Disclose Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Like Senator Feingold, I am an original cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, and would like to address the ``stand by your ad'' disclosure provision of that bill and the recent Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.

The Citizens United opinion was a reckless ruling that overturned decades of precedent and threatens the health of the democratic process. Citizens United laid down, for the first time, a sweeping new right for special interests of all types. It said that money is speech and corporations must have free speech. This directly overturns the position taken in the Supreme Court's
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce opinion, which recognized the ``corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas.'' But now, the Court says that if individuals have the freedom to express themselves politically, then corporations, as well as unions and other special interests, should have the same rights as living, breathing human beings.

The DISCLOSE Act offers a significant step in countering this ill-conceived opinion. Although the full reach of Citizens United cannot be undone short of a constitutional amendment or reversal by the Supreme Court, the DISCLOSE Act would achieve important accountability within the bounds of the Court's ruling. In fact, even while a divided court was striking down common sense limits on corporations, a nearly unanimous court upheld disclosure requirements. Disclosure imposes ``no ceiling on campaign-related activities.'' They said, ``disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.''

But current disclosure laws were written for a time when corporations couldn't flood the airwaves with commercials and drown out the voices of individuals. Those laws need to be updated to mount a forceful response to this new reality. With those floodgates open, the DISCLOSE Act isn't just the smart thing to do--it is essential and it is constitutional.

Citizens United is a decision that is deeply unpopular with the American people--and for very good reason. The ruling unleashes a flood of new money into an election system already awash with too much money, too many special interests, and not enough accountability.

In February, a Washington Post-ABC News poll revealed that large majorities across the political spectrum opposed the decision. Eighty percent of respondents disagreed with Citizens United, with 65 percent ``strongly opposed.'' Even more remarkable, this number barely varied between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Regardless of age, race, education, or income, Americans disagree with this decision, and large majorities want Congress to take action to resist corporate influence of elections.

As part of the McCain-Feingold law, I worked with Senator Collins to make politicians stand by their ads, and now the DISCLOSE Act seeks to make corporations fulfill their civic responsibility in exactly the same way. Also, the bill would make sure that CEOs can't hide behind a trade association, or a shell company. In addition to a CEO disclaimer appearing in an ad, the DISCLOSE Act requires the top five funders behind an ad to be disclosed.

The bill would also make sure that TARP recipients and government contractors are not allowed to use essentially public money to influence elections. Finally, the bill would prevent foreigners from buying ads to influence the outcome of U.S. elections. The DISCLOSE Act seeks to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that the American people have full knowledge about the messages that are delivered as part of political campaigns.

Contrary to critics' arguments, the DISCLOSE Act doesn't chill speech. In fact, it encourages the flow of information. Speak your mind, but let the public know who's doing the speaking. The marketplace of ideas is open, but like any marketplace, it only functions if everyone has the appropriate information. Without transparency, markets fail. In large part, it was a lack of transparency that allowed shady Wall Street deals to be perpetrated by Goldman Sachs and others at the expense of average shareholders and bond purchasers.

Without the DISCLOSE Act, there would be nothing to stop Wall Street firms from secretly funding a torrent of ads attacking the legislators and candidates working to bring accountability to Wall Street. These firms could covertly funnel money to a shell company or a trade association, with no way for consumers to know who was really behind those messages. Or, to use another example, BP could spend millions of dollars attacking members of Congress who pushed for stiffer laws on oil exploration and clean-ups, without revealing the source of the funding.

This is not idle speculation. It is an absolute certainty that special interests across the country will take full advantage of the opportunity that Citizens United affords them to spend freely on elections without disclosing their true identities. The only way to maintain a free and open democracy is to close that loophole. The American people are thoughtful and intelligent. If they know what special interest is behind a barrage of commercials before an election, they will understand the agenda and can evaluate the message accordingly.

The DISCLOSE Act will shed sunlight on all the new money entering our politics, and sunlight truly is the best disinfectant. I strongly urge my colleagues to enable the will of the American people, to ensure that corporations have the same responsibilities as people, and to guarantee that citizens' voices aren't drowned out.

I thank the chair. I yield for Senator Bayh.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source