[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11405-11411]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I believe we have a number of speakers 
who are coming over from the caucus lunch to discuss the upcoming vote 
on the DISCLOSE Act. I wanted to take the time that is available until 
a speaker shows up to continue to report the previous support for 
disclosure from our colleagues and from other Republican officeholders 
and officials.
  I think where I left off in my previous listing was Senator Lisa 
Murkowski, who wants Citizens United reversed and has said:

       Super PACs have expanded their role in financing the 2012 
     campaigns, in large part due to the Citizens United decision 
     that allowed unlimited contributions to the political 
     advocacy organizations.

  She said:

       However, it is only appropriate that Alaskans and Americans 
     know where the money comes from.

  My friend Senator Jeff Sessions, a ranking member on the Judiciary 
Committee, at one point said:

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

  Senator Cornyn said:

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

  Senator Collins has been quoted:

       Sen. Collins . . . believes that it is important that any 
     future campaign finance laws include strong transparency 
     provisions so the American public knows who is contributing 
     to a candidate's campaign, as well as who is funding 
     communications in support of or in opposition to a political 
     candidate or issue.

  That is from the Hill.
  Senator Scott Brown has said:

       A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include 
     increased transparency, accountability and would provide a 
     level playing field to everyone.

  Senator Tom Coburn has said:

       So I would not disagree there ought to be transparency in 
     who contributes to the super PACs and it ought to be public 
     knowledge. . . . We ought to have transparency. . . . If 
     legislators were required to disclose all contributions to 
     their campaigns, the public knowledge would naturally 
     restrain legislators from acting out of the current quid pro 
     quo mindset. If you have transparency, you will have 
     accountability.

  As I reported earlier today, the Republican Senate support goes to 
people who have left the Senate as well. I would remark again on the 
extraordinary editorial written in the New York Times by Senators Hagel 
and Rudman.
  House Speaker Representative Boehner has said:

       I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full 
     disclosure, full disclosure of all the money we raised and 
     how it is spent. And I think sunlight is the best 
     disinfectant.


[[Page 11406]]


  Representative Eric Cantor, the majority whip, I believe, has said:

       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 the confidence of voters.

  Newt Gingrich has called for reporting every single night on the 
Internet when people make political donations.
  Mitt Romney has said that it is ``an enormous, gaping loophole . . . 
if you form a 527 or 501(c)(4) you don't have to disclose who the 
donors are.''
  Well, this is a chance for our colleagues to close that enormous, 
gaping loophole their Presidential nominee has pointed out.
  One of my favorite comments is by Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee said:

       I wish that every person who gives any money [to fund an 
     ad] that mentions any candidate by name would have to put 
     their name on it and be held responsible and accountable for 
     it. And it's killing any sense of civility in politics 
     because of the cheap shots that can be made from the trees by 
     snipers that you never can identify.

  The cheap shots that can be made from the trees by snipers that you 
never can identify. Let me give an example of that.
  I am going to read parts of an article from this morning's New York 
Times.

       In early 2010, a new organization called the Commission on 
     Hope, Growth and Opportunity--

  With a name like that, you know it has to be bad in this 
environment--

       filed for nonprofit, tax-exempt status, telling the 
     Internal Revenue Service it was not going to spend any money 
     on campaigns.
       Weeks later, tax-exempt status in hand as well as a single 
     $4 million donation from an anonymous benefactor, the group 
     kicked off a multimillion-dollar campaign against 11 
     Democratic candidates, declining to report any of its 
     political spending to the Federal Election Commission, 
     maintaining to the I.R.S. that it did not do any political 
     spending at all, and failing to register as a political 
     committee required to disclose the names of its donors. Then, 
     faced with multiple election commission and I.R.S. 
     complaints, the group went out of business.

  The editorial continues:

       ``C.H.G.O.'s story is a tutorial on how to break campaign 
     finance law, impact elections, and disappear--the political 
     equivalent of a hit and run,'' Citizens for Responsibility 
     and Ethics . . . wrote in a new report.

