress to go to the oil corporation and say, Write me a 
check that's half a percent of your profit; and that would be legal. 
That's not what we want in America. We don't want corporations pouring 
money into individual campaigns, disclosed or not. That's going to 
drown out the voices of regular Americans. It's not what the law 
permits today. The Court decision does not ask us to change the law, 
and I would urge that we defeat Mr. King's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Of course I disagree with the gentlelady from California. We need to 
allow these contributions to go into the campaign accounts rather than 
be laundered through a whole series of entities that are set up to 
diffuse and confuse the actual source of the voice. And the distortion 
that comes with this--it may be that this has been law for 41 years. 
But Citizens United, the ink is barely dry, and the Democrats are here 
on the floor seeking to gain a legislative advantage when the Supreme 
Court has said, Give the people an opportunity to have their voice 
heard in the elections.

                              {time}  1410

  Even so far as in the underlying bill, this bill requires CEOs of 
organizations to appear in the ads and state their name and 
organization two different times. CEOs. The President of the United 
States himself said: I don't want to talk to the CEOs; they'll just 
tell me what they want me to hear.
  So now we are legislating, telling the CEOs what they have to say 
twice in an ad. I don't know how we can afford to buy commercials and 
ads to run in a political campaign if our CEOs have to spend all of 
their time in them. And especially when the President says he doesn't 
want to listen to the CEOs. I think it is an ironic situation that we 
have.
  I want to eliminate the limits. That is what my amendment does. It 
strikes all of the limits that are there in the current statute, 441(a) 
limitations on contributions and expenditures, a dollar limitation of 
the contributions, strikes them all, and it leaves all of the reporting 
intact so that the people in the country can make that determination 
that it is not constricted by amounts that are unnecessarily plugged 
into this legislation, and it lets people in America have a full-
throated vote of liberty when they go to the polls to decide who they 
want to direct the destiny of the United States of America here in the 
United States Congress.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just point out that 
441(b) is the section that prohibits corporate contributions. So the 
gentleman's amendment does not do what the gentlelady from California 
said, which would allow corporations to give contributions.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the 
amendment. From the gentleman's comments, he favors disclosure. I hope, 
therefore, he votes for the DISCLOSE Act. But we didn't need to open 
the door to unlimited funds by corporations to candidates. We know it 
will be sleazy. In order to get disclosure, vote ``no'' on the King 
amendment and ``yes'' on the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 111-511.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
DISCLOSE Act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, insert after line 15 the following:
       (c) Application to Persons Holding Leases for Drilling in 
     Outer Continental Shelf.--Section 317(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441c(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) who enters into negotiations for a lease for 
     exploration for, and development and production of, oil and 
     gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1331 et seq.), during the period--
       ``(A) beginning on the later of the commencement of the 
     negotiations or the date of the enactment of the Democracy is 
     Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act; 
     and
       ``(B) ending with the later of the termination of such 
     negotiations or the termination of such lease;


[[Page 11701]]


     directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or 
     other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly 
     to make any such contribution to any political party, 
     committee, or candidate for public office or to any person 
     for any political purpose or use, to make any independent 
     expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering 
     communication; or''.
       Page 15, line 16, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would extend an 
existing ban on campaign contributions by government contractors to 
also include independent expenditures and electioneering communications 
by contractors.
  My amendment would clarify that this provision applies to companies 
with leases with the Federal Government allowing them to drill for oil 
and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. If we ever needed a stark 
reminder of one of the many problems that arise from our addiction to 
oil, we have it now, as many as a half-million gallons of oil is 
erupting from an underwater volcano of oil into one of the most fragile 
ecosystems on Earth every single day from the Deepwater Horizon 
drilling site alone.
  This disaster was preventable. We had a warning of the consequences 
of our dependence on oil in the 1970s; we ignored it. We could have 
built upon the increased awareness to continue on a path of weaning 
ourselves off oil, but we squandered it. There can be no doubt that the 
oil industry has strategically and brilliantly used its powerful 
influence to maintain or even worsen the addiction.
  They are not entirely to blame, though. Blame does rest with Congress 
for being addicted to oil company contributions. We have to begin to 
break the addiction and do it now. According to opensecrets.org, the 
oil and gas industry has given close to a quarter-of-a-billion dollars 
to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle. In the 2008 
cycle alone, the oil and gas industry donated $36 million. In the 2010 
cycle, they are on track to exceed that with $13 million donated so 
far. The mere perception of undue influence by the companies whose 
products are so profoundly destructive to our water, air, and health is 
toxic to our democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am urging a ``yes'' vote for the Kucinich amendment 
that relates to the Outer Continental Shelf leaseholder status.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim 
the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, here we go again, Mr. 
Chairman. Let's make sure this bill is unconstitutional. Why not just 
tear up the First Amendment right here in front of everybody so they 
know what we are doing?
  The court has said you cannot establish disfavored groups over 
favored group. The gentleman has just expressed, perhaps an 
appropriately conditioned animus, toward those who are engaged in 
offshore drilling. So we are going to say they, those corporations, 
because they engage in offshore drilling, with leases, cannot 
participate in the political process in the way anybody else can. Now, 
he doesn't do it with leases for those who are on shore. He doesn't do 
it for those who have mineral leases on U.S. land.
  So what is the justification? The justification can't be what the 
gentleman just said in terms of the fragile ecological infrastructure. 
That is not the legal basis for which you can make a distinction. It 
is, why is the group that you are saying is singled out for this 
special treatment uniquely involved in corruption or the appearance of 
corruption, as opposed to all other groups similarly situated?
  And the gentleman, instead of arguing that point, talks about this 
terrible tragedy in the gulf, about which we all agree, but then says 
that is the basis for creating this distinction under the narrow 
allowance the Supreme Court has articulated over really two centuries 
of jurisprudence.
  And so what we are doing here is, we are finding what disfavored 
group do we have today, and let us treat them differently than 
everybody else; not in terms of whether they can negotiate for 
contract, but whether they can be involved in political speech as 
identified by the Supreme Court in their decision interpreting the 
First Amendment.
  Now, I realize that many on that side of the aisle love to refer to, 
I guess, a movie called ``The Inconvenient Truth,'' but the true 
inconvenient truth in this body today is the First Amendment. The 
Constitution is inconvenient. There are things that you wish you could 
do but you are not allowed to do. And the fact of the matter is once 
again I find it incredible that my friend from Ohio would be fearful of 
robust debate and rather would say, well, this is an area in which we 
can refuse to allow debate. I mean, that is basically what the court 
has said to us. They said the cure for bad speech, intemperate speech, 
dishonest speech, speech we don't like, is not to somehow suppress that 
speech, but to allow more speech. To allow greater robust debate. And 
that's the tragedy here; we are confined by a rule that allows very few 
amendments, confined by a rule that limits debate about that great 
Constitution which enhances the idea of robust debate.

