On the recordSeptember 22, 2010
I am glad to join my colleagues today to discuss our elections process and the state of campaign finance. As everyone here knows, in January of this year the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that the first amendment cannot limit corporate funding of political advertisements in candidates' elections. Effectively, this decision overturned decades of campaign finance law that limited special interest influence on elections. I am deeply concerned that this ruling is weakening the voice of the American people in our elections. Monday the New York Times reported that, since the ruling, many nonprofit advocacy groups have set up sister organizations and specially classified themselves under section 501(c) of the Tax Code. Organizations are using the 501(c) status as a loophole to avoid having to disclose their donors' identity. I want America's campaign finance process to be transparent. What do I mean by transparent? That the public knows who is paying for the message and how much. We have to be aware of the influence that money has on politics. In response to the Court's decision, the DISCLOSE Act was introduced to mitigate the harmful effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The DISCLOSE Act would implement comprehensive disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, and other organizations that spend money on Federal election campaigns. This is common sense.
