The Disclose Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Maryland, who has such great legislative and elective experience and speaks with such passion and energy about this issue. I share his concern, and I rise today to speak about a type of corruption in the political arena. What type of corruption in the political arena am I talking about?

I am talking about the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate forum and that have little or no correlation to the public support for the corporation's political ideas, wealth that can unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent expenditures.

Sounds like tough talk to call that a type of corruption in the political arena and describe it in those terms. But those are not my words. Whose words are they? Those are the words of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said:

State law grants corporations special advantages--such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets--that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders' investments.

That is what they are for, and that is what they should do. But the Supreme Court continued:

These state-created advantages not only allow corporations to play a dominant role in the Nation's economy, but also permit them to use ``resources amassed in the economic marketplace'' to obtain ``an unfair advantage in the political marketplace.''

That was the law of the United States of America. That law was precedent when our Chief Justice stood before our Senate Judiciary Committee and promised, under his oath before that committee, that he would honor precedent. Not only that precedent, but it relied on earlier Supreme Court precedent.

This Court, Justice Marshall writing, quoted the Massachusetts Citizens for Life decision, a previous Court, and said, as the Court explained in Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the political advantage of corporations is unfair because ``[t]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation ..... are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas. They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas.''

When Chief Justice Roberts, under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised that he would honor the precedent of the United States of America, this was not only precedent, it was precedent within precedent. It was the established law of the United States of America, that corporate expenditure in elections was a type of corruption in the political arena.

But they could not resist. They could not resist, and by a 5-to-4 decision--one of an array of 5-to-4 decisions by which a narrow partisan majority of our Supreme Court has taken the law and moved it as far as it could--they changed the law of the United States. They knocked down this standing precedent in order to open the floodgates of American elections to corporate money.

Let me interrupt myself for 1 minute. When I say ``moved it as far as it could,'' I mean these decisions on these massive issues--issues of great importance to our country, issues of vast consequence in our elections--do not need to be decided 5 to 4. A Court that had a real interest in modesty, in conservatism, could look for a broader majority to try to build consensus for the rule that it was announcing. Of course, if they tried to build that broader consensus, they would not be able to take as big a political leap. This is a Court that over and over will take the big political leap at the cost of, I think in the long run, the Court's credibility, but in the short run of building a precedent that has lasting value because it has a significant majority behind it.

Other big decisions of the Court--Brown v. Board of Education for instance--were unanimous. Here, once they have their majority, that is all--that is enough. Then they are willing to move.

Who did they open the floodgates to when they did this? Let's see who has been opposing our bill to try to at least make public what corporations are taking advantage of. Roll Call reported back in July that ``the bulk of corporate outreach on the campaign finance bill''--that is the bill we are trying to get to, trying to correct this Citizens United decision, trying to protect our elections from being flooded with corporate money--``the bulk of corporate outreach on the campaign finance bill was done primarily by companies based outside the United States but that have substantial operations here.''

That is great. The lobbying on whether corporations get to control our elections is being dominated by multinational corporations based outside of the United States. American citizens' voices are going to be drowned out by corporate money based on lobbying from corporations that are not even American corporations.

Roll Call continues: ``According to Senate filings, large international firms reported lobbying Members--or hiring others to do so--on the DISCLOSE Act''--the bill we are on--``in recent months. .....'' They include Sony and Honda. How fortunate for General Motors to have the electoral process controlled by lobbyists for Honda. The financial firm, UBS, a Swiss bank--that is what we need. The views of a Swiss bank are clearly important to American elections and should certainly drive them and, therefore, let the corporate money flow. That makes great sense. A Swedish drugmaker, Novo Nordisk--that is where the money is behind this.

Where does it go? It goes to Karl Rove's group--like he has not already done enough damage to this Republic--American Crossroads, which hopes to spend $50 million in this election, according to the New York Times, supported by the American Action Network, which is planning to spend $25 million in concert with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending $75 million, all reported by the New York Times, along with other groups: Americans for Job Security, the American Future Fund.

Let me ask, if you see an advertisement on television that slams a political candidate, that trashes him on some issue, and it is brought to you by Americans for Job Security or the American Future Fund, you, as a citizen trying to evaluate that advertisement, what information does that give you? I suggest it does not give you very much information at all.

ExxonMobil could buy American elections. The entire Presidential election between President Obama and Senator McCain, adding up the spending on both sides, cost about $1 billion. ExxonMobil makes that every week.

These big multinational corporations can drown out American citizens' voices, and it barely makes a dent in their bottom line. They can buy American elections through what the Supreme Court said, until this active, radical group on the Supreme Court pushed this decision through 5 to 4, with the precedent of the United States, was a type of corruption in the political arena. That was the law of the land, not just in one decision but repeatedly. Now that can happen, thanks to that decision. And American citizens will be swamped by these big corporations.

Is it a coincidence that 85 percent of the spending so far in this election has been on behalf of Republicans? There is a phrase in politics: You are supposed to dance with the guy that brung ya. But I tell you what, when you take the oath as a judge, that principle should be dispensed with and discarded. You should take on new duties that go beyond loyalty to any political party.

