Disclose Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his remarks, and a special thanks to my colleague from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, for gathering us here this evening.

It is almost 8:30 Washington time. The Chamber is otherwise empty. Senator Stabenow from Michigan is preparing to speak.

This is not really a Senate debate. That happens almost never in this body, which is unfortunate. I had hoped that perhaps some Members from the other side would come and defend their position, but they haven't. It is their right to go home, and they have done it. We think it is worth a few minutes of our time to come even this late at night to talk about this issue.

Lyndon Johnson was a pretty famous Senator and President, and back in the day he used to say that when he was looking for advisers, he wished he had someone near him who would run for sheriff. What President Johnson was saying is that the practical experience of politics is somehow a lot different from what many people imagine.

I thought of that when I reflected on this Supreme Court currently sitting--the same Court that decided Citizens United--and the fact that not one of them has ever stood for election, none of them has gone through a campaign. When they addressed Citizens United, it was strictly from a legalistic academic viewpoint, and the decision reflected it because it was such a gross departure from where we have been as a nation.

A Presidential candidate may argue that corporations are people. Our Supreme Court, in Citizens United, said the views of corporations should be treated like the views of people, like the free speech every American is guaranteed under our Constitution, and with just that twist of a phrase they have literally changed the face of politics in America in a negative fashion.

I would say the Citizens United case from the Supreme Court was as negative on the political process of America as the Dred Scott decision by the same Supreme Court was on the social fabric of America. What they have unleashed with Citizens United is a force we have never, ever seen before in American politics. It is the force of anonymous, secret donors--people, oligarchs, millionaires and billionaires who are determined to impose their political will on the body politic and will spend whatever it takes to achieve it.

We are seeing it all across the country. There is not a single contested Senate race in which these super PACs have not arrived and spent $5, $10, $12, $15 million already in negative advertising across this country--most of it unaccounted for.

The DISCLOSE Act, which brings us together this evening, is very basic in that people who give more than $10,000 must disclose their identity. It applies to labor unions, corporations, everyone--it is across the board. Disclosure used to be one of the tenets, one of the pillars of the Republican position. They used to say: Don't limit what a person can give as long as they disclose it in a timely fashion.

They amended their decision after Citizens United and lopped off the end of it: Don't limit what a person can give--period. They do not call for timely disclosure anymore.

The DISCLOSE Act does. Why is it important? It is important because Americans have good judgment, and they know if a person--for example, the Koch brothers, the Koch brothers of Pennsylvania, if I am not mistaken, wherever their home is--they are interested in energy and oil production. If they invest millions of dollars on behalf of a certain candidate, many voters will say: I wonder what that candidate's position is on the issues of the tax treatment of oil companies, on energy tax credits, and the like. So Americans will ask the right question as long as they know who is behind the issue. Under Citizens United there is no compulsion.

Senator Bennet of Colorado said just moments ago the Supreme Court made it clear in the Citizens United decision that though they were unleashing the opportunity to contribute, they expected there would be accountability--like the DISCLOSE Act. Unfortunately, they did not anticipate it would become a partisan issue, and virtually no Republicans have supported us. Today when the vote was cast, not a single Republican would vote to bring this bill to the floor for debate.

We are now in the midst of a Republican filibuster on the DISCLOSE Act, another Republican filibuster. Not one single Republican Senator would join us in this effort to bring this bill to the floor for debate, amendment, and a vote. We have seen so many Republican filibusters. Now we see this one.

The reason this is more important than most is it gets to the heart of our political process. It isn't a matter of who spends what and how much in a campaign. I look at it in a little different perspective. I am concerned about who will run for office. I used to put myself in the category--I think it still applies--of mere mortals who decide to get involved in politics. I do not come from wealth. I am not a wealthy person. I have never relied on my personal wealth to get me elected. If I did, it wouldn't last very long.

I wonder if people like me will ever get engaged in politics after Citizens United. They have to stop and think: No matter how many doors I knock on, no matter how many hands I shake, no matter how often I study the issues and take the positions I think are meaningful and would resonate with voters, the fact is some super PAC could arrive tomorrow, spend $1 million, and blow me away. That is a humbling thought for someone deciding to engage in a race for public office for the first time.

I think this gets to the heart of what is wrong with politics in America--the cost and nature of our political campaigns. It is a fact--we hear it every day on the floor of the Senate--people measure the gravity and importance of votes in terms of their political impact. How many times have I heard someone cast a vote here and afterwards say: That will be a good 30-second spot. We think about that because we know that is what our life experience translates into--messages that can be delivered through the media to the voters. Now this outside force comes along and spends enormous amounts of money, dramatically increasing the amount that has been spent.

As was said earlier, in 2006, outside groups spent $70 million to influence Federal midterm elections; 4 years later super PACs, outside groups, spent $294 million, four times as much. Trust me, it is on its way up.

What will the average family think about this? I said to my colleagues at lunch a few weeks back: I think the average voter looks at this enormous wash of money coming into American politics much the way they view gangland killings. As long as they want to kill one another off and I don't have to hear the gunfire and my family is not in danger, let them have at it. Spend whatever you want, politicians versus politicians.

But the fact is this is going to be gunfire they are going to hear because the net result of these super PACs and the money they spend will be decisions on critical issues. Trust me, the people who are pouring the money into the super PACs have an agenda. It is an agenda about the role of government, what the Tax Code will look like, whether certain corporations and special interests will be treated in a better way by the candidates who are benefited by super PACs.

So though the average family may think it is just politicians squabbling and wasting their own money, it is much worse. It, unfortunately, brings us to the point where we have to worry about not who runs for office but, once elected, who will stay in office.

How about those in office? I have thought about it myself. I am sure my colleagues have. You cast a vote and you think: I just opened the door for a super PAC to come in the next time I am up for election and nail me because I took them on.

If we have reached the point where Members of the Senate are quaking and quivering about the prospect of super PAC money being spent against them, we are going to lose something very important and fundamental in the American body politic.

I also want to say something about those who are defending the secrecy of the super PACs. In my hometown newspaper and the newspapers in Chicago, after they print an article, they usually give local people a chance to anonymously comment. Occasionally, I read the banter back and forth. It is amazing, the chest thumping, fire breathing they get in these comments from these anonymous pipsqueaks who do not have the courage to disclose their own names. I would say it should be a standard in American politics that if someone feels strongly enough to put their money on the line in a super PAC, they ought to have the courage, and the law should require, that their identity be disclosed as well.

I see Senator Stabenow is here, and I know she has a busy life of her own. I am going to yield the floor to her. But I will say one more thing.

I was invited to go on ``The Daily Show,'' which a lot of people follow closely, and I enjoy every time I watch. Jon Stewart asked a question of me: If you could pass one law that would change politics for the better in America, what would it be?

I said: It may be a little egotistical of me, but it would be a bill I have for public financing of campaigns. I honestly believe if we move to a stage where we have public financing, shorter campaigns, positive messages, real debates, it would enhance not only our reputations with the voters of America, it would enhance the institutions we are running for.

Currently, we don't have that. We don't have public financing. Maybe we never will. But while we have the current system of money being spent, let's at least demand, as the DISCLOSE Act does, that there be transparency and accountability for the good of our democracy and for the good of the voters.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source