                              {time}  1420

  So, once again, we are seeking to have an amendment adopted here 
which will move in the direction of less debate rather than more 
debate, create favored groups versus disfavored groups, give an 
advantage to some over the others rather than say let's have an equal 
playing field and make sure that everybody has the opportunity to be 
heard.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would let my friend from California know that there is no First 
Amendment right to drill for oil and gas in the Outer Continental 
Shelf. There is no constitutional right that anyone has to a government 
contract. This provision relates to the Outer Continental Shelf leases, 
and not all oil and gas leases, because these leases in the Outer 
Continental Shelf are inherently more dangerous, more risky. It's 
especially true as we have seen with deepwater drilling. It's true of 
all drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. These spills are 
impossible to clean up.
  We are still living with the effects of the Valdez catastrophe. We 
will be living with the effects of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe 
for generations. We are not just talking about mopping up the shores 
and spreading toxic dispersants and then everyone goes home happy. This 
oil is going to be in the water column, on the sea floor for a very 
long time, ramifications for our delicate ecosystem, forcing a lot of 
persistent toxic compounds like metals into our food supply. These oil 
companies could conceivably intervene in our political process, using 
money that they are getting from leases with the Federal Government to 
place our environment at further risk.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, the gentleman's response is off the target. 
If you want to ban offshore oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling, 
but you are trying to ban speech. The idea is to cap the well, not cap 
speech. The idea here is to honor the First Amendment, not tear it up. 
The idea is not to use to your advantage a tragedy of enormous 
proportions to somehow render asunder the First Amendment.
  We are talking about debate. We are talking about speech. We are not 
talking about whether they can drill or not. The gentleman from Ohio 
has been one of those who has expressed himself with controversial at 
times and disfavored positions, and yet he honors this House by being 
here and arguing

[[Page 11702]]