  A cheap shot from the trees by a sniper you can never identify, and 
to this day no one has ever identified the $4 million donor.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey. I am delighted to yield to him so 
he can make his remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday we witnessed quite a sight. 
Not a single Republican was willing to stand up to oppose secret money 
and elections. Today they will have another chance to announce their 
support and tell their constituents whether they would prefer that 
secret money buys the politicians or does it take their constituents' 
votes to get people in place who care about where this country is 
going.
  Republicans will have a chance to show Americans where they stand: 
with millions of individual voters or the few billionaires who seek to 
drown out the voices of our citizens by using secret money.
  Yesterday, I came to the floor to present the identities of two of 
the biggest supporters of secret money in politics, David and Charles 
Koch. They are joined by somebody we read about yesterday in the papers 
and heard on the news by the name of Sheldon Adelson, whose brain money 
was earned from Chinese gamblers in Macau to buy American politicians. 
That is some deal.
  The Koch brothers are putting together a secret group of wealthy 
friends who will spend $400 million to manipulate the upcoming 
election. This effort is one of the egregious examples of the flood of 
big, secret money into our politics, and this unaccountable money is 
spent with a clear goal of determining our laws and deciding our 
elections and the policies this country will follow in the future. The 
Koch brothers are set on picking their preferred politicians. Too bad 
that with a country of over 300 million people these two fellows want 
to decide who should run this country of ours.
  Koch Industries controls oil and chemical companies that do business 
around the globe. So what do the Koch brothers and their anonymous 
friends want from politicians who benefit from their secret money? They 
want laws that benefit the companies like the ones they own even when 
those laws come at the expense of millions of other Americans. I think 
the reason is clear. They want people in office who will put their 
special interests above the public interest.
  These brothers run Koch Industries, which is a giant international 
conglomerate and one of the largest privately held companies in the 
world.
  The Kochs' secret money organization, Americans for Prosperity, has 
opposed EPA's new mercury pollution standards. These historic standards 
will prevent 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and up to 
11,000 premature deaths. Americans for Prosperity, funded by secret 
money, opposed the rule that will save these lives. They would rather 
have the money. We know what millions of people who live near 
powerplants want. They want the plants to clean up their acts and stop 
poisoning them and their neighbors.
  The Kochs and industry lobbyists argue that these standards just cost 
too much. What is the value of a life to these guys? Let them answer 
the question publicly. Turn in the secret money and let the people 
across our country decide who they want in the Senate, the House, and 
the White House.
  How much poorer is our society when children are born with 
developmental problems? A child born with pollution in their body is 
set back from day one. That child's potential is stunted before they 
have even taken their first breath.
  Polluters just ignore the costs to American families. They think 
their right to pollute is more important than the average person. The 
children in our country have the right to breathe. It is foul play if 
we have ever seen it. Put your money up, take fresh air away from young 
people, and create problems that mercury in our environment does.
  Secret money in politics makes it possible for polluting companies to 
spend millions of dollars influencing elections, and the American 
public is kept in the dark. So I say to my Republican colleagues: Let 
your conscience rule your decision. Let's tell the truth.
  I wish the vote could say: Yes, I want secret money to continue being 
sent. They dare us to use that language. Come on. There are good people 
over there. Let's shine some light on who is pulling the strings in 
this country. Is it the people or is it the money that makes the 
difference in the way this society functions?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to be notified when I have 
used 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand we will have a set vote on 
the DISCLOSE Act. It got 51 votes previously. We need 60 votes to move 
forward to pass this bill. It is not likely to happen. Our Democratic 
colleagues were down here last night into the midnight hour talking 
about the DISCLOSE Act, which is something that is political and 
campaign-related that we have a significant difference of opinion 
about, and it is not going to pass.
  I would like to ask my friends and colleagues what is it we ought to 
be disclosing? Is it the amount of money some individual American made 
honestly and spent or maybe there are some other issues we ought to 
disclose. I would say this Senate ought to disclose to the American 
people what its budget plan is for the future of this country. We 
haven't had a budget in 3 years. Senator Reid said it would be foolish 
to bring up a budget--foolish because we don't have time. We had time 
to spend all night last night debating this bill--or half the night--
and we are having a second vote on the same bill again today. Why don't 
we spend some of that time on something important such as dealing with 
our $16

[[Page 11407]]

