Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, also called the DISCLOSE Act. I want to thank Senator Schumer for…
Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, also called the DISCLOSE Act.
I want to thank Senator Schumer for his work on this important bill and say that I plan to support it every step of the way.
Before I discuss the merits of this legislation, I think it is important to provide some context.
This bill is a legislative response to a Supreme Court decision. In 2002 we passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The law was bipartisan, widely supported, and we firmly believed it to be constitutional based on prior decisions of the Court.
In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld portions of the law in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.
But on January 21 of this year, the Roberts Court handed down a 5-4 decision striking down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
That decision--Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--flew in the face of nearly a century of congressional law. It also overturned two prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The overturned cases were McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990.
The case is not alone. It is part of a trend of decision after decision from the Roberts Court overturning prior precedents. I have real concern that this Court is going out of its way to rewrite and reinterpret prior law. Its decisions seem to favor corporate interests over the interests of the American people. We have heard talk of ``activist'' courts before and I fear that is exactly what we have today.
The Citizens United decision may be the most troubling one yet. This decision does not only impact one group of people or one area of the law--it affects the very way our elections and our democratic system are run.
The Court's decision in this case opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in federal elections. It held that the first amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of corporations, and protects their right to spend freely--in the millions or even the billions of dollars--on election ads to support or defeat their favored candidates.
This means that an oil company like ExxonMobil could spend any portion of its billions in profits to elect a candidate who will let them drill more, or to defeat a candidate who opposes their drilling plans.
It means that Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater, and other defense contractors could spend unlimited sums toward the election of candidates who view their defense positions favorably.
And large banks like JPMorgan Chase would be free to use their corporate treasury funds to attack candidates who favor financial regulation.
This last example, of course, is a very real and present situation. The questions on the floor right now are of great importance--should the credit default swaps and derivative contracts that have wreaked havoc on our economy be regulated, and how? These are questions we need to answer with the interest of the American public and our economy in mind, not the possibility that JP Morgan could launch a multimillion dollar attack against us if we don't bow to their demands.
As Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 testified at a Rules Committee hearing, ``It would not take many examples of elections where multimillion corporate expenditures defeat a member of Congress before all members quickly learn the lesson, vote against the corporate interest at stake in a piece of legislation and you run the risk of being hit with a multimillion-dollar corporate ad campaign to defeat you.''
The Supreme Court's decision is based on constitutional law. They get the final word on the Constitution, and they have spoken. So our response unfortunately has to be made with one hand tied behind our back. The DISCLOSE Act is a powerful attempt to show the public the effect of this decision and to ensure that our election process will remain transparent.
Here is what the bill would do:
First, it would require new disclaimers so that the American public knows who is behind an ad they see on TV.
If a corporation runs an ad, the CEO must stand up and say that they approved the message. If an advocacy organization runs the ad, the head of the organization and the top outside funder must appear. The point is simple--if you are behind an ad, say so, and let the public know.
Second, the bill would impose new disclosure requirements.
Organizations will have to disclose all of their donors who have given over $1000 or who have contributed to their election spending accounts.
Let me give you an example from the National Law Journal of why these disclosure and disclaimer rules are important.
Last summer, an organization called America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, collected between $10 and $20 million from major health insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser Foundation, UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint. AHIP funneled these funds to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which set up two separate entities called the ``Campaign for Responsible Health Reform'' and ``Employers for a Healthy Economy.'' These two shell organizations then engaged in widespread advertising to oppose health reform. Although the health insurance companies were the primary funders of the ads, the American public had no way of knowing that by the time the ads appeared on TV.
The DISCLOSE Act will require disclaimers that name an ad's top funders and disclose where the money came from. I think this is important, and I believe it will be an important step forward in true voter education and transparency.
Third, the bill will prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited sums in American elections through their subsidiaries.
Under current law, foreign companies cannot directly contribute to candidates or air election ads, but their U.S.-based subsidiaries can and often do. According to the Washington Post, since 2007, U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign corporations have contributed more than $20 million to Federal campaigns through political action committees.
The rules will prevent a corporation from making contributions or spending on election ads if a foreign national
owns 20 percent or more of its voting shares; a majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals; foreign nationals have the power to control the decision making of the subsidiary; or foreign nationals control election-related expenditures.
Fourth, the bill will prohibit any company with government contracts in excess of $50,000 and any company that receives TARP or similar government assistance funds, from making unlimited election expenditures.
The point here is simple--if your business relies on government contracts or government assistance for its revenues, you should not be in the business of trying to buy seats for your friends or take them away from your enemies.
Finally, the bill will expand current law to allow political parties the same ability as candidates to get television ad time at the ``lowest unit rate'' in certain situations and in certain geographical areas.
The Roberts Court's decision in Citizens United was, I believe, the wrong one. It protected corporations at the expense of drowning out individuals' free speech. It threatened to put democratic elections in the United States up for sale. And it will, I believe, lead to voters having less reliable information about candidates--not more.
The DISCLOSE Act cannot solve all of the problems created by the decision, but it is a critical step forward. The bill will ensure that the American public knows who is funding an ad when they see it on television, and it will close loopholes that could have otherwise allowed unlimited spending in our elections by foreign nationals and corporations receiving government assistance.
I believe it is essential that we pass this bill quickly, and I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and others to do so.