his position. I am surprised that someone who has been so proud of his 
ability to speak out on controversial issues would want to deny others 
the opportunity.
  This has nothing to do with drilling in the gulf. It has everything 
to do with selecting disfavored groups, which is something the 
Constitution does not allow us to do. Let's not tear up the 
Constitution as the environment is torn up by an offshore drilling 
mess.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To my good friend from California, the Buckley v. Valeo decision 
equated money with free speech. The oil and gas industry, over a period 
of 20 years, has contributed close to a quarter of a billion dollars to 
the political process. There is no question of the influence they have 
had. There is no question of the incestuous relationship between the 
oil industry and the regulators which led us to this deepwater drilling 
catastrophe.
  What this legislation aims at doing is curbing the influence of these 
oil companies on our political process so they can't get a lease, use 
the revenue from that lease, put it back in the political process, and 
ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. We can't let the oil companies do that 
anymore. We have to protect our government here; we have to protect the 
Constitution of the United States, and we can't give them the ability 
to usurp the Constitution, trying to do it in the name of free speech.
  I would like to conclude by saying this: The language that is in this 
amendment is the same language as that for TARP recipients, so there is 
nothing special about the language. It's the same one for TARP 
recipients, saying that someone that gets Federal money, they shouldn't 
be able to use their position to go back to the government and get 
people elected who are going to give them more money.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to my good friend.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The difference between TARP and 
this is that recipients of TARP get money. In this case, these people 
get leases, which allow them to pay money to the Federal Government. 
It's just the opposite.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  Reclaiming my time, the oil companies, let us stipulate, are not 
eleemosynary or charitable organizations. They make huge profits at the 
expense of the taxpayers. And they are making even more profit because 
the fact of the matter is we now have to monetize the cost of all the 
pollution that's coming out of the gulf. No matter what BP pays, we 
will be paying for generations to come.
  Support the Kucinich amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Pascrell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 111-511.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I present an amendment to this legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 319(b)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 102(a) of the 
     bill, strike subparagraph (A) and insert the following:
       ``(A) in which a foreign national described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) directly or indirectly owns or controls--
       ``(i) 5 percent or more of the voting shares, if the 
     foreign national is a foreign country, a foreign government 
     official, or a corporation principally owned or controlled by 
     a foreign country or foreign government official; or
       ``(ii) 20 percent or more of the voting shares, if the 
     foreign national is not described in clause (i);
       ``(B) in which two or more foreign nationals described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2), each of whom owns or controls at least 
     5 percent of the voting shares, directly or indirectly own or 
     control 50 percent or more of the voting shares;''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The DISCLOSE Act is an important piece of legislation. I want to 
commend Mr. Van Hollen, Chairman Brady, and their staff. I also want to 
thank Mr. Perriello and Mr. Grayson for working with me on this 
important amendment.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the Citizens United decision was 
the opening of a loophole that could allow multinational corporations 
with significant foreign ownership to spend prolifically in American 
elections. Who in God's name would want to have foreign governments 
involved investing in our elections? The DISCLOSE Act, as written, 
attempts to limit the ability of foreign nationals to launder their 
cash through these domestic corporations by imposing limitations on 
foreign ownership, foreign membership on corporate boards, and 
executive power.
  This amendment would strengthen this provision in two important ways. 
My amendment lowers the allowable foreign ownership percentage from 20 
percent to 5 percent when the foreign owner is a foreign government, 
foreign government official, or foreign government-controlled company 
like a sovereign wealth fund. I believe it is important to draw this 
distinction between the average foreign citizen and foreign governments 
who could seek to exploit this loophole to influence our elections 
based on the policies of their governments and not the citizens of our 
country.
  The second provision of my amendment would close a potential loophole 
that could allow a majority foreign-owned corporation to continue to 
make political expenditures so long as no single shareholder owns more 
than 20 percent of the company. My amendment would prohibit 
expenditures by corporations who have a majority of their shares owned 
by foreign nationals even if no single shareholder meets the 20 percent 
threshold.
  I believe this is an important amendment. These commonsense 
provisions will ensure strong protections for our elections from 
unprecedented foreign influence and spending.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim 
the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I believe the gentleman said at 
the very end of his comments that his amendment was necessary if the 
shares owned by foreign nationals added up to over 20 percent. I 
believe that is a reasonable interpretation of the bill as it stands 
and not that it would have to be an individual organization that had 20 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, you can see the selective nature of the 
amendments that are allowed. We offered to present a number of 
amendments which would even the playing field between unions and 
corporations, and it was rejected outright both in the committee and 
before the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1430

  They said it would be too hard for unions to be able to determine who 
their membership is, that is, the nationality of their members, so they 
wouldn't be able to determine whether over 20 percent of the union were 
individuals who were not American citizens, that is, foreign nationals. 
And it's just again, Mr. Chairman, a continued example of how this bill 
is not evenhanded.
  There are at least five provisions under this bill which treat unions 
differently than corporations and, again I say, not just for-profit 
corporations. We're talking about corporations. Many advocacy groups 
have a corporate structure, and so they are treated differently than 
unions. This has been recognized by any number of individuals. I've 
already read into the Record the serious disability with this bill, and 
this amendment continues that disability as expressed by the American 
Civil Liberties Union.
  Another letter dated May 19, 2010, signed by eight former members of 
the

[[Page 11703]]

FEC going back to the beginning of that commission's existence, talks 
about how the act abandons the historical matching treatment of unions 
and corporations, and they say that this will in itself cause a 
substantial portion of the public to doubt the law's fairness and 
impartiality.
  So once again, Mr. Chairman, we have an example of where we have 
disparate treatment depending on whether you happen to be members of a 
favored class or otherwise.
  I offered amendments in the full committee to try and really define 
very well what we meant by foreign interests. In fact, we actually 
replicated current law, making it sure, making it absolutely sure that 
if you were a corporate structure that was dominated by foreign 
interests, you could not participate in this way to make decisions. If 
you were a U.S. wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation, only 
moneys that were made in the United States and decisions made by 
American nationals would allow for any kind of participation in the 
political process as viewed and anticipated by this law and by the 
decision by the Supreme Court.
  So once again, Mr. Chairman, I just say and somewhat--I don't know--I 
lament, I guess, the fact that we while we're talking about free speech 
and we're talking about influence, undue or otherwise, we have another 
example on this floor of a denial of Members' consideration of 
amendments that would make this a fair, balanced, evenhanded bill.
  I would hope that when we're dealing with the First Amendment at 
least there the majority would grant us the ability of fair treatment; 
at least there the majority might say we have enough time in this body 
to discuss things because, you know, the Constitution's pretty 
important and so is the First Amendment. But I've heard criticism after 
criticism on this floor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision which 
doesn't match what was in the Court decision, and all I can say is 
either Members on the other side haven't read the decision or they seek 
not to repeat what's actually in the decision because I've heard on 
this floor talk about how that decision allowed foreign countries and 
foreign-dominated companies to now be directly involved in political 
processes. That's just not true. They didn't change the other 
underlying law.
  So Mr. Pascrell's amendment continues in that same direction.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the majority leader, 
Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in strong 
support of this piece of legislation.
  For more than a century, Mr. Chairman, America has limited the role 
of private money in public elections. We've done so because we believe 
that huge sums of money from unknown sources, from unknown sources--I 
reference that and emphasize it because I'm going to refer to it in 
some comments of our Republican leadership in years past regarding 
money from unknown sources--dominates elections; and especially when it 
does so in the dark, the interests of ordinary citizens are too often 
the victim.
  America's work toward open and fair elections has been, as it has 
been in every country, imperfect but better here than almost anyplace 
in the world; but it took a severe blow this winter when the Supreme 
Court voted in the Citizens United case to overturn longstanding 
precedent, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts 
of their treasury funds--not of private unions that their employees 
contributed, which I support, but their corporate funds and their union 
treasury funds--in unrestrained fashion to influence elections 
directly.
  The gentleman who is my friend, former Attorney General of the State 
of California and a good friend of mine--we've served together for a 
long time--says correctly that we do not want to limit free speech. I 
agree with that. The First Amendment is one of the sacred amendments 
that our Founding Fathers adopted to make our country not only unique 
but one of the freest countries the world has ever seen.
  But without transparency, without knowing the source of the speech 
that you hear, without having the ability to analyze who is telling me 
that this is good or this is bad, what is the source of the interest 
that is saying that this legislation is bad or this legislation is 
good--obviously all of us have said from time to time, Consider the 
source. We all say that. When somebody who we know doesn't like A or 
doesn't like B says something bad about A or B, we say, Consider the 
source. But if we don't know the source, we can't consider the source, 
and if we can't consider the source, we do not know the validity of the 
information that is transmitted to us.
  That is the key to this legislation. That is the essence of what 
we're saying, not that a corporation or a union can't try to influence 
the American public to support a candidate or a proposition that it 
believes to be in its best interest. That's the American way. What we 
are saying, however, is that given the Supreme Court's decision, that 
we ought to make sure that citizens know who's talking to them; 
otherwise they will not have the ability to make a judgment on the 
credibility of the information they are receiving.
  Now, as I said a little earlier, that is a goal that many of my 
colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, have supported in the 
past. My friend Eric Cantor, who is the minority whip, said this: 
``Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and 
real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a 
helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters.'' This tries to do 
exactly that, restore the confidence of voters that they will know 
who's spending much money to influence their votes, their opinion, 
their actions.
  Former Speaker Gingrich said this, that in an ideal system ``the 
country knows where the money is coming from. That would be 
transparent, simple, and fair.''

