Currently the DISCLOSE Act’s cloture vote is on the floor. Last night Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the leading champion of free speech in the Senate, gave the following remarks:
“The mere suggestion that a bill designed to save politicians’ jobs should take precedent over helping millions of Americans find work is an embarrassing indictment of Democrats’ priorities. The DISCLOSE Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment. In the process, the authors of the bill have decided to trade our Constitutional rights away in a backroom deal that makes the Cornhusker Kickback look like a model of legislative transparency.”
This morning a number of Republican Senators have joined him on the floor – here are some excerpts:
Senator Cornyn: (10:43 AM)
- SUMMARY “I fear what this legislation does, in sum, is protect incumbents. Protect incumbents, which is not the type of legislation — and I think most of our constituents would want to see us pass. I think they would prefer legislation, if any legislation be necessary, that would not restrict freedom of speech, but one which would encourage freedom of speech and more political participation in our elections in the process. But this bill doesn’t do that. This bill protects incumbents by suppressing speech of some while letting other speakers speak without any limitation whatsoever. In other words, what this bill does is it picks winners and losers in the political speech contest, something that the First Amendment does not allow us to do”.
Senator Roberts: (11:25 AM)
- SUMMARY “Corporations and unions cannot — cannot — donate directly to a federal candidate. And contrary to the claim of the Disclose Act supporters, it is already illegal for foreign entities to participate in American elections. Unfortunately, the sponsors of the Disclose Act have chosen partisan fiction over fact in their effort to override the court. The Disclose Act is anything but full and fair campaign disclosure. It is politically skewed, motivated by a majority desperate to continue to be a majority. The Disclose Act is loaded with handouts to the most moneyed of Washington special interests, including the National Rifle Association, something that surprised me with regard to the NRA, but they didn’t want tape put on their mouths like anybody else. The Sierra Club, others were standing in line saying don’t muzzle me, you can muzzle the other guy behind the tree. I challenge anyone who comes to the floor to preach the virtues of this bill to explain with a straight face the carefully tailored exemptions from disclosure included in title 3. Moreover, despite a clever rewording of the language from the House-passed version, the Senate bill retains carve outs for labor unions by exempting donations under $600 under title 2, section 211. This figure is conveniently below the average union dues, so for $600 you’ve got free speech. If it’s over $600, sorry, you don’t.”
Senator Kyl: (11:39 AM)
- SUMMARY “Guaranteeing free speech is one of our most sacred responsibilities. This is a partisan bill drafted by Democrat campaign leaders. It is written to disadvantage Republicans and favor special interests supportive of Democrats. The closed-door process contradicts transparency. Again, written behind closed doors with the help of lobbyists and special interests.”
Senator Bennett: (11:49 AM)
- SUMMARY “Is this the way we want to deal with the First Amendment right of free speech, where everybody ought to have exactly the same right? Oh, no, I’m told this bill doesn’t prohibit any free speech. All this does is disclose. That’s why it’s called, the Disclose Act. You Republicans are in favor of transparency. You want to disclose things. Why don’t you support the Disclose Act? Well, if it’s a bill aimed at disclose, why does the word ‘prohibit’ and the companion word ‘prohibition’ appear all through the bill? I have a copy of the bill right here, and on page 4, section 3, listed on page 4, it begins, ‘prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communication.’ On page 5, section 3, ‘prohibiting independent expenditures’ and so on. Section 6, ‘prohibiting independent expenditures.’ And then on page 6, in section 7, ‘in these ways, prohibiting independent expenditures.’ You go to the first title of the bill, and it is titled ‘regulation of certain political spending.’ Section 101, ‘prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications.’ This is not a disclose act. This is an act aimed at prohibiting expenditures by certain people and certain groups.”