billion debt. Why don't our Democratic leaders disclose to us what 
their plan is to deal with this surging debt, a debt that is increasing 
at $1.3 trillion a year. It is unsustainable, as every estimate we have 
ever been told and every witness has testified to before the Budget 
Committee and other committees--unsustainable. Yet they refuse to even 
lay out a plan for how we are going to confront that.
  The House has. They laid out a historic plan. Congressman Ryan and 
his team and the House has passed a long-term budget plan that will 
alter the debt course of America and put us on a responsible path--not 
so in the Senate, even though they talked about it in secret amongst 
themselves that they had a plan. Let's disclose it. Why don't we have a 
disclosure of it.
  October 1 is coming up pretty fast, particularly since we are going 
to be in recess virtually the entire month of August and it looks like 
the entire month of October. By October 1, the Congress has a duty and 
a responsibility to pass legislation that funds the government because 
the new government fiscal year begins October 1. Senator Reid just 
announced he is not going to produce a single appropriations bill. When 
I first came here, we tried to pass all 13 every year, before October 
1, when the year starts. We are not even going to attempt it.
  I think the American people ought to ask: What do you plan to spend 
your money on next year? The country is suffering substantially. Why 
don't you disclose, Senator Reid, what the appropriations bills are 
going to be, how much money you are going to spend on each one of the 
items, and subitems and subitems and subitems, so we can examine it, 
bring it up on the floor, and offer amendments, as the Senate is 
supposed to operate. Why don't you disclose that? Isn't that important 
for America?
  I have to say, since I have been here, this will be the least 
performing, most disappointing year of the Senate in our history. No 
budget, no attempt to bring up a budget, no appropriations. Those are 
the bread-and-butter requirements of any Senator.
  Food stamps, the SNAP program. In 2000, we were spending about $17 
billion on the food stamp program. Last year, we spent $79 billion. It 
has gone up repeatedly. It is out of control. It needs to be managed. 
It needs to be focusing more on helping people in need, not just 
subsidizing people in need--helping them move forward to independence 
and responsibility. Why don't my colleagues disclose a plan for that? 
Isn't that important to America? I think it is.
  There are a lot of other things that ought to be on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  There are a lot of other things on the table we need to be dealing 
with and talking about and being honest about. It is time to disclose 
what our financial plans for the future are. It is time to disclose 
what we are going to do about this debt, what we are going to do about 
wasteful spending. It is not being done. It is a disappointing year.
  I thank the Chair and yield is floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, lest we get totally off track 
and before the Senator from Alabama leaves the Chamber, I wish to thank 
him and congratulate him. The system works when Democrats and 
Republicans come together. The Senator from Alabama and I have worked 
on many issues together, including the Nation's national security. Just 
recently, the Senate showed how it can work together on the RESTORE Act 
in the Gulf of Mexico when we added a provision directing the fine 
money to be imposed by a judge in New Orleans and redirected that fine 
money to come back to the people and the environment and the critters 
of the gulf. That passed in this Chamber 76 to 22--a huge bipartisan 
vote.
  I have had the privilege of working with the Senator from Alabama on 
many other issues, including the times the two of us led the Strategic 
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee on some of the Nation's 
most significant things, such as our overall strategic umbrella 
protecting this country. There again, it was Democrats and Republicans 