                              {time}  1440

  While he was not speaking on behalf of this bill, that applies to 
this bill.
  Minority Leader Boehner said this, ``I think what we ought to do is 
we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that 
we raise and how it's spent.'' That's what we're saying in this bill.
  When you receive a 1-minute or a 30-second ad on TV, who's talking to 
me? How are they spending their money? If they spend it through a third 
party, they do so in many ways to hide the source. Whether it's a 
special interest on the right or the left or in the middle, a business 
interest, a labor interest, whatever interest it is, as a voter, I need 
to know who's talking to me so I can judge the credibility of the 
information that I am receiving.
  I agree with the thoughts that have just been quoted by my three 
Republican colleagues, and I think they support the passage of this 
bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Brady for the 
outstanding leadership he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor. 
I want to thank my other friends who have worked so hard on this.
  And I would be remiss if I did not mention specifically my friend and 
colleague from the State of Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who has been 
tireless in his work on behalf of the DISCLOSE Act. Surely you can do 
it, surely you can have free speech, you can say anything you want, but 
tell me who you are. Do not hide under a cloak. Lift that cloak up and 
find out who's talking. If we do that, America's elections will be 
better. The people will be better informed and more confident that they 
can rely on the information they seek.
  Consider the source, vote for this bill.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, in the years I've

[[Page 11704]]

