Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case fundamentally altered the political landscape. As a result of the Court's ruling, all organizations, corporations and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. This could allow corporations to simply take over the political system.

According to a report released late last year by Common Cause, the average amount spent for winning a House seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. During the same cycle, Exxon-Mobil recorded $80 billion in profits. If Exxon-Mobil chose to use just 1 percent of their profits on political activity, it would be more than what all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle, and that's just 1 percent of the profits of one corporation.

Now according to the Supreme Court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the American public. And I will read you what the Court said in its decision: ``The First Amendment protects political speech, and 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.'' And that's what this bill does. It does exactly what the Supreme Court said that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency.

In the past, transparency has been a bipartisan issue. Senator Mitch McConnell was quoted in April saying, ``We need to have real disclosure.'' Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure? Republican leader John Boehner in 2007 said, ``I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure.'' And went on to say, ``I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.''

This measure, the DISCLOSE Act, has been supported by government reform groups, including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizens, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; and the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee have released a letter indicating their strong commitment to Senate action on the DISCLOSE Act. The White House strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act. The President says he will sign this bill when it comes to his desk.

Now, I ask my colleagues, will you stand with the American people in calling for disclosure and transparency in the political process, or will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the expenditure of undisclosed, limitless amounts of money? I think that we should stand with the American people. We should vote for the DISCLOSE Act. Disclosure is good. Voters need to know who is saying what.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, Representative King's amendment would, as he has indicated, eliminate all limitations on Federal election campaign contributions, corporations and unions. Individuals could donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates, political parties, and committees. I think this is a fairly cynical amendment designed to undermine all support for additional disclosure and reasonable regulation.

Since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was first challenged, the Supreme Court has always upheld reasonable contribution limits to candidates and political parties, and they did so as a reasonable means to prevent corruption. Even the Citizens United decision itself did not question the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on direct contributions to candidates, and they reaffirmed that the Court was concerned that large contributions could be given to secure a political quid pro quo.

I quote the Court decision where they refer favorably to the Buckley court: ``Nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption.'' That case did not extend the rationale to independent expenditures, and the Court didn't do so in Citizens United. But it did quote the Buckley court favorably on the limitation of expenditures when it came to candidates or political parties.

Money has a corrosive effect on the electoral process, and eliminating campaign limits would start a political arms war. Candidates have to raise millions of dollars to run competitive campaigns; and if Mr. King's amendment passes, candidates are going to turn to wealthy donors, special interests, corporations to get their money, and the voices of average Americans will not be heard. If this amendment is passed, the voices of the American people will be drowned out by wealthy corporations and other interest groups. This isn't what we should do. It's not what the Court suggested we do. And I would urge that we oppose the King amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note, going back again to the Court decision, that although the Citizens United case did not attack--it was not about the constraint on individual contributions to candidates--the Court did, as I mentioned to you earlier and quoted, reference favorably the Buckley court, sustaining the constitutionality of those constraints.

It's worth noting that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has been the law for nearly 40 years. It's 39 years. It's helped clean up the role of money in politics. It's been improved over the years. I mentioned earlier under general debate the case of how much is spent in any given year; and I used the example 2008, the last big election, where 435 Members of Congress spent about $840 million. That's the equivalent of 1 percent of the profits of Exxon-Mobil for 1 year.

What Mr. King's amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation Member of Congress to go to the oil corporation and say, Write me a check that's half a percent of your profit; and that would be legal. That's not what we want in America. We don't want corporations pouring money into individual campaigns, disclosed or not. That's going to drown out the voices of regular Americans. It's not what the law permits today. The Court decision does not ask us to change the law, and I would urge that we defeat Mr. King's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment. From the gentleman's comments, he favors disclosure. I hope, therefore, he votes for the DISCLOSE Act. But we didn't need to open the door to unlimited funds by corporations to candidates. We know it will be sleazy. In order to get disclosure, vote ``no'' on the King amendment and ``yes'' on the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.

Source