arget="_blank"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Beto O`Rourke on Government Reform

Beto O`Rourke on Government Reform





End secret spending flooding American elections

Ted Cruz (R): No. Opposes DISCLOSE Act, as it raises "grave constitutional concern for speech protected by the First Amendment." Supports Citizens United as aid to 1st Amendment free speech protections.

Beto O'Rourke (D): Yes. Co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act to "shine light on the unlimited, secret spending flooding American elections," including foreign influence. Supreme Court should end Citizens United.

Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Texas Senate race , Oct 9, 2018

Empower communities by ending gerrymandering

Ted Cruz (R): No. Political gerrymandering is legitimate, though not racial gerrymandering.

Beto O'Rourke (D): Yes. "Empower communities by making sure voters can pick their representatives, not the other way."

Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Texas Senate race , Oct 9, 2018

Committed to personal term limit for serving in Congress

BO: When [my wife] Amy and I were first talking about running for Congress in 2011-2012, we decided that we would do term limits, and not serve more than four years. In part it was, "I just don't want you to be an ass; I haven't met somebody in this line of work who doesn't become one, that doesn't think that they are so important only they can do it." She's my answer to that. And our kids too. They bring you back down to earth. They could care less about Ted Cruz or what we are doing in the campaign right now. It's hard to do this with little kids, but it also continuously grounds you and reminds you who you are doing it for. Whatever you can do to make sure you never take yourself or your situation too seriously, that's the key. And for me it's Amy and the kids who help me with that.

Source: Austin Chronicle on 2018 Texas Senate race , Aug 17, 2018

Members of Congress use our tax dollars to get re-elected

Term limits. Congressional work should be a job, not a lifestyle or a gravy train paid for with your tax dollars. I support term limits.

Constituent Support. My local constituent office will focus on your needs, not electioneering. Expect attentive service and great results.

Accountability and Transparency. I will hold regular town hall meetings to ensure you have a Congressman you can talk to--not over the phone via expensive, taxpayer-funded telephonic "town halls".

Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;

a public debate requirement;

establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;

remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;

Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won't be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we'll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we'll win.

Source: S.375/H.R.269 14_H269 on Jan 15, 2013

No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].

Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole's amendment] this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election].

Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_H3899 on Jan 16, 2014

Establish "My Voice Voucher" small campaign contributions.

Congressional summary:

A refundable tax credit of 50% of congressional House campaign contributions, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.

Establishes the Government by the People Oversight Commission, which will launch a pilot program and select 3 eligible states to operate a voucher pilot program.

Provide each qualified individual during the election cycle, upon his or her request, with a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50 (in either paper or electronic form).

Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.

Prohibits a certified participating candidate from establishing or controlling a leadership PAC (political action committee).

Proponent's argument in favor (by Reps. Nancy Pelosi & John Sarbanes): Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government. Most members of Congress would leap at the chance to fund their campaigns without having to turn to a familiar cast of big donors and entrenched interests. Today, that's virtually impossible. But we can and must break the grip of special interests on our politics: rally around H.R. 20.

Opponent's argument against (The Examiner): The proposed legislation seeks to undo the Citizens United v. FEC ruling which has been a thorn in the side of progressives ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending was "a form of protected speech under the First Amendment." Although the "Government by the People Act" innocently claims to want to get big money out of politics, the real goal is to smash the Tea Party. The fear that conservative groups would have access to funds typically granted to progressive groups and unions was too much to bear.

Source: H.R.20 14-H0020 on Feb 5, 2014

Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

Congressional Summary:<

Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.

Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.

Provide, upon request, a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50.

Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.

Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.

Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].

Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress' priorities and erodes the public's trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won't moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for "the rational small donor who right now isn't going to give $25 because they've figured out that it's not going to matter." The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

Source: Government By the People Act 15_H020 on Jan 21, 2015

No separate contribution limits for party activities.

Congressional Summary: To repeal the Federal Election Campaign provisions which established separate contribution limits for contributions made to national parties to support Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and recounts.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: Rep. KILMER. This legislation repeals the last-minute changes to campaign finance law that were tacked into a 1,600-page bill to fund the government. As a result of this legislation, the wealthiest donors can now each contribute more than $750,000 per year to a political party, more than seven times the previous cap. Worst of all, these changes were buried in a bill with no hearing and no public debate. This bill protects the interests of "We the People" and make sure that the wealthiest donors don't get another chance to flood our elections with even more money and to undermine our democracy.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Washington Post article, Oct. 9, 2014): The FEC said that contributions to presidential convention committees will not count against the annual limit on donations to national parties--allowing wealthy donors to double their support for party operations. The FEC's move came in response to a rare joint request by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, which argued that they needed a new avenue to raise funds for the events after a federal law eliminated public funding for the conventions. But critics of the decision said the FEC created an end-run around federal contribution limits. Under the current rules, individuals can give up to $32,400 per year to a national party committee. Now, donors will be able to give an additional $32,400 each year to a separate committee set up to finance the quadrennial convention. That means that a single donor could give nearly $130,000 to support a party and its convention in a two-year election cycle.

