Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this week President Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, decided that the agency will no longer collect information on donations to political nonprofits.
This administration will no longer require 501(c)(4) organizations to disclose their donors, including groups like the National Rifle Association, the NRA, that operates as a nonprofit, but also spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying and advertising to influence our elections.
This announcement comes the same week that the Department of Justice arrested and charged a known Russian foreign agent who had infiltrated the NRA, an organization that has received thousands of dollars from Russian nationals since 2015. The Treasury Secretary's decision this week only thickens the swamp by unleashing a new opportunity for dark money and money from foreign powers to continue to flood our upcoming midterm elections.
I believe that we need more transparency in our elections, not less. While super PACs are currently required to disclose donors, now 501(c)(4)s are not. If you were a donor looking to influence elections and wanted to hide your identity, the underlying bill is currently making 501(c)(4) organizations an even more attractive way to conceal contributions.
There is a provision in today's appropriations package that prohibits the IRS--prohibits the IRS--from issuing guidance on whether an organization is operating exclusively for the promotion of social welfare purposes, as written in the IRS code for 501(c)(4) nonprofits, to ensure that no one is abusing our Tax Code to influence our elections.
My amendment simply strikes out that provision so that the IRS may issue guidance differentiating which groups are truly social welfare organizations with a charitable mission from political organizations abusing our nonprofit tax laws to hide their political donors from the public.
More and more, our elections are being driven by organizations that are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in unreported, secret donations. Dark money is strangling our democracy and silencing the will of the American people.
In the 2012 presidential election, dark-money groups such as these spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on partisan political advertising and other campaign activities. In 2014, we saw the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election.
Moreover, in 2016, dark-money groups spent nearly 10 times what they did the previous cycle, totaling over $1.1 billion, and that pattern of undisclosed political spending continues to grow this year. These political nonprofit organizations are receiving tax-exempt treatment and are being allowed to corrupt Federal tax law meant to help social welfare organizations like volunteer firefighters, rotary clubs, and other community service groups.
Our current election laws make it impossible to know where this money is coming from or if it is coming from foreign adversaries, like we saw recently with the NRA. This amendment is not partisan and will only continue to allow the IRS to identify nonprofits that are spending significant amounts of their money to influence our elections, regardless of their party affiliation.
Mr. Chairman, at this pivotal moment in our democracy, I urge my colleagues who are serious about draining the swamp to take this small step towards increased transparency in our political process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the feedback from my colleague.
Mr. Chair, this will not detour or take away from the efficiency of the focus of work and spending of resources by the IRS. This only does a fundamental thing, and that is provide for more disclosure and transparency to ensure that the American public has sunshine on who is spending what resources through which organizations. This amendment merely provides that transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 628 of the underlying bill prohibiting the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, from issuing rules on disclosures for corporations spending money to influence our elections, primarily through paid advertising.
The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision means that corporations, even foreign-controlled corporations, are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence American elections.
Publicly traded corporations can buy millions of dollars' worth of TV, social media, and radio ads without disclosing their political expenditures to their shareholders. This outside spending in our elections has created a greater need for Members to raise more money for their campaigns and less time legislating.
This has eroded the public's faith in our institutions and is damaging to our democracy. Families in my district and across the country are concerned about paying their children's tuition or medical bills, not spending thousands of dollars to influence Federal elections. Their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars of secret special-interest advertising from corporations.
A corporation's main goal is to make a profit, not to improve the quality of life for all Americans. They shouldn't have a say in our elections without their shareholders and the public knowing about it.
That is why we cannot muzzle the SEC's ability to issue rules regarding disclosures for publicly traded corporations on all their political expenditures. Stockholders and voters have been clear: They want to know the details of the political donations of the companies they own and give their business to. In fact, more than 1.2 million comments have been submitted to the SEC requesting that they require political disclosure by publicly traded companies. That is the largest number of comments on a rule in the history of the agency.
Congress should stop standing in the way of the SEC's mission, which is to provide transparency to the markets and the public. This amendment does not infringe on a corporation's right to spend money on political activity. It would just allow the SEC to disclose what money is being spent.
This is yet another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to prevent special interests from gaining even more pull in Washington and begin draining that swamp. This should not be a Democrat or a Republican issue, and it goes to the heart of our democracy and maintaining a government that is of, by, and for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, this is not about shaming anyone. This does not restrict free speech or the ability of corporations to engage in political activity. It only allows the SEC to require disclosure of corporate political spending, a little bit of transparency providing disclosure to the public, so that they clearly know the companies that they are investing their money in.
Moreover, more than 150 large companies, including more than half of the companies in the S&P 100, are disclosing their political spending already. Investors have filed over 300 shareholder proposals since 2011 asking companies to disclose political spending. This is all about transparency and protecting our democracy. We should not be scared of giving the public more information.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source