been here in the House, I know there is allowed under the rules a 
tradition that the leaders of either the majority or minority or the 
Speaker is granted 1 minute speaking time by their side, taken out of 
their time, and yet, shall we say, a judicious minute is allowed.
  It was my understanding that under the rules and, as interpreted, the 
tradition that has developed, that it was predicated on a dedication of 
1 minute out of the time of the side. And yet, as I understand it, the 
request has been made for just 10 seconds. My parliamentary inquiry is, 
is that allowed under the rules? And if it is, when did the rules 
change?
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will advise that it is a matter of 
custom, not rules.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, then I would ask, if it's 
a matter of custom, when did the custom change from 1 minute to 10 
seconds?
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is honoring the custom of the various 
leaders speaking longer than the time allocated, and that is what 
happened today.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I understand that. My question 
is the time that's taken out of the side. I granted 1 minute to the 
Republican leader earlier in the debate because I was told that that is 
both under the rules allowed and that is the tradition.
  I know I've only been a Member of this House now for 16 years, but I 
have never seen this in my time, and I am just wondering whether this 
is the new rule or the new tradition.
  And further parliamentary inquiry, whether I would have been 
recognized to grant 10 seconds to the distinguished leader of the 
Republican side and therefore had only 10 seconds taken out of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
nominal time granted is unrelated to the time that the leaders might 
speak, and here the leader spoke for the longer time that he wished to 
speak.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate that. I think the 
Chair misunderstands my inquiry. My inquiry isn't about the amount of 
time graciously granted to either leader or the Speaker, but rather the 
time subtracted from that that appears in the rule given to the side 
granting the time to the leader.
  The Acting CHAIR. The nominal amount that a Member chooses to yield 
to the leader to speak for the time that he or she wishes is not a 
matter of regulation.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is that amount of time deducted 
from the side which grants the speaker the time?
  The Acting CHAIR. Yes, the nominal amount of time is deducted.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So if I would say 5 seconds, it 
would be 5 seconds rather than if I had said 1 minute; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct. That is a matter of 
technique or choice.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I see. I shall be much more 
judicious in my grant of time in the future now that I have had this 
information conveyed. Thank you.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Perriello).
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Chairman, where I come from, people stand by their 
word. If they have something to say, they stand up and say it and 
they're not afraid to say this is who I am. We do it in our own 
campaign ads.
  The Bible says, ``You shall not hide your light under a bushel.'' Why 
should the same not apply? If one is going to choose to be part of our 
sacred democratic process, why on Earth would it not be part of that to 
say this is who I am? The DISCLOSE Act simply does that. It says I'm 
willing to stand up and speak and I'm willing to tell you who I am. 
Back on Main Street, back in rural communities, that's just a basic 
sense of decency and accountability, and it's a Main Street value that 
does well in Washington as well.
  It's also important that we make sure that ``We the People'' is not 
``We the foreign corporations.'' This is an important amendment to make 
sure that foreign corporations are not allowed to come in and unduly 
affect our elections. China already owns too much of our debt. Don't 
let them buy our democracy as well. It's important that no country and 
no company be able to come in and own this democracy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute and 50 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Chairman, the people of our country have spoken 
time and time again: They want less money in politics, not more. And 
what I hear from our colleagues on the other side is that we should 
roll back 100 years of legislative action by this body.
  The regressive decision by the Supreme Court has turned the keys of 
electoral government over to big corporations in the United States. 
Make no mistake, it's as if the Supreme Court rolled up to the drive-
thru window and just super-sized the campaign contributions of 
corporate America.
  In the Constitution it says ``We the people.'' ``We the People,'' not 
``We the corporations.'' ``We the people of the United States of 
America.'' Corporations don't vote in our electoral process, people do. 
This is about the people of our country and not having their voices 
drowned out in the electoral process.
  We need to make sure that the DISCLOSE Act gives further teeth so 
that foreign governments don't influence our domestic elections. We're 
not going to outsource and offshore our elections. Let's stand up for 
the American people and the balance of power in our country.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, the courts will apply section 102 of the 
DISCLOSE Act to labor unions as well as corporations. Unions will be 
required to certify that they are in compliance with the safeguards 
against foreign ownership and control.
  It is our duty, Mr. Chairman, to pass the strongest possible 
restrictions to keep foreign money out of our elections, and keep 
American elections decided by the American people.
  The DISCLOSE Act is a good first step towards empowering the American 
citizens in our elections. I urge the House to approve this amendment 
and to strengthen this important piece of legislation. And I want to 
commend Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Brady.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 111-511.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 318(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971, as proposed to be added by section 214(b)(2) of the 
     bill, strike paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert the following:
       ``(2) Individual disclosure statement described.--The 
     individual disclosure statement described in this paragraph 
     is the following: `I am _______, of _______, _______, and I 
     approve this message.', with--
       ``(A) the first blank filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(B) the second blank filled in with the local 
     jurisdiction in which the applicable individual resides; and
       ``(C) the third blank filled in with the State in which the 
     applicable individual resides.
       ``(3) Organizational disclosure statement described.--The 
     organizational disclosure statement described in this 
     paragraph is the following: `I am _______, the _______ of 
     _______, located in _______, _______, and _______ approves 
     this message.', with--
       ``(A) the first blank to be filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(B) the second blank to be filled in with the title of 
     the applicable individual;

[[Page 11705]]

