Disclose Act--Motion to Proceed--Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I would simply note that the bill before us has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns; it simply has to do with disclosure.

I rise today in support of DISCLOSE, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

This bill is in direct response to Citizens United v. FEC in which the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts and its activist majority, overruled almost a century of law and precedent and held that corporations have the same first amendment rights as people. As I have said before, because of this decision, the winner of every upcoming election won't be Democrats or Republicans; it will be special interests. And it will come at the expense of the voice of the ordinary American. The Court's decision lifted well-established restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections. This created a loophole in which these entities can now create anonymous groups to serve as a conduit to anonymously funnel money. The intent is to deceive the public and hide the real motives of those spending on these ads.

We have worked within the contours of the Court's decision in order to draft the DISCLOSE Act.

I ask those who support sunlight in campaign spending to work with us to pass this bill.

You think we are using this bill as a political tool to influence elections? OK. We will change the effective date to January 2011 so it won't apply to this November's election. We will welcome this change and encourage Republican amendments and debate on this bill because it is essential to the health of our democracy. We are also willing to consider paring the bill down, per the suggestion of my colleague, Senator Snowe, in her statement, and limiting it to the core provisions regarding enhanced disclosures and disclaimers.

Both disclosure and disclaimer were proclaimed to be constitutional and effective ways to regulate corporate and union spending by eight of the nine Justices in Citizens United and were upheld in a later decision, Doe v. Reed. The Court specifically stated that disclosure requirements ``do not prevent anyone from speaking''--do not prevent anyone from speaking--and found that there was strong governmental interest in ``providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related funding.'' The Court also concluded that ``disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way'' and to ``give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' To be clear, disclosure does not chill speech. We do not want to chill speech. We merely want the American public to have details about who is speaking. These disclosure and disclaimer provisions allow the American public to know exactly who is bankrolling campaign advertisements. The American public deserves nothing less.

I would note that a strong majority of the American public--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--disapproved of the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United and support disclosure and disclaimer provisions.

In removing the restrictions on corporate and union campaign spending, the Citizens United decision has opened a door for the creation of shadow groups whose spending is not clearly regulated. Neither the IRS, which has jurisdiction for nonprofits, nor the FEC provides oversight for these groups. That is a scary thought. In fact, one such group, American Crossroads, the leader in campaign spending in the Senate, was created by Karl Rove, who pledged to spend $50 million on just the 2010 election cycle. In fact, since our last vote on this issue, it has been reported that these shadow groups have raised $20 million.

A former Republican FEC Commissioner, Michael Toner, stated on the front page of the New York Times this week that, from his personal experience, ``the money is flowing.'' It is clear to us that the money is flowing; we just aren't permitted to know from whom it is coming. It is clear that this money isn't coming from the average voter. These groups are created, funded with secret donations, and then they disappear just as quickly as they appeared, all with no real disclosure. They are not created to be a voice of the people. It has been reported that the vast majority of American Crossroads funding is from four billionaires. Why are we letting the voice of these four people drown out the rest of America? This is outrageous.

In conclusion, the American people deserve to know what each and every one of us in this Chamber truly believes. Are we for openness, transparency, and giving the voters information they need to make their choices in the voting booth or do we really believe, despite our rhetoric, that it is OK for special interests to spend freely on all kinds of political advertising but keep the voters in the dark about who is paying for it?

The Supreme Court's decision this year has made it imperative for us to act now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source