Disclose Act

Floor Speech

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, last Friday, I introduced S. 3295, the DISCLOSE Act, because Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. I am joined by 40 of my Senate colleagues as cosponsors.

Decades ago, Justice Louis Brandeis boldly said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is exactly what this bill will do--shine a light on the flood of spending unleashed by the Citizens United decision.

The DISCLOSE Act will drill down and give the public the information they have a right to know. No longer will groups be able to live and spend in the shadows.

The Court spoke in the Citizens United decision. And while there is disagreement with its ruling, there is room to maneuver. This legislation does not circumvent the Court by reimposing a backdoor ban on corporate spending. Instead, the DISCLOSE Act closes certain loopholes and relies on enhanced disclosure, an idea endorsed by the Court. This legislation meets the test of constitutionality.

The aim of the DISCLOSE Act is simply to level the political playing field so that special interests do not drown out the voice of the average voter. It applies to corporations and advocacy organizations the same rules that candidates already have to abide by. And it applies these rules equally across the board. It covers corporations and labor unions alike, as well as 527s, social welfare organizations, and trade associations.

The DISCLOSE Act will do the following:

First, new disclaimers on all television advertisements funded by special interests will be required in order to uncover who is really behind the ad. If a corporation is running the ad, the CEO will have to appear to at the end to say that he or she approved the message, just like a candidate must do today. If an advocacy organization is running the ad, both the head of the organization running the ad, and the top outside funder of the ad, will have to appear on camera. Additionally, a list of the top five funders to that organization will be displayed on the screen. This will stop the funneling of big money through shadow groups in order to fund ads that are virtually anonymous. For the first time, the money can be followed back to its origin and the source of the money will be public.

Second, an unprecedented level of disclosure is mandated, not only of an organization's spending, but also of its donors. In disclosing their donors, organizations will have a choice--they can either disclose all of their donors that have given in excess $1,000, or they can disclose only those donors who contribute to the group's campaign-related activity account, if they solely use that account for their spending. All spending intended to influence an election--be it on television, radio, print, mailers, robocalls, and billboards--would flow through this account. And every donor who contributes more than $1,000 would have to be disclosed. Organizations must not only disclose these donors to the FEC, but also to the public on their Web sites and to their shareholders and members through their annual and quarterly reports.

Third, loopholes created by the Court's decision are closed. The first loophole is closed by preventing foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited sums in our elections through their U.S.-based subsidiaries. This was a loophole specifically mentioned by Justice Stevens in his dissent. Foreign leaders who don't have American interests in mind shouldn't have the ability to influence our elections. The second loophole is closed by banning companies with government contracts in excess of $50,000 from making unlimited expenditures. The third loophole is closed by banning expenditures by companies that receive government assistance such as TARP. Taxpayer money should not be used to help corporations influence elections.

Finally, in an attempt to allow all candidates and parties to respond to ads funded by special interests, the current law granting lowest unit rate to candidates is expanded by giving those same rights to the parties on a limited geographic basis.

I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring and passing the DISCLOSE Act.

I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of the DISCLOSE Act be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source