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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I am here to be on the Senate floor to join my colleagues in support of the DISCLOSE Act. We need to bring some transparency to the secret money that is being spent on campaigns across this country.

I ask unanimous consent for the following speakers to speak in the order that I am listing them: Senator Klobuchar, followed by Senator Menendez, Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Levin, and then myself.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, since the Supreme Court's decision 2 years ago in Citizens United, we have seen a new system of campaign finance emerge. Without limits on donations or limits on spending by outside groups such as super PACs, we have been inundated with mostly political advertisements while candidates from both sides of the aisle struggle to raise more and more money just to keep up.

Nearly $170 million has been spent so far in this election cycle by outside groups, and that does not include much the candidates themselves have spent. Just think what good we could do with that $170 million. The rising influence of donors and corporations is a problem. But the larger issue, and the one we are here to talk about--and I wish to recognize the leadership of Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who has done such a great job of raising the importance of this issue. The larger issue is the prevalence of secret money that is increasingly making its way into our campaigns. Millions of dollars of untraceable money have already been spent during this election. This spending is unacceptable because there is too much at stake in this election for Americans who are struggling. By that, I am not talking about the secret donors who can afford to spend millions of dollars on secret political ads. I am talking about middle-class families who are struggling with their mortgages, trying to pay for college, fighting to get their credit card payments mailed in on time. These are the Americans who need our attention.

They deserve to know who paid for the most recent negative ad they see on their television. The truth is middle-class families will not be able to catch a break unless we start by reducing the influence of special interests, of big donors, and of corporate lobbyists, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why it deserves our support.

We have heard Senator Levin speak very eloquently to the 501(c)(4) organizations, those organizations that are allowed to keep their donors secret. In many cases, they are actually allowed to deduct those contributions. Those secret donors can deduct those contributions from their taxes. It is hard to understand why they should be allowed to do that. It is not right. It is not fair. We need to change the system.

Some have objected to requiring disclosure of donors because they say it undermines free speech. Let me address that. Because our democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas--and political speech should enjoy the highest level of protection--we should recognize that citizens always have the right to speak and be heard, especially on matters as important as who should represent them in Washington.

That is not what the DISCLOSE Act is about. It is precisely because we need to make sure citizens stay involved in the political process that we need this reform, because freedom of speech does not mean freedom of secrecy. Anonymous political speech by these organizations has no place in our democracy. Accountability, transparency, and credibility must be preserved in our political system.

When I talk to voters in New Hampshire these days, they are not optimistic about being heard in Washington. According to the Granite State Poll that is done by the University of New Hampshire, three-quarters of our New Hampshire adults think Members of Congress are more interested in serving special interest groups. One-quarter of New Hampshire adults think they have no influence at all on what the Federal Government does.

People throughout New Hampshire and throughout this country do not believe their interests are being represented. What they do support is the kind of legislation we are talking about in the DISCLOSE Act. Three-quarters of New Hampshire adults strongly support a law that would require corporations, unions, and nonprofit groups to disclose their sources of spending when they participate in elections, and this support is not limited to New Hampshire.

According to a Greenberg-Quinlan poll recently, 77 percent of voters nationwide, regardless of party, say reforming our campaign finance system is very important.

I get a lot of cards and letters from people. Most of the people who write to me and write to all of us sign their names. Because they sign their names, we know who they are and we can respond. We can correct misunderstandings. We can engage in a discussion with them about policies before the Congress. The same should be true for political speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote--and we put this on poster board because I thought it was so apropos to what we have been talking about with the DISCLOSE Act. He said:

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.

It is important for donors to own their participation. That is what the DISCLOSE Act is about. That is why we should all vote to support it.

I can't finish my remarks without talking about a New Hampshire woman who really represents what we are talking about when we talk about participation in the political process. Her name was Doris Haddock, or Granny D, as we in New Hampshire knew her. Some people may remember that when she was 89 years old, she started walking across America to call attention to the importance of campaign finance reform. In the 14 months she took to walk across this country--and she turned 90 on the way--she traveled 3,200 miles, went through four pairs of sneakers, and everywhere she stopped, she talked about the importance of addressing campaign finance reform so that ordinary Americans could be heard.

Well, Granny D died 2 years ago at the age of 100.

She left behind 2 children, 8 grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren. She also left behind an incredible legacy that embodies the importance of what the first amendment was designed to protect and what it need not protect.

We need to make sure people like Granny D can continue to be heard regardless of how much money they have. That is why we need the DISCLOSE Act. The first amendment doesn't protect the rights of shell corporations and dummy organizations to flood our airwaves with negative ads using money from anonymous donors. Let's take a lesson from Granny D and take a stand and pull back the curtain to see who is behind all of this secret money. The DISCLOSE Act will allow us to do that. That is why we should support its passage. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will decide they should join us. It is critical to our democratic process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source