working together.
  So to hear a lot of the rhetoric, someone outside the Senate would 
think we are totally in gridlock. That has not been the case. However, 
we come to a point of gridlock again because of the Senate rules 
requiring 60 votes to shut off debate so we can go to this bill called 
the DISCLOSE Act.
  What the DISCLOSE Act does is common sense. It is common sense to 
say, if someone is going to affect the political system by giving money 
to influence the votes at the end of the day in an election year, all 
the campaign laws say they have to disclose that money, and but for a 
5-to-4 Supreme Court decision--which is contorted at best and is way 
over the edge at the very least--its ruling says that because of 
freedom of speech, outside the political system, one can make 
advertisements, one can speak freely; in other words, by spending 
money, buying ads, and one does not have to disclose that. Oh, by the 
way, that whereas the campaign finance law prohibits in Federal 
elections corporations from donating, this contorted Supreme Court 
decision says that can be corporate money and it doesn't have to be 
disclosed.
  That is what we are seeing in abundance in that kind of political 
speech right now in all these attack ads, and these attack ads are 
going rapid fire. We look at who it is sponsored by. It is not 
sponsored by the candidate; it is sponsored by some organization that 
has a high-sounding name, but we don't know where the money is coming 
from.
  This piece of legislation in front of us yesterday got 53 votes, and 
we need 7 more votes to cut off the debate just to go to the bill. This 
vote is coming at 3 o'clock. We are not going to get it. It is going to 
be the same result--53 to 47. Why? Because these outside, unlimited 
sources of funds that are not disclosed are affecting elections and 
they are achieving the result and we know it. If we put enough money 
into TV advertising, one can sell a box of soap, whatever the brand is. 
That is the whole theory behind this. The undisclosed donors giving 
unlimited sums elect whom they want, and that is going to completely 
distort the political system.
  We start from a basis of old Socratic ideas, going back to Socrates; 
that in the free marketplace of ideas, the crosscurrents of those ideas 
being discussed, that out of it truth will emerge and the best course 
of action will emerge. It is upon those ideals that this country was 
founded; this country, wanting a representative body such as this to 
come forth and freely and openly discuss the ideas and hammer out 
policy. Yet what we are seeing is that in bringing those elected 
officials here, by electing them by overwhelming advertising from 
unlimited sources, those elected representatives will be beholden to 
those particular sources and will not have an independence of judgment, 
will not have the Socratic ability in the free marketplace of ideas to 
hammer out the differences of ideas and achieve consensus in order to 
determine the direction of the country. So the very underpinnings of 
the country are at stake.
  Why is this being fought--something that ought to be like a 
motherhood bill. One is for disclosure of those giving money to 
influence the political system, just like all the Federal candidates 
have to disclose; and, oh, by the way, are limited in the amounts of 
contributions to each candidate. What is such common sense is being 
thwarted. If this legislation were to pass and they had to disclose who 
is giving the money, do we know what: Most of them would stop giving 
it, and they would have to operate under the normal campaign finance 
laws which say to report every dime of a contribution and they are 
limited as to the amount they can give and the candidate is limited as 
to the amount they can receive. That is fair, but it is more than fair. 
It is absolutely essential to the functioning of the electoral system 
in order to elect a representative democracy.
  That is what is at stake, and that is what we are going to vote on 
again. Unfortunately, we know what the outcome of the vote is going to 
be: 53 in

