Disclose Act - Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today to talk about this legislation, the DISCLOSE Act.

Like much of the legislation that is being taken up in the Senate these days, the partisan battle lines are already being drawn on this bill. One side sees the impending vote as yet another opportunity to score some political points off the other, and vice versa. That makes for a lively debate, but I am not sure what good it does the American people.

I will say on a personal note that I will always fight with every ounce of my strength for the people of Oregon and the folks whom I have the honor to represent. I say to the Presiding Officer, you and I have talked about this from time to time. I do not exactly come to the floor of the Senate looking for gratuitous, political, counterproductive fights. What I have been interested in, what I have tried to make the hallmark of my service here, is trying to find common ground, trying to find ways to bring people together. Some have said that is overly optimistic, almost too idealistic. But I prefer to say it is simply bipartisanship and principled bipartisan. It has been my experience in the Senate that if you can get folks to put aside their political talking points and focus on commonsense policy, not only are there opportunities for us in the Senate to find common ground, there are opportunities to advance policies that make sense for all Americans, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

I have joined Senator Schumer in cosponsoring the DISCLOSE Act because I continue to believe this is such an opportunity for bipartisanship and finding common ground.

For me, this issue took hold after the 1996 special election where Senator Smith, my former colleague--my very good and personal friend--and I campaigned against each other to be Oregon's first new U.S. Senator in more than 30 years. Suffice it to say that campaign was not the kind of calm and upbeat debate that folks here in the Senate would expect from either me or from Gordon Smith. Instead, it was one of the ugliest campaigns in Oregon history. There were attack ads being run by both the left and the right. Certainly, while policy differences and personal criticisms are fair and an almost inevitable part of a political campaign, what bothered Senator Smith and me at that time, during that special election--the only race that was being run anywhere in our country--is not only did Oregon voters not know who was responsible for the bulk of those ads; neither Gordon Smith nor I could figure out who was saying what about whom.

My view was that something had to change. Something is way out of whack when you are having scores of ads, hundreds and hundreds of ads being run, and no one can figure out who is running them. My concern is that we are heading back into exactly that same kind of situation, given the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shortly after my election in 1996, when I had watched all of those ads being run from all those various and sundry groups and not able to identify who was running them, I came back to the Senate and said I am going to do everything I can to change that. I got together with a number of us on both sides of the aisle; let me emphasize that, because it can't be emphasized enough. This was a bipartisan group that was concerned about that particular issue. We came up with a concept known as Stand By Your Ad, where, in effect, those who run ads in their campaigns--it has continued to this day--would have to own up to their being the ones sponsoring the message.

As part of the campaign reform of 2002, Stand By Your Ad was included. In my view, it has ushered in a new era of personal accountability in political elections by requiring candidates to take personal responsibility for the contents of their ads. Not only has every Member of this body seen those ads; my guess is just about everyone but our new colleague from West Virginia has actually recorded those ads. That is, in effect, what is required. One has to say: ``I am Ron Wyden and I approved this message.'' It certainly isn't a hard thing to do, and it certainly is not out of line with what the American people have a right to expect, which is openness and personal accountability.

Now with the Supreme Court decision giving corporations and unions and even foreign economic interests the ability to spend as much, if not more, money to influence elections than the candidates themselves, I think it is only right that these groups abide by the same rules as the candidates themselves. Just as voters have a right to know when a candidate is trying to influence their vote, I believe voters have a right to know when one of these powerful organizations seeks to do the same.

Of course, this is going to have an impact on the content of political speech. Sunlight is the most powerful disinfectant, and I think all of us ought to understand these groups that are buying all these ads are going to be a little bit more hesitant to pay for an outrageous attack, an outlandish overreach, if they know they have to put their name on it. I think the question that ought to be asked here in the Senate is not why should organizations have to stand by their political speech, but the question should be why don't they want to. What are they actually ashamed of? In my view, if you feel strongly enough about an issue to buy television time, you ought to have the guts to put your name on it. I have felt that ever since 1996 when I first campaigned for the Senate, and I continue to believe that today.

I know the debate we are going to have tonight and tomorrow on the DISCLOSE Act is going to spur a lot of very impassioned speeches about political elections, and there are going to be accusations flown by one side or another about who is going to get a political advantage and what ought to be done to quash the person who is somehow deriving a political advantage out of it. But I would simply say as we go into this discussion that everybody here in the Senate ought to remember exactly how we earned our seats in the first place.

This very institution was founded on the idea of equality and free and open debate. Each and every citizen's voice and vote would be given the same weight as each and every other. What concerns me is that the Supreme Court decision, in my view--I say this respectfully--does a disservice to that concept by making it possible for some voices to drown out others. That is what ought to be contemplated at this point, and it is certainly what I have been talking about at home, which is that this decision has made it effectively possible for a foreign economic interest to have a louder voice in this country's political process than a hard-working, tax-paying Oregonian. I don't think that is fair; I don't think it is just; and I am not prepared to stand for it.

I am proud to join Senator Schumer in sponsoring and advocating for this important legislation that, in my view, is worthy of bipartisanship. I know there is going to be a strong push to deal with the politics of this issue, but I think this bill is now worthy of bipartisan support.

Changes have been made to the legislation to address some of the original concerns that were expressed about the bill. There were concerns originally addressed that some groups weren't being held as accountable as others and I believe the legislation has been amended to correct many of those problems. I think Senator Schumer deserves considerable credit for it. I have always felt that a credible effort at transparency means you have to hold your friends just as accountable as those who may disagree with you, and this legislation does that. It does other important reforms in terms of electronic filing, and I think it is very much in the interests of the American people. It certainly will make it possible for the press to report more expeditiously on these kinds of expenditures.

I wish to commend Chairman Schumer of the Rules Committee. I think he has been genuinely interested in a collaborative and open process. I believe Senator Schumer has asked me specifically to participate in this kind of process because he knows that is what I feel so strongly about.

We have major issues we have to tackle in the days ahead. I heard Senator Kyl talk about taxes. Senator Kyl made a point, in discussing taxes with me, about the whole role of tax expenditures which, in effect, is a huge issue in this tax debate. Senator Gregg and I have put out the first bipartisan tax reform bill in two decades. So we have a lot of work to do here and we have to do it in a bipartisan way. I am very hopeful the changes that have now been made, particularly ones ensuring that one makes it clear--that it is so important that accountability and transparency apply in the broadest possible way--and that will make it possible to bring both sides together here in the Senate.

We came together back in 1996 to write Stand By Your Ad. A number of those Senators on both sides of the aisle I know feel very strongly about open and transparent government. Let's find a way for the Senate to duplicate what we did in 1996, and let's make sure that as we go into this election there is transparency and accountability. I don't want to see again what we saw back in 1996 where ads are flying from all sides, in every direction, making charges that are clearly outrageous and over the line and in no way ensures that voters know who is paying for those ads. The country deserves better. The Senate ought to make it possible for the country to get better and more accountable government, and I am very hopeful this Senate will pass the DISCLOSE Act, particularly the important changes that Senator Schumer has made, in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source