Calendar No. 476
S. 3628
.....................................................................(Original Signature of Member)
112
TH
CONGRESS2
D
S
ESSION
H. R.
ll
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
prohibit foreign influence inFederal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditureswith respect to such elections, and to establish
provide foradditionaldisclosure requirements
with respect to spending in such elections
for corporations,labor organizations, andother entities, and for other purposes.
IN THE
SENATE
HOUSEOF
THE UNITED STATES
REPRESENTATIVES
J
ULY
21,
2010
Mr.
S
CHUMER
V
AN
H
OLLEN
introduced the following bill; which was
read
referred tothe
first time
J
ULY
22,
2010
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Committee on llllllllllllll
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
prohibit foreigninfluence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from makingexpenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish
provide foradditional disclosure requirements
with respect to spending insuch elections
for corporations,labor organizations, and other entities, andfor other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disclosure ofInformation on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and SecureElections Act of 2012’’ or the ‘‘DISCLOSE 2012 Act’’.
SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) S
HORT
T
ITLE
.
—This Act may be cited as the “Democracy isStrengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” or the“DISCLOSE Act”.(b) T
ABLE
O
F
C
ONTENTS
.
—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
SEC. 2.
FINDINGS.
(a) G
ENERAL
F
INDINGS
.
—Congress finds and declares as follows:(1) Throughout the history of the United States, the American peoplehave been rightly concerned about the power of special interests to controlour democratic processes. That was true over 100 years ago when Congressfirst enacted legislation intended to restrict corporate funds from being usedin Federal elections, legislation that Congress amended in 1947 to expresslyinclude independent expenditures. The Supreme Court held such legislationto be constitutional in 1990 in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce(494 U.S. 652) and again in 2003 in McConnell v. F.E.C. (540 U.S. 93).(2) The Supreme Court’s decision in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
on January 21, 2010, invalidated legislation restrictingthe ability of corporations and labor unions to spend funds from theirgeneral treasury accounts to influence the outcome of elections.(b) F
INDINGS
R
ELATING
T
O
G
OVERNMENT
C
ONTRACTORS
.
—Congressfinds and declares as follows:(1) Government contracting is an activity that is particularly susceptibleto improper influence, and to the appearance of improper influence.Government contracts must be awarded based on an objective evaluation of how well bidders or potential contractors meet relevant statutory criteria.(2) Independent expenditures and electioneering communications thatbenefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponentscan lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid proquo arrangements. Government contracts should be awarded based on anobjective application of statutory criteria, not based on other forms of inappropriate or corrupting influence.
(3) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneeringcommunications by persons negotiating for or performing governmentcontracts will prevent government officials involved in or with influenceover the contracting process from influencing the contracting process based,consciously or otherwise, on this kind of inappropriate or corruptinginfluence.(4) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneeringcommunications by persons negotiating for or performing governmentcontracts will likewise prevent such persons from feeling pressure, whetheractually exerted by government officials or not, to make expenditures and tofund communications in order to maximize their chances of receivingcontracts, or to match similar expenditures and communications made bytheir competitors.(5) Furthermore, because government contracts often involve largeamounts of public money, it is critical that the public perceive that thegovernment contracts are awarded strictly in accordance with prescribedstatutory standards, and not based on other forms of inappropriate orcorrupting influence. The public’s confidence in government is underminedwhen corporations that make significant expenditures during Federalelection campaigns later receive government funds.(6) Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneeringcommunications by persons negotiating for or performing governmentcontracts will prevent any appearance that government contracts wereawarded based in whole or in part on such expenditures or communications,or based on the inappropriate or corrupting influence such expenditures andcommunications can create and appear to create.(7) In these ways, prohibiting independent expenditures andelectioneering communications by persons negotiating for or performinggovernment contracts will protect the actual and perceived integrity of thegovernment contracting process.(8) Moreover, the risks of waste, fraud and abuse, all resulting ineconomic losses to taxpayers, are significant when would-be publiccontractors or applicants for public funds make expenditures in Federalelection campaigns in order to affect electoral outcomes.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Redline of 2010 and 2012 DISCLOSE Act
A Sunlight Foundation quick redline that shows how the 2012 DISCLOSE Act differs from the 2010 version.
324
Reads
0
Readcasts
3.7K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