       ``(C) the third blank to be filled in with the name of the 
     organization or other person paying for the communication;
       ``(D) the fourth blank to be filled in with the local 
     jurisdiction in which such organization's or person's 
     principal office is located;
       ``(E) the fifth blank to be filled in with the State in 
     which such organization's or person's principal office is 
     located; and
       ``(F) the sixth blank to be filled in with the name of such 
     organization or person.''.
       In section 318(e)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 214(b)(2) of the 
     bill, strike subparagraphs (A) and (B) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) Statement if significant funder is an individual.--If 
     the significant funder of a communication paid for in whole 
     or in part with a payment which is treated as a disbursement 
     by a covered organization for campaign-related activity under 
     section 325 is an individual, the significant funder 
     disclosure statement described in this paragraph is the 
     following: `I am _______, of _______, _______. I helped to 
     pay for this message, and I approve it.', with--
       ``(i) the first blank filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(ii) the second blank filled in with the local 
     jurisdiction in which the applicable individual resides; and
       ``(iii) the third blank filled in with the State in which 
     the applicable individual resides.
       ``(B) Statement if significant funder is not an 
     individual.--If the significant funder of a communication 
     paid for in whole or in part with a payment which is treated 
     as a disbursement by a covered organization for campaign-
     related activity under section 325 is not an individual, the 
     significant funder disclosure statement described in this 
     paragraph is the following: `I am _______, the _______ of 
     _______, located in _______, _______. _______ helped to pay 
     for this message, and _______ approves it.', with--
       ``(i) the first blank to be filled in with the name of the 
     applicable individual;
       ``(ii) the second blank to be filled in with the title of 
     the applicable individual;
       ``(iii) the third blank to be filled in with the name of 
     the significant funder of the communication;
       ``(iv) the fourth blank to be filled in with the local 
     jurisdiction in which the significant funder's principal 
     office is located;
       ``(v) the fifth blank to be filled in with the State in 
     which the significant funder's principal office is located; 
     and
       ``(vi) the sixth and seventh blank each to be filled in 
     with the name of the significant funder of the 
     communication.''.
       In section 318(e)(5) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 214(b)(2) of the 
     bill--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), strike ``provided;'' and insert 
     ``provided and the local jurisdiction and State in which each 
     such person lives (in the case of a person who is an 
     individual) or is located (in the case of any other 
     person);''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), striking ``provided.'' and insert 
     ``provided and the local jurisdiction and State in which each 
     such person lives (in the case of a person who is an 
     individual) or is located (in the case of any other 
     person).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy that we are addressing campaign finance 
reform in this session of Congress by taking up the DISCLOSE Act today. 
This bill goes a long way toward increasing transparency in campaign 
spending by forcing individuals and organizations to stand by their 
television and radio ads that they fund.
  I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Castle, Mr. 
Jones, and especially Chairman Bob Brady for their hard work on this 
important and critical piece of legislation.
  By making funders identify themselves in ads, the DISCLOSE Act takes 
a significant step in giving people the information they need to 
understand who is funding the ad. Mr. Chairman, shouldn't people know 
where these ads and the money to fund them are coming from?
  Let me give you an example:
  If Halliburton pays for an ad endorsing a politician, shouldn't the 
voters know that not only is the company paying for the ad but also 
that it is based in Houston, Texas? People have a right to know if 
people or companies outside their States are trying to influence their 
elections.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a commonsense addition that both 
Republicans and Democrats should support. Whether they are living in 
Bristol, Pennsylvania, or in Bristol, Tennessee, people should know who 
is trying to impact their votes.
  This amendment is very simple. It enhances the ad disclaimers by 
including the location of the funder. Specifically, this amendment 
requires that the city and the State of the funder's residence or 
principal place of business be included in the disclaimers. It also 
requires this location information be added to the Top Funders list 
that will appear on screen, at the end of the ad, under the bill. These 
simple additions will give people valuable information about the people 
and organizations funding the ads they are seeing and hearing.
  By knowing where the money is coming from, people will have a better 
understanding of who the funder is and the motivations behind an ad. 
This is not a Democratic or a Republican idea. All citizens deserve to 
know if a special interest completely unrelated to their districts and 
to the issues that affect their daily lives is trying to influence 
their elections.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, this would sound 
like a commonsensical amendment until you actually realize its impact.
  By the additional disclaimers required on broadcast ads, we have 
already determined that, in some cases, very easily, one would have to 
use 15 to 17 seconds of a 15- or a 30-second ad to make the disclaimer. 
If you add additional requirements, as the gentleman suggests, you 
could have as much as 20 seconds, which will mean that you won't be 
able to do 15-second ads. Now, that may be a good idea, frankly, but 
I'm not sure we should reach that so indirectly.
  Secondly, I ask this. In the State of California, we just had a 
controversial proposition called Proposition 8. Following the 
successful passage of Proposition 8, people who were known as funders 
of the program were intimidated. Actions were taken against them by 
others who disagreed with the fact that they had been involved in the 
audacity of presenting a political position. So now you're going to 
make sure that the hometown, city, and State of the ad funder's 
residence is known.
  Would that be less likely or more likely to lead to intimidation or 
to retaliation by individuals who disagree? I suspect it would be more 
likely.
  If the idea is you've got to show that you're in the district or out 
of the district, what does that do to major metropolitan areas?
  I'm from Los Angeles. Well, there are about 26 Members of Congress, I 
think, or something like that, representing LA County. What does that 
tell you about whether you're in the district or not in the district? 
It doesn't tell you anything except that you do live in that city, and 
I suppose someone then could look up the name of the individual and the 
home address of the individual, perhaps, to protest at that 
individual's residence.
  I mean we're getting a little silly here. We're now talking about 
disclaimers that are going to take the entire time of a commercial. I 
don't like these commercials any better than anybody else does. You 
know, I've had commercials that have been running against me for the 
last 2 years by the DCCC--radio commercials that are suggesting I've 
done this, that and the other thing. You know, do I like that? No, but 
what the heck. That's part of the game.
  I have seen people harassed after campaigns. I have seen people, who 
are at their homes, who have had protesters show up at their houses. 
Now, maybe you think that's part of the robust debate that we want 
around here. But what are you really doing by making known the 
residence and hometown

[[Page 11706]]

of the individual there? Frankly, I think it is going to lead to the 
greater possibility of intimidation.
  Maybe this is what this is supposed to be. We want to chill speech. 
We've already done that directly. Now, maybe, we'll do it indirectly. I 
mean it sounds good. I don't have any trouble with the principal office 
of a corporation, but the home, the residence, of an individual 
involved? What are we doing here? You're going to have to subject 
yourself to the possibility of criminal penalties if you dare allow 
your corporation to use funds, because we have made sure that the FEC 
will not have the time to put out regulations during this election 
period, or we will chill speech by passing this bill, by making it a 
law and by making people afraid to exercise their First Amendment 
right.
  Man, that's the kind of stuff that our Founding Fathers were against. 
The Federalist Papers. I guess they actually used assumed names for the 
Federalist Papers. I don't think they identified what their home 
residences were. King George should have thought of some of this stuff.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. How much time does each side 
have, Mr. Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, 
once again, that we are moving down the wrong track here. We are 
chilling speech already. Now we are creating the possibility of direct 
intimidation by those by requiring the residence and hometown of the 
people who might appear there.
  Though, if we're going to go part of the way, let's go all the way. 
We really want to make sure no one is going to be able to use their 
First Amendment right. This will help seal the deal. So, if that's what 
you want, vote for this amendment. Otherwise, please support the 
Constitution and the First Amendment, and defeat this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first, your location in your campaign ad takes less 
than 2 seconds. In that time, voters get valuable information about any 
special interests which are trying to influence their votes. Second, if 
the ad is short and if timing is an issue, funders may be able to get a 
hardship exemption which makes sure that there is always time for the 
substantive message in their ads.
  Mr. Chairman, quite simply, a vote to oppose the Murphy amendment 
will be a vote to keep your constituents in the dark about the sources 
of their campaign spending. Campaign ads can now be funded from 
unlimited corporate sources. At the very least, we must give people the 
facts that they need about these ads and about the special interests 
that are sometimes behind them.

