Charles Schumer and others said the issue deserves continued attention. DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

Senate Democrats on Monday lost another attempt to pass legislation forcing donors of groups that bankroll most election ads to be revealed. But Democrats, led by New York Sen. Charles Schumer, pledged to hold the Senate floor hostage and continue the debate well into the night.

The DISLCOSE Act, which was dealt the same fate in the Senate in 2010, failed to overcome a key procedural vote on entirely partisan lines, 51-44. Democrats will push for another vote as early as Tuesday after holding a “midnight vigil” to protest the GOP filibuster of the measure.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the only Democrat to vote “no” — a procedural move allowing him to bring it up again. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote on the bill, which would require unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more.

The new, stripped down version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) no longer required sponsors of electioneering ads to have a disclaimer at the end and pushed the effective date to 2013. A discharge petition in the House to bring up the DISCLOSE act was also filed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) last week.

The push for the act comes as Democrats are lagging behind Republicans in fundraising. Critics of the bill argued that bringing up the measure was merely a political ploy.

“I just think it’s political theater at a time when we have real problems to solve,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also questioned the timing of the bill and argued that it would chill speech and lead to and potentially invite intimidation of donors whose identities were revealed. He and other Republicans said that although the language in the bill is the same for unions and corporate interest groups, in practice the measure would benefit unions.

“Senate Democrats want us to waste our time on the Disclose Act, a bill that has only two discernible purposes: To create the impression of mischief where there is none and to send a signal to unions that Democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding as ever,” McConnell said on the floor before the vote.

Democrats claim McConnell, the most vocal critic of the bill, has flip-flopped on disclosure after seeing how Republicans have benefited from outside spending groups. Schumer and others said the issue deserves continued attention now that voters are seeing and raising questions about the election ads that are taking over the airwaves.

The White House released a statement after the measure failed expressing President Barack Obama’s disappointment.

“This bill should have received broad, bipartisan support,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, Republicans chose to block it. Instead of standing up for the American people, Republicans stood with big banks and oil companies – special interests that certainly don’t need more clout in Washington. “

Outside spending groups, including super PACS, party committees and groups such as corporations and unions have spent a total of $175.6 million so far this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A large portion of that money goes toward sponsoring election ads.

“Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the floor before the vote. “If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they’ve just bought the country. That’s a sad commentary. About 60 percent or more of these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who voted for the bill, said the debate isn’t going away.

“I think it’ll come back and come back again,” Nelson said. “It is in the best interest of this country going forward.”

No one on either side of the debate expected the bill to pass.

“I don’t think given where we are in the election cycle, there is any realistic expectation for them to pop over,” Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said of the Republican support needed to advance the bill. The group is one of several pro-disclosure organizations advocating for passage.

David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, who testified at hearings against the bill, said it would keep nonprofits from sponsoring issue-advocacy ads because in an election cycle they would be lumped in with election ads.

“There are plenty of ads that are lobbying related,” Keating said. “You would have to go through all the red tape for those. It’s being billed as an election disclosure bill, but it covers way more than that.”