Press Releases

M. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and of the underlying bill.

During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, -You know, Jim - I think there should be more special interest money in politics.-

Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district.

Because in January, the Court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections.

As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

It's a sad state of affairs when -Swift Boating- has entered the language as a verb. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision makes Swift Boating easier for the special interests.

Large multinational corporations would now be able to create shadowy groups and pour millions of dollars into supporting or defeating candidates. If BP doesn't like somebody, they could create -Americans for Sensible Energy- and run attack ad after attack ad after attack ad.

While we cannot undo the Court's decision, we can and we must try to minimize its impact.

That's why the sensible, bipartisan legislation before us today is so important.

The DISCLOSE Act will go a long way toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. And I want to commend Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle for their work on the bill.

This legislation does several important things.

It requires the heads of these third-party organizations to -stand by their ad,- just like political candidates are required to do.

It requires the organization to list its top five contributors onscreen at the end of the ad.

It would ban U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests and foreign companies - like BP - from making political expenditures in our elections.

And it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer money - like Wall Street banks and government contractors - from pouring money into politics.

The bill is supported by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Common Cause and other national reform groups.

To be sure, this bill isn't perfect. It contains an exemption for certain, longstanding organizations that take a small amount of corporate or union money. I know a lot of us aren't particularly pleased with that change, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.

Moving forward, I would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano, the Shareholder Protection Act. This bill would give shareholders a voice in how companies spend their money.

Opponents of this bill have already begun making noises about challenging it in court. I would remind them that polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of this reform.

We must do all we can to bring more openness and transparency to our political process. The DISCLOSE Act before us today is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.