[[Page 11408]]

favor of disclosing and 47 against, and we are not going to know who is 
giving all this money.
  I can't say it any better. It is old country boy wisdom that says 
this ought to be as easy as night and day, understanding the 
difference. Yet that is what we are facing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have not taken an opportunity to 
speak to the DISCLOSE Act, which is currently before us, or the holding 
of Citizens United. I haven't come to the floor to address that, but 
that does not mean this has not been a discussion of great importance 
in the State of Alaska.
  Alaskans are a pretty independent lot. I think they like to know what 
is behind certain initiatives, certainly when it comes to the financing 
of campaigns. They want to know where and when and how and why and that 
it is appropriate. Our State legislature has enacted some campaign 
finance reforms that I think have been good. Alaskans have looked very 
critically at the Citizens United decision and its impact on the 
campaigns in this country.
  I have made no secret of the fact that I disagree with the holdings 
of the Citizens United decision which makes it possible for individuals 
and business entities to make contributions in any amount, at any time 
to independent efforts to elect candidates at the Federal, State, and 
local levels.
  I think this decision not only overturned longstanding Federal law, 
it also, to a certain extent, displaced State laws, including the laws 
in my own State of Alaska which barred corporate participation in State 
elections. It gave birth to a new form of political entity. We all know 
it; we are all talking about it now, particularly with the Presidential 
election--the super PAC, a vehicle for large donors. When we are 
talking about large donors, we are not just talking about donors who 
can put forth thousands of dollars. We are talking about donors who put 
forth multimillions of dollars, and it is done to influence the 
American political process in secret by contributing to organizations 
with very patriotic names, but they lurk behind post office boxes. 
There is an anonymity, there is a covering that I do not think the 
American public expects or respects.
  I believe strongly--I believe very strongly--that the Citizens United 
decision is corrosive to democracy. At a very minimum the American 
people deserve to know who is behind the organizations, who is funding 
them, and what their real agendas are.
  I think if we were to ask the average American out on the street: Do 
you think it is reasonable that there be disclosure, full disclosure of 
where the campaign dollars are coming from, I think the average 
American would say: Yes. I know the average Alaskan is saying yes.
  So when they see what this Supreme Court case has allowed--courts 
have determined this is constitutional--I do not think anybody assumed 
what it would lead to is an ability for an individual to give millions 
of dollars to influence an election, and yet not be subject to a level 
of disclosure that is fair and balanced.
  I came to the floor very late last night after flying in from Alaska. 
I left at 7 o'clock in the morning, and my plane touched down at about 
10:15 last night. As I landed, I saw the lights of the Capitol on. I 
knew somebody was still home. The flag that flies on the Senate side of 
the Capitol was still up, meaning the Senate was still in session, so I 
decided to come to the floor and see what was going on and to perhaps 
listen to a little bit of the debate.
  I was tired. I was tired from flying. But I was truly tired that as a 
body, when we have an issue that is important, is significant--whether 
it is campaign finance or the tax issues we face, whether it is the 
sequestration issue we will shortly be facing--we are once again in a 
position where we are doing nothing but messaging. I am so tired of 
messaging, and I think the folks whom we represent are tired of us 
messaging.
  I want us to have some reforms when it comes to campaign finance and 
the disclosure that the American public thinks makes sense, where they 
say: Good. This is not something where you are hiding behind an 
organization, whether it is a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(3) or a super PAC, 
or however we define it. We want to know that you are open and you are 
transparent.
  I did not stay too late last night to listen to the debates. But I 
will tell you that the comments I heard from my colleagues were pretty 
sound. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why it is appropriate that 
the name, the address, the occupation of an individual who makes a 
contribution of between $200 and $5,000 to Lisa Murkowski's committee 
must be disclosed--that is what is required under the law. But somehow 
or other there is a constitutional right for someone who gives $1 
million, $15 million to an independent effort that either supports or 
opposes an election can do so in secrecy. They can do so in a way that 
is not subject to disclosure. I do not think that makes sense, and I do 
not think it would make sense to anybody else out there on the street. 
What is the difference?
  But I would also suggest to you the converse is true as well. I do 
not believe the membership lists--whether it is the Sierra Club or the 
National Rifle Association or the NAACP--I do not think those lists 
need to be public because an organization has made a relatively small 
donation from its treasury funds to independent efforts. Those who 
chose to affiliate with broad-based membership organizations deserve to 
have their privacy interests maintained. So you have things going on 
both sides here.
  Again, what we should be doing in this case is trying to figure out 
where there is a balance. Where is that fairness? Given that a $2,500 
contribution to me as a candidate--the maximum that can be given to any 
candidate for any election--has to be disclosed, I do not understand 
why the bill that is before us, the DISCLOSE Act 3.0, sets the bar for 
disclosure of a contribution to an independent effort at $10,000. That 
does not make sense to me either.
  So I guess where I am at this point in time--recognizing that in a 
matter of minutes we are going to have yet another vote on DISCLOSE 
under reconsideration--I do think that all these issues need to be 
addressed in a DISCLOSE 4.0. Maybe we will move to that in the next 
iteration, but that is not going to be happening here. Yesterday's vote 
was decisive. As I mentioned, I was flying all day. I was not here at 6 
o'clock when that vote was taken. But that vote was pretty clear. There 
is no way we can reconfigure things, even with the support of Lisa 
Murkowski, so that we could actually get to this bill and start making 
those changes.
  So we are sitting here at a point where we have precious little time 
before us before we break for August and then come back. We have the 
campaigns. We have a lot on our plate. I think we recognize that. 
Saying that, I have already said I think this is a critically important 
issue. But it is an issue we will not resolve today. It is not possible 
to resolve today. So we should accept that fact and move forward. We 
have a lot to do.
  What I intend to do is to continue the work I began months ago with 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work to resolve some of 
these issues, to work on a bipartisan basis on a bill that I hope we 
can take up as a body. There are Senators who want to work on this. I 
have met with them and we continue to try to figure out that path 
forward. But that path forward has to be a bipartisan path. It has to 
be a bipartisan path.
  I hope we can put some kind of a vehicle to hearings and consider it 
on the floor with an open amendment process, the way we can and should 
do things around here. That is what I strive to do. That is my 
commitment. I want to work with my colleague from Rhode Island. I want 
to work with my colleagues from Colorado and Oregon and New York and my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I think we all 
recognize this is in the best interests of not only those of us in the 
Senate but for those we represent--that there is a level of 
transparency, openness, fairness, and balance when it

