Disclose Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding.

First, all votes cast in this body are important, but it is rare that a single vote can so unmistakably reveal whose side you are on. Make no mistake about it, with today's vote, we are picking sides, and no amount of words, no amount of sophistry in terms of explanations of calling black white and white black can change that around.

At a time when the public's fears about influence of special interests are already high, this decision by the Court stacks the deck even more against the average American. And my good friend from Kentucky is defending the average American? The average American who sets up a 501(c)(4) and spends tens of millions of dollars to get his views made known or the average American who puts out 3,400 ads, without his or her name on them, to vilify a candidate for reasons unstated? That is not the average American. We know that. It is very clear who is defending the average American: those of us who support the DISCLOSE Act.

My friend from Kentucky is worried about transparency in this body all of a sudden but doesn't speak for a bill that brings transparency to our politics. No one can argue that this bill brings less transparency. No one can argue that.

We know what is going on here. There are visions--visions in people's heads of Karl Rove spending $50 million, funded by people we don't know, to attack candidates for reasons we are not sure of, and never putting their name to it.

If you believe in transparency, you believe in the DISCLOSE Act. If you believe in transparency, you believe that someone who has the ability through their wealth, whether they be a corporation or an individual or a candidate, should put their name on the ad they are putting forward over and over and over again. Transparency? This bill stands for transparency.

I would challenge any of my Republican colleagues to come forward with a bill that pierces through the veil of secrecy the Supreme Court decision allows. As for that great Constitution which we revere, eight of the nine Justices said disclosure was certainly constitutional, and they even went out of their way to say it is the right thing to do. We know why the other side doesn't want to do it. They are talking about Democrats not wanting to be attacked. No one wants to be attacked. All we are saying is, if you are going to attack us, put your name on the ad. And the other side is resisting that. We know why. Because with some of the ads that are run--by everybody--if you don't have to put your name on them, there is less of a reason to stick to the truth and stick to the facts. That is why for years we have put this burden on ourselves. We said that we as candidates have to stand by our ad. Why shouldn't big corporations have to stand by their ad? I would like anyone on the other side to answer that question.

This is all about secrecy, not free speech. No one is saying they can't run ads. The Constitution now allows it, even out of corporate treasuries, but the Constitution allows and smiles upon greater free speech disclosure.

So you can talk all about the process: ``I was surprised we are going off the jobs bill.'' For how many months and weeks and hours through procedural delays has the other side kept us from going to various jobs bills? All of a sudden, when it comes time to lift the veil of secrecy on these ads, all of a sudden they say: Let's get back to a jobs bill. Oh, no. This fight will continue.

I spoke to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They were very sincere. Many of them, a good number, said to me: We should have disclosure, but the pressure is too great because this act would undo much of the electoral advantage that Citizens United--just due to the way our politics works now--would bring to the other side of the aisle. One of them said to me: It is skins and shirts. No one can deviate from the party line. So the opposition to this act is defending the Constitution when the Constitution upholds and supports disclosure; is defending the average guy when the average guy or gal has no opportunity to run these ads; is defending fairness and equality when it is only a limited, privileged few who will have the ability to put these ads on over and over and over again. That is not playing straight and not playing fair with the American people.

We have made this bill a fair bill that treats all sides equally. Some say: Well, there is a $600 limitation. Of course, but that has nothing to do with unions or corporations. If you spend $600 or less--we have always said low amounts of money don't have to be disclosed. If you spend $600,000, it should have to be disclosed, whether you are a corporation or a union, either way. Oh, no.

My colleagues, this is a sad day for our democracy. Not only does the Supreme Court give those special interests a huge advantage, but this body says they should do it all in secret without any disclosure. That transcends this election, transcends Democrat or Republican. It eats at the very fabric of our democracy. It makes our people feel powerless and angry, and the greatness of that Constitution and the greatness of the American people is eroded by decisions like that of the Supreme Court and the decision, unfortunately, we will make today in not letting the DISCLOSE Act come to the floor for debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act. My reasons for opposing this motion are very simple--this is clearly a partisan attempt by the majority to gain an advantage in the upcoming election. There was no hearing held in the Rules Committee on this bill and no Republican members were given the opportunity to consider the bill and offer amendments in a committee markup.

Additionally, this bill is stuffed with onerous new government regulations and is loaded with loopholes and carve-outs for special interests. The authors of this bill insist that it is fair and is not designed to benefit one party over the other. That is simply not the case. One example of this is the ban on campaign-related activities by Federal Government contractors. If this legislation were enacted--tens of thousands of American businesses--large and small would be prohibited from engaging in campaigns while labor unions--which receive Federal grants and routinely negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the Federal Government--would be free to operate as they see fit. It is a simple matter of fairness, and this bill as drafted is patently unfair.

As my colleagues know, I have been involved in the issue of campaign finance reform for most of my career, and I am fully supportive of measures which call for full and complete disclosure of all spending in Federal campaigns.

When my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I set out to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money and to reform how our campaigns are paid for--we vowed to be truly bipartisan and to do nothing which would give one party a political advantage over the other. As my colleague from Arizona noted earlier--the new rules created under our legislation applied equally to everyone, and they only applied after the subsequent election. That is not the case with this piece of legislation. The provisions of this bill would become effective 30 days after being signed by the President. This bill is clearly designed to silence American businesses while allowing labor unions to speak and spend freely in the elections this November.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and I urge my friends in the majority to go back to the drawing board and bring back a bill that is truly fair, truly bipartisan, and requires true full disclosure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source