Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3628, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to a debate…
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3628, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to a debate on this critical legislation tomorrow at 2:45.
We must not forget why we are here today. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court narrowly overruled almost a century of law and precedent and held that corporations have the same first amendment rights as people and therefore can spend freely on elections from their treasuries. The Court also opened the door to new kinds of campaign spending by labor unions and certain nonprofit organizations.
At a time when the public's fears about the influence of special interests were already high, that decision stacked the deck even more against the average American. As a result, we are faced with a new reality in our democracy: unlimited amounts of cash can now flow into our Federal elections anonymously and with no accountability.
Voting is the bedrock of our democracy. Elections provide the voters a loudspeaker through which they can make their opinions heard. Allowing special interest money to pour into elections unchecked and undisclosed will drown out the voices of the voters. But the Supreme Court decision did leave us one narrow opportunity to make an impact on this new era in campaign spending.
In Citizens United, eight of the nine Justices agreed that disclosure of campaign expenditures is constitutional and in the public's interest. The Court held that disclosure requirements ``do not prevent anyone from speaking'' and serve governmental interests in ``providing the electorate with information'' about the sources of money spent to influence elections so that voters can ``make informed choices in the political marketplace.''
By working within the contours of the Court's majority opinion, we have crafted this bill around new disclosure requirements designed to shine a bright light on those who would operate in the shadows. This legislation will follow the money. In cases where corporations or other special interests try to mask their activities through shadow groups, the legislation drills down so that the ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed. No more Citizens for Good Government, or People for Democracy--and the ads are nasty and tawdry, but we never know who they are from.
This legislation requires the sponsors of ads to file regular reports with the Federal Election Commission detailing their political expenditures and the source of the donations they received to fund them.
This legislation enhances disclaimer provisions so the public is aware that it is not a candidate or a political party speaking but a special interest or a corporation. We require CEOs and heads of special interest groups to identify themselves in their advertising. Candidates for Federal office already have to stand by their ads. There is no reason that corporations and special interests should not have to identify themselves as well.
The bill also prohibits entities that receive taxpayer money--such as large government contractors or corporations that received Federal rescue funds--from turning around and spending that money to influence elections. The bill also bans foreign-controlled corporations from spending in our elections.
As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, Citizens United allows foreign-controlled interests to participate in American elections now simply by using their domestic-based entities. We need to prevent that from happening, and the DISCLOSE Act does just that.
If not for the DISCLOSE Act, by the way, foreign companies, foreign corporations, foreign entities could participate in our elections. They could put themselves up under the name of ``Americans for Good Government'' and no one would even know. Let's be clear, current law bans foreigners, foreign corporations, foreign unions from participating in our elections, but under the complex nature of corporate law, we have domestic entities that would no longer fit into this ban by current law but which are controlled by foreign interests or even hostile foreign governments. We cannot allow BP, CITGO, or Chinese sovereign wealth funds to influence our elections, particularly under a name that would not show it was them. We need to close this loophole now, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act does.
Let me turn to what the bill does not do. There has been a strong argument from the hard right, desperate to see that this bill not pass; that this is an infringement on free speech. That is absurd. Claiming that disclosure is tantamount to muzzling free speech is nothing more than a scare tactic from special interests that do not want the public to know what they are doing.
If you have the courage of your convictions, you should say who you are, plain and simple. Democrats and Republicans alike have long defended disclosure campaign expenditures as both appropriate and constitutional. The minority leader has talked about disclosure as a substitute for campaign finance reform. And in this bill, we are working well within the free speech guarantees of the first amendment in our strengthening of disclosures and disclaimers on campaign ads.
Second, this bill does not circumvent the Supreme Court. While I believe the Court's ruling was an activist overreach, this legislation clearly does not. The main purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is to provide the American public with information on who is speaking when political advertising and expenditures are made. Its purpose is not to circumvent or overturn the Court's decision by imposing a backdoor ban on special interest spending.
Recently, the Supreme Court, in another case, Doe v. Reed, again upheld disclosure as constitutional under the first amendment, with the support of eight Justices, which means a whole number of conservative judges had to support that idea.
This bill does not treat corporations and labor unions, along with trade associations and most other organizations, differently. Last month, we all know the House passed its version of the DISCLOSE Act. We have made changes to the House bill that I believe make it more evenhanded while sticking to the central goal of bringing transparency and public disclosure to the new kind of election spending the Supreme Court approved. For example, the House bill received criticism for allowing organizations that collect dues to avoid disclosing transfers of funds they make to their affiliates. This was criticized, fairly or unfairly, as a union carve-out. So we eliminated this exemption in the Senate bill. Another exemption was made for transfers between separate organizations if the funds could not be traced to an individual donor. We removed this exemption as well. So anyone who votes against this bill under the guise that it treats labor and corporations differently has not read the bill. We have kept this bill balanced and evenhanded. The changes made a strong bill even stronger.
To recap, the bill does not chill speech. It does not impose a backdoor ban on corporate spending. It does not treat labor unions differently from corporations. What this bill does do is listen to the American people, and 8 in 10 American voters, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, overwhelmingly disapprove of the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United and overwhelmingly support what we are doing here today. And there is good reason why. The public does not want to be deceived by advertising from anonymous funders. The public does not want foreign-controlled interests taking over our elections. And the public does not want their tax dollars being used by large Federal corporations to influence elections.
Already, the Citizens United decision has given rise to a cottage industry of swift boat-style shadow groups, groups that do not make democracy proud. Karl Rove admitted this month that his new 527, dubbed ``American Crossroads,'' was born out of a loophole created by the Citizens United decision. He bragged that his group will flood the 2010 elections with $52 million worth of ads bankrolled anonymously by special interests. Other shadow groups like Rove's are planning similar levels of activity. All together, these groups could account for $300 million in political spending this fall alone. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, opened the door to these anonymous donations. We must act now to close the door before faceless groups are allowed to spend unlimited sums without any accountability or transparency. The voters deserve to know the source of this spending.
My prediction--sad but I really believe true--is that if we do not close this loophole, the roots of our democracy will get more and more corroded, endangering the whole vital tree, the oak of democracy itself. It is hard to believe that we are now saying that a company, a group, that has multimillions of dollars can spend that money against a particular candidate, say whatever it wants, whether it is true or false, and not be held to any accountability whatsoever. What has become of our democracy?
The Supreme Court made the wrong decision. I still can't understand why they did it. But we have an opportunity here--not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans--to rectify, at least modify within the Constitution and at least require disclosure because we all know disclosure will not chill speech but it will make sure that those who wish to launch millions of dollars of nasty and perhaps untruthful ads against a candidate they don't like will at least have to say their name. What could be wrong with that?
The Senate will vote tomorrow afternoon to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the DISCLOSE Act. I urge my colleagues to allow us to move to a debate on this crucial legislation. We have a clear choice tomorrow: We can vote to debate how to make our elections more open and transparent or we can bow to special interests that seek to influence our elections behind closed doors. It is time for us to have that debate. Our democracy cannot afford a filibuster of transparency and disclosure in its elections. Let's be clear: If we fail to act now, the winner of November's elections will not be Democrats or Republicans; it will be special interests.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.