[[Page 11409]]

comes to campaign finance. That is my commitment.
  With that, I know I have probably consumed more than my time. But I 
appreciate the opportunity to work seriously and genuinely with my 
colleagues on this issue.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on 
the motion to proceed to S. 3369, the so-called DISCLOSE Act. Because 
the bill is designed to protect entrenched Washington special interests 
from ordinary Americans who want to exercise their first amendment 
rights, I will oppose cloture.
  Regulation of speech always raises significant constitutional 
questions. The first amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy, and 
the DISCLOSE Act would fundamentally remake the rules governing free 
speech in American elections. It is intended not to promote 
transparent, accountable, and fair campaigns, but rather to tilt the 
playing field in favor of the Democratic Party and its constituencies.
  Indeed, one of the chief sponsors of this legislation, Senator 
Charles Schumer, has admitted that his goal is to deter certain 
Americans from participating in the electoral process. The DISCLOSE Act 
will make many businesses and organizations ``think twice'' before 
engaging in political speech, Senator Schumer said in 2010. ``The 
deterrent effect should not be underestimated.''
  In essence, the Democrats have concocted a bill that would silence 
their critics while letting their special interest allies speak. Nearly 
every major provision of the DISCLOSE Act was designed to encourage 
speech that helps the Democratic Party and discourage speech that hurts 
it. For example, the legislation favors unions over businesses, which 
belies the notion that it was crafted to prevent conflicts of interest.
  If the true purpose of this bill were to promote transparency and 
minimize the influence of political money on government, then unions 
would face the same restrictions as businesses. But the true purpose of 
the bill is to help Democrats win elections, and unions overwhelmingly 
support Democrats, so they are given preferential treatment.
  It is not the government's job to apportion first amendment rights 
among Americans. Those rights belong to every citizen, period. I reject 
any further erosion of a constitutional liberty that has preserved and 
strengthened our democracy for 223 years.
  I oppose the DISCLOSE Act and urge my colleagues to oppose this 
afternoon's cloture motion.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE 
Act.
  It is important for Americans to know where the money is coming from 
that supports the political ads appearing on their television screens 
during election season.
  This bill is a much needed response to the Supreme Court's decision 
in Citizens United--a decision that is resulting in corporate money 
drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.
  In Citizens United, the Supreme Court overruled decades of legal 
precedent when it decided that corporations cannot be restricted from 
spending unlimited amounts in Federal elections.
  The decision was astounding, not just because it was a display of 
judicial activism but also because it defies common sense for the 
Supreme Court to conclude that corporations or even labor organizations 
are citizens, as you or I am, in the eyes of the law.
  As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, ``corporations 
have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires . 
. . they are not themselves members of `We the People' by whom and for 
whom our Constitution was established.''
  In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, special interest 
groups known as super PACs with innocuous names like ``American 
Crossroads'' and ``Restore our Future'' are primed to spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars in the 2012 election.
  According to OpenSecrets.org, Super PACs have raised $246 million in 
secret money so far in the 2012 election cycle--and we still have 113 
days until the election during which that total may double or even 
triple.
  The New York Times recently reported that secret groups have 
accounted for two-thirds of all political advertising spending this 
year.
  Unlike funds given directly to candidates and political parties, 
which get reported to the Federal Election Commission and are available 
for the public to review, funds given to super PACs are secret, leaving 
voters with no knowledge of who is behind attack ads against political 
candidates.
  Right now the rules require that individuals who give $200 or more to 
a candidate must submit detailed information about their identity, 
their address, and their occupation. But Citizens United says that if 
you give $2,000, $2 million, or $20 million to a super PAC, you don't 
have to disclose a thing.
  Former member of the Federal Election Commission Trevor Potter said 
individuals ``can still give the maximum $2,500 directly to the 
campaign--and then turn around and give $25 million to the Super PAC.''
  At a minimum, voters in a democracy deserve to know who is 
financially supporting candidates for public office.
  Editorial boards in California and across the country recognize that 
disclosure and transparency are essential for the integrity of our 
democratic system.
  The Sacramento Bee writes that ``reasonable people can disagree on 
whether corporations should be able to donate to campaigns, or whether 
the size of donations should be capped. But there should be no debate 
about whether donations should be open and readily accessible to the 
public.''
  The Los Angeles Times writes that ``there is no cogent argument 
against maximum disclosure. Nor is there any First Amendment argument 
for secrecy . . . If those who seek to influence elections don't have 
the courage of their convictions, Congress must act to identify them.''
  The San Jose Mercury News writes that ``since the Supreme Court made 
it all but impossible to regulate corporate influence on campaigns, the 
only thing left is requiring swift and thorough disclosure.''
  And that is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act does.
  It requires super PACs, corporations, and labor organizations that 
spend $10,000 or more for campaign purposes to file a disclosure report 
with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of the 
expenditure. The organization must also disclose the sources of all 
donations it receives in excess of $10,000. The disclosure must also 
include a certification that organization's spending is in no way 
coordinated with a candidate's campaign. These are carefully targeted 
reforms to ensure that the American people are informed during the 
electoral process.
  Outside spending on our elections has gotten out of control in the 
post-Citizens United world created by the Supreme Court.
  Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, who gave $20 million to a super 
PAC to prop up the Presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich, told Forbes 
Magazine: ``I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or 
influencing elections, but as long as it's doable, I'm going to do 
it.''
  A super PAC affiliated with House Republican majority leader Eric 
Cantor raised $5.3 million in the third quarter this year. Adelson is 
responsible for providing $5 million of the total.
  The super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney, ``Restore our Future,'' 
has raised $61 million so far. Most of this money came from just a 
handful of individuals.
  During the 2012 Florida GOP Presidential primary, Romney super PACs 
ran 12,000 ads in that state alone.
  A New York Times analysis of donations to Romney super PACs found 
sizeable amounts from companies with just a post office box as a 
headquarters, and no known employees.
  A USA Today analysis of GOP super PACs through February 2012 found 
that $1 out of every $4 donated to these Super PACs was given by five 
individuals.
  A US PIRG/Demos study found that 96 percent of super PAC 
contributions