                              {time}  1500

  This amendment is a critical edition to the DISCLOSE Act because it 
does exactly that--it provides people with a key piece of information 
about the source of the ad. Knowing whether the ads are promoting an 
interest in the voter's own district or State will allow voters to 
better evaluate those ads and make informed decisions when they go to 
the polling place. The more information that's available, the more 
transparent and fair all elections will be, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
111-511 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. King of Iowa;
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 57, 
noes 369, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                                AYES--57

     Bartlett
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--369

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch

[[Page 11707]]


     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Brown (SC)
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hoekstra
     Moore (WI)
     Norton
     Pence
     Rothman (NJ)
     Visclosky
     Wamp

                              {time}  1530

  Messrs. BERRY, BISHOP of New York, ROE of Tennessee, SIRES, 
GUTIERREZ, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. THOMPSON of California, 
BURGESS, Ms. FALLIN, Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, CARSON of Indiana, 
GRAYSON, PERRIELLO, ELLSWORTH, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. DAVIS of Tennessee, 
SULLIVAN, FRANK of Massachusetts, and CRENSHAW changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CARTER and OLSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 152, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               AYES--274

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rooney
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holden
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brown (SC)
     Faleomavaega
     Gordon (TN)
     Hoekstra
     Norton
     Pence
     Rothman (NJ)
     Visclosky
     Wamp


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1540

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, on June 24, 2010, I was not able to be present 
for votes on amendments to H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by 
Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. Had I been present, I would

[[Page 11708]]

have voted ``no'' on rollcall 388 and ``aye'' on rollcall 389.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pastor of Arizona) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
5175) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit 
foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government 
contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, 
and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to 
spending in such elections, and for other purposes, and pursuant to 
House Resolution 1468, reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that 
resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1468, the question on adoption of the 
further amendments will be put en gros.
  The question is on the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I certainly am, in its current 
form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 5175 to the Committee on House Administration with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Strike section 401 and insert the following:

     SEC. 401. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LOBBYISTS AS FOREIGN 
                   NATIONALS.

       Section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)), as amended by section 102(a), is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) any person who is a registered lobbyist under the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 whose clients under such Act 
     include--
       ``(A) a country the government of which the Secretary of 
     State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect 
     pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), 
     section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, section 620A of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other provision of 
     law, is a government that has repeatedly provided support for 
     acts of international terrorism; or
       ``(B) any other foreign national described in this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 402. PROHIBITING USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR POLITICAL 
                   ROBOCALLS MADE TO INDIVIDUALS ON DO-NOT-CALL 
                   REGISTRY.

       Section 318(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441d(f)), as added by section 214(b)(4), is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Compliance with do-not-call registry.--No 
     contribution, independent expenditure, electioneering 
     communication, or other donation of funds which is subject to 
     the requirements of this Act may be used for a political 
     robocall which is made to a telephone number which is 
     registered on the national do-not-call registry implemented 
     by the Federal Trade Commission.''.

     SEC. 403. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional 
     Grounds.--If any action is brought for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, 
     including an action brought to challenge the 
     constitutionality of granting an unfair advantage in 
     representation in the House of Representatives to residents 
     of the District of Columbia, the following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of 
     appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional 
     statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to expedite to the greatest possible extent 
     the disposition of the action and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not 
     limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member 
     of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have 
     the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to 
     the position of a party to the case regarding the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid 
     duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the 
     parties to the action, the court in any such action may make 
     such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to 
     require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint 
     papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral 
     argument.
       (c) Challenge by Members of Congress.--Any Member of 
     Congress may bring an action, subject to the special rules 
     described in subsection (a), for declaratory or injunctive 
     relief to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of 
     this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (during the reading). Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1550

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this motion to 
recommit is of three parts. I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, to explain 
one of the parts as it deals with a very important constitutional 
issue.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lungren), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would add to H.R. 5175 the same 
expedited judicial review process that Congress approved as part of the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Because H.R. 5175 raises 
the same constitutional issues that were at issue in the Citizens 
United case, expedited review should be included in this legislation as 
well.
  The base bill does not contain the reference to 28 U.S.C. 2284 that 
Congress specifically designed and has used repeatedly to assure the 
prompt resolution of constitutional claims. Judicial review may not 
have been included because the base bill was designed to stall judicial 
review by the Supreme Court until after the 2010 elections. I hope that 
is not the case. But this House can only dispel that suspicion and 
facilitate the prompt constitutional review of this legislation by 
approving this motion to recommit.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, 
this motion to recommit is in three parts. It applies the act's 
expanded ban on expenditures by foreign nationals to include lobbyists 
who register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to represent countries 
defined as state sponsors of terrorism or to represent a foreign 
national as defined by the act.
  It also provides that political robocalls which are not authorized by 
a candidate may only be made if none of the individuals who are called 
are listed on the Federal do-not-call registry. It does nothing with 
our robocalls by the candidate or by tele-town halls either as a 
candidate or as a Member of Congress.