Source: Close the Floodgates Act 15_H154 on Jan 6, 2015

Statehood for the District of Columbia.

Congressional Summary: Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia.

Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution, and issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia.

Requires the President to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union.

Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (DCist.com, Sept. 2014): The Argument Against: Congress does not have the authority to grant statehood to D.C.; the 23rd amendment, which gave D.C. three electoral votes, would have to be repealed before statehood was granted. Washington is a wholly urban, one-industry town, dependent on the federal government far in excess of any other state. Moreover, with Congress no longer having authority over New Columbia but dependent on it, New Columbia could exert influence on the federal government far in excess of any other state.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: [Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC; the District of Columbia has one representative to Congress and no Senators; Rep. Holmes can introduce bills but her vote does not count]: This 51st state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. Those would remain under federal jurisdiction. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced in 1991. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States.

Source: New Columbia Admission Act 15_H317 on Jan 13, 2015

Automatic voter registration for all citizens.

Congressional Summary:

Require each state to make available official public websites for online voter registration.

Authorizes automated voter registration and establishes same day registration, and voter registration of individuals under 18 years of age.

Declares that the right to vote shall not be denied because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (BrennanCenter.org): Too many Americans go to vote on Election Day only to find their names are not on the voter rolls--often, wrongly deleted. The US is on the verge of a new paradigm for registering voters: automatic, permanent registration of eligible voters, which would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Gov. Christie's veto message on the "Democracy Act", Nov. 2015): Christie called a provision establishing automatic voter registration that requires New Jerseyan to opt out a "government-knows-best, backwards approach that would inconvenience citizens and waste government resources for no justifiable reason." Automatic voter registration would have added 1.6 million people to the state's voter rolls.

(PopVox.org blog) TN-8: I have voted in every election federal, state or local that I chose to. If people want to vote there is nothing but laziness preventing them from doing so today! Regarding photo ID's you have one to drive, buy alcohol, and go to the doctor.

AL-2: This bill is so general that anyone that is alive, has lived, or will live in this century will be able to vote as well as non-Americans, pets, people without voting rights, and some people multiple times.

TN-3: This bill will surely bring about fixed voting in favor of the one who can cheat the most. How about having a voter photo card and a test to see if they are capable of voting and not just voting for whoever promises them more free stuff.

Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-H12 on Mar 19, 2015

Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits.

Excerpts from press release on Term Limits Caucus: Two U.S. Term Limits pledge signers, Republican Rep. Rod Blum (IA-1) and Democrat Rep. Beto O`Rourke (TX-16), have announced the formation of a Term Limits Caucus, which will work to build bipartisan support behind a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congress. "The root of this problem is that politicians are incentivized by the system to care more about retaining their position than doing what is best for the country," Blum said. "Our founding fathers never intended for public service to be a career, rather, serving in Congress was designed to be a temporary sacrifice made for the public good."

The new working group will marshal pro-term limits members together to pursue common ground. One of its most important duties will be building consensus around the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three House terms and two Senate terms, to which both Blum and O`Rourke have pledged their exclusive support.

Supporting argument: (Cato Institute): We should limit members to three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Let more people serve. Let more people make the laws. And let's get some people who don't want to make Congress a lifelong career. Some say that term limits would deprive us of the skills of experienced lawmakers. Really? It's the experienced legislators who gave us a $17 trillion national debt, and the endless war in Iraq, and the Wall Street bailout.

Supporting argument: (Heritage Foundation): The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests--particularly labor unions--that support them. Special interests oppose term limits because they do not want to lose their valuable investments in incumbent legislators. Many are organized to extract programs, subsidies, and regulations from the federal government--to use the law as a lever to benefit their own constituencies or harm their rivals.

Source: U.S. Term Limits 17MEM-USTL on Jan 26, 2017

CC:Oppose strict Constitutionalist judges.

The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution' Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."

Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1a on Jul 1, 2018

Search for...



X

Page last updated: Jan 07, 2019