[[Page 11410]]

were at least $10,000 in size, quadruple the $2,500 donation limit 
individuals are allowed to give specific candidates.
  The Center for Responsive Politics found that the top 100 individual 
super PAC donors make up only 4 percent of the total contributors to 
super PACs, but they account for more than 80 percent of the total 
money raised.
  According to Politico, the Koch Brothers and their companies plan to 
spend $400 million on the 2012 election, which would be more than 
Senator John McCain raised during his entire 2008 run for President.
  A super PAC called ``Spirit of Democracy America'' spent $160,000 in 
support of a primary candidate in California's 8th Congressional 
District. The super PAC has no Web site and provided no details prior 
to the primary election to voters in the district about who was behind 
their expenditures. The super PAC accounted for 64 percent of all the 
outside money spent on the race.
  A 21-year-old Texas college student used a multimillion dollar 
inheritance from his grandfather to spend more than $500,000 on 
television ads and direct mail in a Kentucky congressional election, 
helping his handpicked candidate win the primary in an upset.
  The American people are tired of these stories, and they are tired of 
big money in politics.
  Overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, they support disclosure 
laws and contribution limits.
  Because of the massive influence super PACs are having on elections, 
earlier this month the USA Today issued a frightening prediction about 
this fall's election.
  They write that ``the inevitable result is that come November, voters 
in many closely contested races will make their decisions based on a 
late flood of ads of dubious credibility paid for by people whose names 
and motives are unknown.''
  The American people deserve to have a government that is always of 
the people, by the people, and for the people.
  The DISCLOSE Act will help restore the voice of the people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
S. 3369, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in 
Elections, DISCLOSE, Act. I am proud to join 39 of my colleagues in 
sponsoring this measure and urge the Senate to act now to pass this 
transparent, commonsense piece of legislation.
  Free, fair, and open elections, as well as an informed electorate, 
are fundamental to ensuring that our government reflects the highest 
principles of democracy, which is the foundation of this country.
  What is at stake today is nothing short of our electoral system. We 
must reinforce the right of Americans to make fully informed decisions 
about the political candidates and parties that seek to represent them 
in government.
  More than 2 years ago, the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in 
Citizens United set the stage for the emergence of super political 
action committees, PACs, primarily underwritten by wealthy individuals 
to finance unregulated and often anonymous attack political campaign 
advertising. This decision effectively puts our elected positions up 
for sale to moneyed interests.
  The DISCLOSE Act would address problems caused by the Citizens United 
decision by restoring accountability and transparency to our electoral 
system. It would simply require labor unions, traditional PACs, super 
PACs, and other covered organizations that spend $10,000 or more on 
political campaigns to identify themselves by filing a timely report 
with the Federal Elections Commission.
  Opponents of the DISCLOSE Act claim that this bill would impede free 
speech and discourage political involvement. I cannot disagree more. To 
the contrary, the DISCLOSE Act preserves the right to express one's 
opinions and ideas through contributions to political campaigns; it 
only forces large contributors to identify themselves when making 
influential contributions. Furthermore, it promotes civic involvement 
by empowering voters to effectively participate in the electoral 
process and make informed choices about their leaders.
  We are all here to represent the voters in our States and districts 
who have entrusted us to represent them. In our system of checks and 
balances, elected officials remain beholden to their constituents 
through elections; however, to allow this system to work, voters need 
to have all of the essential information that could influence their 
decision: who we are, who our supporters are, and how much support we 
have received from various sources.
  No democracy, including this one, can remain fair, successful, and 
viable if wealthy individuals are allowed to spend unchecked sums of 
money to anonymously influence the outcomes of its elections.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right for all Americans today and 
pass this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
given 4 minutes, the Senator from Rhode Island be given 6 minutes to 
conclude, and we vote immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, I would just like to make one preliminary 
comment, and then I would like to address what my colleague from Alaska 
has said and this bill.