[[Page 11709]]

  Finally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Texas, this repairs, 
hopefully, an unintentional problem in this bill--perhaps intentional. 
This bill does not have the expedited appellate procedure that we've 
had in every other campaign finance law. And what this motion to 
recommit does is says that same process that we've had which allows an 
expedited review of the underlying constitutionality of this bill will 
be in this bill as it has been in the past. Why? Because we are dealing 
with the First Amendment to the Constitution, and people ought to know 
sooner rather than later whether the law we passed is constitutional.
  If in fact your intent is to ensure there is vagueness for this 
election period so that those who are protected in this bill--that is, 
the exemptions given to the unions applies, but there is uncertainty on 
the part of other corporate entities, either for-profit or not-for-
profit, that will have a chilling effect on the latter group, and that 
will create an uneven playing field for the balance of this election 
period. The only way in which you might not have that uneven playing 
field is to have an expedited consideration all the way to the Supreme 
Court of the underlying constitutionality.
  We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices; can't we 
spend a little bit of time protecting the First Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States? And also, make sure that the 
judicial branch has an opportunity to review this so that people can 
know when they are able to speak. We're talking about political speech, 
the essence of the First Amendment, and for us not to allow that 
consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner, as we have every 
other time, is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents, 
and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold.
  I would ask for a unanimous vote in support of this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition 
to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania opposed 
to the motion?
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a 
needless distraction from the core mission of the underlying 
legislation. All the legislation says basically is, who is saying it, 
who is paying it? We have a right to know who's talking about us; we 
have a right to know who's talking for us. That's all this says. I urge 
the Members to defeat this motion.
  I would like to yield to the author of this legislation, the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman of the committee.
  This legislation, as we all know, by its terms says that if you're a 
foreign-controlled entity in the United States, you can not be spending 
money to influence elections. The proposal put forward here actually 
prohibits U.S. citizens from contributing as they're allowed to do 
under the Constitution, or from expending their own funds. It is 
blatantly constitutional. Given all the conversation we had and the 
resistance to the notion that we're going to prevent foreign-controlled 
entities from spending money, it's a little surprising we would now say 
that U.S. citizens can't be either contributing or spending, number 
one.
  Number two, with respect to the ban on robocalls, what this 
legislation has been all about is disclosure. If you're going to spend 
money on TV or radio or whatever for political expenditure purposes, 
tell the voters who you are and who's paying for it. We've been hearing 
all day about how you don't want to impinge on the First Amendment, and 
what you do here is an outright bar on legal calls made. We're just 
saying when you make those calls, tell us who's paying for them, tell 
the voters who's paying for them. Whether you like the group or whether 
you don't like the group, the voter has a right to know.
  Finally, you've injected into this motion to recommit a provision 
with respect to how we would deal with challenges to D.C. voting 
rights. As you well know, we have not even passed a piece of 
legislation out of this Congress on D.C. voting rights that has gone to 
the President's desk, and yet you've inserted that totally unrelated 
matter into this legislation. So it's interesting, after all the 
comments we heard from the other side of the aisle about the time you 
had to consider the DISCLOSE Act, that we got 5 minutes to look at 
this, but 5 minutes was more than enough time to determine that it's 
blatantly unconstitutional. You're not just saying inform the voter, 
you're denying American citizens and voters the right to contribute to 
campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns. You're saying that you 
can't exercise your legal rights with robocalls even if you're telling 
people who is spending it.
  And finally, you've injected a total spurious and unrelated provision 
with respect to D.C. voting rights. Let's give the voters the right to 
know. Let's make sure that we pass legislation so that foreign-
controlled interests can not spend money in U.S. elections, whether 
it's British Petroleum or any other organization. And let's make sure 
that, whether you like the group or don't like the group, that voters 
have the information when they see that television set with the nice-
sounding name like the Fund for a Greater America, that they have the 
right to get the information and judge for themselves about who's 
paying for it.
  So this is a blatant attempt to distract this effort at the last 
minute. Again, I point out that the League of Women Voters--that's no 
political organization--Common Cause, Public Citizen, all the 
organizations that have devoted themselves to clean campaigns and fair 
elections support this legislation.
  I urge the rejection of the motion to recommit and the passage of the 
bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Again, Mr. Chairman, all we need to know 
and the voters need to know is who's saying it and who's paying it.
  With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit 
and a ``yes'' vote on the disclosure bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on passage of H.R. 5175, if ordered; and suspension of the rules 
with regard to House Resolution 1464.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 217, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               AYES--208

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith

[[Page 11710]]


     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hodes
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--217

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Brown (SC)
     Hoekstra
     Pence
     Rothman (NJ)
     Visclosky
     Wamp

                              {time}  1617

  Messrs. LEVIN and SCHRADER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ALTMIRE, HODES, and HILL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 206, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 391]

                               AYES--219

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--206

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Clarke
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen

[[Page 11711]]


     Payne
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Brown (SC)
     Hoekstra
     Pence
     Rothman (NJ)
     Visclosky
     Wamp


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1629

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________