Disclose Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have not taken an opportunity to speak to the DISCLOSE Act, which is currently before us, or the holding of Citizens United. I haven't come to the floor to address that, but that does not mean this has not been a discussion of great importance in the State of Alaska.
Alaskans are a pretty independent lot. I think they like to know what is behind certain initiatives, certainly when it comes to the financing of campaigns. They want to know where and when and how and why and that it is appropriate. Our State legislature has enacted some campaign finance reforms that I think have been good. Alaskans have looked very critically at the Citizens United decision and its impact on the campaigns in this country.
I have made no secret of the fact that I disagree with the holdings of the Citizens United decision which makes it possible for individuals and business entities to make contributions in any amount, at any time to independent efforts to elect candidates at the Federal, State, and local levels.
I think this decision not only overturned longstanding Federal law, it also, to a certain extent, displaced State laws, including the laws in my own State of Alaska which barred corporate participation in State elections. It gave birth to a new form of political entity. We all know it; we are all talking about it now, particularly with the Presidential election--the super PAC, a vehicle for large donors. When we are talking about large donors, we are not just talking about donors who can put forth thousands of dollars. We are talking about donors who put forth multimillions of dollars, and it is done to influence the American political process in secret by contributing to organizations with very patriotic names, but they lurk behind post office boxes. There is an anonymity, there is a covering that I do not think the American public expects or respects.
I believe strongly--I believe very strongly--that the Citizens United decision is corrosive to democracy. At a very minimum the American people deserve to know who is behind the organizations, who is funding them, and what their real agendas are.
I think if we were to ask the average American out on the street: Do you think it is reasonable that there be disclosure, full disclosure of where the campaign dollars are coming from, I think the average American would say: Yes. I know the average Alaskan is saying yes.
So when they see what this Supreme Court case has allowed--courts have determined this is constitutional--I do not think anybody assumed what it would lead to is an ability for an individual to give millions of dollars to influence an election, and yet not be subject to a level of disclosure that is fair and balanced.
I came to the floor very late last night after flying in from Alaska. I left at 7 o'clock in the morning, and my plane touched down at about 10:15 last night. As I landed, I saw the lights of the Capitol on. I knew somebody was still home. The flag that flies on the Senate side of the Capitol was still up, meaning the Senate was still in session, so I decided to come to the floor and see what was going on and to perhaps listen to a little bit of the debate.
I was tired. I was tired from flying. But I was truly tired that as a body, when we have an issue that is important, is significant--whether it is campaign finance or the tax issues we face, whether it is the sequestration issue we will shortly be facing--we are once again in a position where we are doing nothing but messaging. I am so tired of messaging, and I think the folks whom we represent are tired of us messaging.
I want us to have some reforms when it comes to campaign finance and the disclosure that the American public thinks makes sense, where they say: Good. This is not something where you are hiding behind an organization, whether it is a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(3) or a super PAC, or however we define it. We want to know that you are open and you are transparent.
I did not stay too late last night to listen to the debates. But I will tell you that the comments I heard from my colleagues were pretty sound. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why it is appropriate that the name, the address, the occupation of an individual who makes a contribution of between $200 and $5,000 to Lisa Murkowski's committee must be disclosed--that is what is required under the law. But somehow or other there is a constitutional right for someone who gives $1 million, $15 million to an independent effort that either supports or opposes an election can do so in secrecy. They can do so in a way that is not subject to disclosure. I do not think that makes sense, and I do not think it would make sense to anybody else out there on the street. What is the difference?
But I would also suggest to you the converse is true as well. I do not believe the membership lists--whether it is the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association or the NAACP--I do not think those lists need to be public because an organization has made a relatively small donation from its treasury funds to independent efforts. Those who chose to affiliate with broad-based membership organizations deserve to have their privacy interests maintained. So you have things going on both sides here.
Again, what we should be doing in this case is trying to figure out where there is a balance. Where is that fairness? Given that a $2,500 contribution to me as a candidate--the maximum that can be given to any candidate for any election--has to be disclosed, I do not understand why the bill that is before us, the DISCLOSE Act 3.0, sets the bar for disclosure of a contribution to an independent effort at $10,000. That does not make sense to me either.
So I guess where I am at this point in time--recognizing that in a matter of minutes we are going to have yet another vote on DISCLOSE under reconsideration--I do think that all these issues need to be addressed in a DISCLOSE 4.0. Maybe we will move to that in the next iteration, but that is not going to be happening here. Yesterday's vote was decisive. As I mentioned, I was flying all day. I was not here at 6 o'clock when that vote was taken. But that vote was pretty clear. There is no way we can reconfigure things, even with the support of Lisa Murkowski, so that we could actually get to this bill and start making those changes.
So we are sitting here at a point where we have precious little time before us before we break for August and then come back. We have the campaigns. We have a lot on our plate. I think we recognize that. Saying that, I have already said I think this is a critically important issue. But it is an issue we will not resolve today. It is not possible to resolve today. So we should accept that fact and move forward. We have a lot to do.
What I intend to do is to continue the work I began months ago with colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work to resolve some of these issues, to work on a bipartisan basis on a bill that I hope we can take up as a body. There are Senators who want to work on this. I have met with them and we continue to try to figure out that path forward. But that path forward has to be a bipartisan path. It has to be a bipartisan path.
I hope we can put some kind of a vehicle to hearings and consider it on the floor with an open amendment process, the way we can and should do things around here. That is what I strive to do. That is my commitment. I want to work with my colleague from Rhode Island. I want to work with my colleagues from Colorado and Oregon and New York and my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I think we all recognize this is in the best interests of not only those of us in the Senate but for those we represent--that there is a level of transparency, openness, fairness, and balance when it comes to campaign finance. That is my commitment.
With that, I know I have probably consumed more than my time. But I appreciate the opportunity to work seriously and genuinely with my colleagues on this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source