Nevertheless, this Court has opened the corporate floodgates so that international corporations can come in, drown out American voters, buy up American elections, and what was law before, a type of corruption in the political arena and 85 percent of the spending by the big corporations is on behalf of Republicans--I am sure that is just a coincidence.

To the contrary, we often hear my colleagues on the other side say: Unions do just the same thing. When you see that advertisement on television attacking a political candidate, and it says at the bottom--let's pick our most active union, the Service Employees International Union--it says
Service Employees International Union, you have a pretty good idea who that is. You can find them in the phonebook. You probably know somebody who is a member.

They are active in the community. It is no mystery. But how about American Future Fund? The way this is set up right now, ExxonMobile could take its billions of dollars and start laundering that money through shell organizations and shell corporations. By the time the slammer ad gets put on television attacking a political candidate--it could be Americans for Peace and Puppies, as far as we knew--and nobody would have the time in the hectic last days before an election to figure out who it is who is really behind these attacks.

That is no way to run an election. That is no way to run a democracy. That is not transparent. These corporations are not even humans. What they are doing, involved in these elections on this scale, is unimaginable. What it does is it amplifies the political voice of CEOs dramatically.

The great thing about American democracy is that you and I and the pages who are here, when they are old enough to vote, and the police officers outside and the fellow driving by in the taxicab on Constitution Avenue, every American has a vote that counts the same. If you are the CEO of a big corporation, not only can you do your own politicking, but you can take that amassed treasury of wealth with what the Supreme Court called ``the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures,'' and you can spend it to push your own views and to drown out your neighbors, your friends, people who oppose you--anyone--with immense amounts of anonymous political spending.

I do not think that is right. I think that is a mistake. Justice Stevens had it right in his dissent in the Citizens United case. He said this:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

Justice Stevens continued:

It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of the court would have thought that its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

So if you want the government of the United States of America--this great and sovereign Nation, this light of democracy in the darkness of this world, this government of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, of Roosevelt, of Lincoln--controlled by the same people who brought you a 30-percent interest rate on your credit card, well, the DISCLOSE Act is not for you because they will not be able to do it anonymously if this bill passes.

If you want the government of our country controlled by the insurance companies that took your child off the insurance when he got sick, that wouldn't provide coverage because he had a preexisting condition--if those are the people you want controlling the government--you don't want this bill because you want them to be able to fund these anonymous organizations with no consequence, with no transparency.

If you want our government controlled by the people who brought you the gulf oilspill and who are polluting our atmosphere with carbon day in and day out in ways that are changing our world as we watch it, this bill ``ain't'' for you because this bill wouldn't allow them to do it sneakily, anonymously, unlimitedly.

If you want this government controlled by the big corporations that are taking American jobs and making the American worker pack up the machinery they have worked on into shipping crates to be shipped overseas, where a foreign worker will be hired to make that same product, which will then be brought back into America--if they are the folks you want controlling our government, anonymously, through money and expenditure--the DISCLOSE Act is not for you.

But let me tell you, if you are a regular American, who thinks everybody should have a fair voice at election time, who doesn't want to see our American elections drowned out by lobbyists for international corporations, by huge corporate expenditures that aren't even traceable back to the corporation but that come through phony-baloney organizations with names that sound like ``The Make America Great Foundation''--if that is the kind of politics you want to put an end to--if you want to see real issues debated by real people, this DISCLOSE Act is important.

This isn't just about fairness in one election. This isn't just about a Supreme Court that handed to one political party a gigantic corporate checkbook that had previously been illegal and tells them: Get out there and spend, it is fine. Get out there and spend anonymously, it is fine. If you are an international corporation--if you are not even an American company--get out there and spend, we don't mind. Every day we make choices about whether corporations or people are going to have the upper hand in this society. Our Supreme Court just gave corporations the upper hand, and we have to fight back because it is not just about who wins this election, this is about a democracy that has been through over 200 years of stress and strain. This is about an idea the Founders put together that was unheard of at the time. It was radical, it was exceptional, and it created a society that has shown a light in this world that is brighter than any other government in the history of humankind.

This government has lasted through Civil War and world war, through depression. It has lasted through every kind of stress. Its value is, as probably our greatest President said, very simply, that it is a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Our purpose is that it not perish from this Earth. This is not a government of the CEOs, by the big corporations, and for their shareholders. It is not an anonymous government where you don't know who is on the air with millions of dollars in advertisements slamming away. It is not a government where a candidate would be embarrassed to have a big corporation on their side that laundered their money through corporate screens so when it finally appeared in the waning days of the race it was all phonied up with a name such as ``Americans For Peace and Love'' or whatever the group is going to be called. That is not what America is all about.

So this may seem like a small issue about reporting of corporate expenditures, but I would submit that when corporations make more in a week than an entire U.S. Presidential election costs and they can throw that kind of money around, there is a lot at stake in trying to make sure American elections are honest and honorable ones. To allow the big corporations, even the international corporations, to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections, with no reporting requirement, with the ability to launder through phony-baloney shell organizations before people see it, the risk of damage is very great.

So I know it is easy for me to say, because the money is coming in 85 percent against Democrats and for Republicans, and it looks like this is what that is about, but it is not. It is about making sure that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people does not perish from this Earth.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source