                             Fiscal Policy

  On another issue, I just heard that Vice President Cheney came to 
address the Republican caucus on our fiscal cliff. I would suggest that 
the man who said deficits do not matter is not a very good teacher for 
the Republican caucus when it comes to deficit reduction and the fiscal 
cliff. They could get better teachers than that.
  As for this issue, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska 
for her heartfelt comments. She is what we need, somebody who cares 
about this issue, somebody who has great reach across the aisle, and 
somebody who is willing to work with us.
  It is true, it is obvious we will not have the votes to win the 
DISCLOSE Act. It is simple disclosure. We tried to make it--under the 
leadership of Senator Whitehouse; I will address that in 1 minute--we 
tried to make it as narrow as possible. We tried to deal with all the 
objections we heard about labor unions and others. That is why there is 
a $10,000 amount--far beyond the labor union dues of any union I am 
aware of. We tried to make it as down the middle as possible for simple 
disclosure.
  But I understand where my colleague from Alaska is coming from. I 
respect it, and I look forward to working with her. She might be the 
bridge we need because, mark my words, if we do not do something about 
this, we will not have the Republic we know in 5 years. It is that 
simple. This great country we all love has been dramatically changed by 
Citizens United. The failure to correct its huge deficiencies, to have 
such a small number of people have such a huge influence on our body 
politic--we have never seen it before. Oh, yes, we have read about our 
history, and we know there were small groups that were powerful in the 
past, the robber barons, et cetera. But never, never, never have a 
handful of people had such awesome tools to influence our political 
system in a way they choose without any accountability--never.
  The robber barons were more accountable and more diffuse. The small 
group that led America, supposedly, in the 1920s was more accountable 
and more diffuse. The military industrial complex that President 
Eisenhower warned about was far broader and more diffuse. To have a 
small number of people--most of them angry people, most of them people 
who do not even give any attention to someone who does not agree with 
them--to give them such awesome power, which is the power to run 
negative political ads over and over and have no accountability as to 
who is running them, that is a true danger to the Republic.
  It befuddles me that our U.S. Supreme Court does not see it. We want 
our courts to be insulated from the vicissitudes of politics. But to 
have a

[[Page 11411]]

Court that is so insulated that it does not see, smell, hear, touch 
what is going on in this Republic does not speak well of that Court. I 
think it is the main reason its popularity has declined. I hope our 
Justices will wake and realize what they are doing.
  I would say again--first, I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has 
been a great leader on this issue. I wish to thank all my colleagues. 
We have been debating this bill for 10 hours--more than 10 hours, I 
believe--and there has not been one quorum call, which means there has 
been speaking time from about 6 last night until 1 in the morning----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, at least--at least--10 Republican 
Senators are on record supporting transparency and disclosure in 
election spending. Some of them are very significant leaders on the 
Republican side.
  Senator Mitch McConnell said this:

       I think disclosure is the best disinfectant.

  Senator John Cornyn, head of the Republican campaign operation, said 
this:

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

  Other Senators, colleagues, and friends come from States that require 
disclosure in election spending. The States they represent know this is 
wrong. The arguments against this bill are few. Some of those arguments 
are false. Others don't hold water. Huge majorities of Americans--
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--support cleaning up this 
mess.
  More than 700,000 Americans signed up as citizen cosponsors of this 
bill in the last few days. The actual number, I believe, is 721,000. 
But then that ran up against this: outside political spending that went 
from 1 percent to 44 percent, not disclosed in the last election. And 
these secret groups, such as Crossroads, with $76.8 million, and the 
majority of the money that they spend is secret money--that has changed 
the debate. But those who are out of the need for that secret money, 
such as former Republican Senators Rudman and Hagel, are clear:

       A bill is being debated this week in the Senate, called the 
     DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This bill is a well-researched, well-
     conceived solution to this insufferable situation. We believe 
     every Senator should embrace the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This 
     legislation treats trade unions and corporations equally and 
     gives neither party an advantage. It is good for Republicans 
     and it is good for Democrats.

  Most important, it is good for the American people. I urge my 
colleagues on the Republican side to follow the example of their former 
colleagues Senator Rudman and Senator Hagel; and I pledge to Senator 
Murkowski that we take her comments very seriously. She has cast a 
sliver of daylight. I intend to pursue that sliver ardently to work 
through this problem.
  I will conclude by also complimenting Senator McCain. He believes 
there is a benefit for unions in here that I do not see, which I 
disagree exists. But certainly he has a record of courage and 
determination on campaign finance that entitles his judgment to our 
respect. I look forward to working with both of them.
  I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not 
invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3369 is agreed to. The motion to 
reconsider is agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 446, S. 3369, a bill to amend the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for 
     additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
     organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other 
     purposes.
         Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Jon Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Christopher A. Coons, Jeanne Shaheen, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Herb Kohl, Charles E. Schumer, Mark Begich, Tim 
           Johnson, Robert Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Mark 
           Udall, Sherrod Brown.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3369, a bill to amend the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements 
for corporations, labor organizations, super PACs, and other entities, 
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
would have voted ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion upon reconsideration is rejected.
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my pending motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

                          ____________________