Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

John Campbell on Government Reform

Republican Representative (CA-48)


Voted NO on Senate pay raise.

Congressional Summary:
    Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
  1. expense allowances;
  2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
  3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
  4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
  5. inquiries and investigations;
  6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
  7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
  8. miscellaneous items;
  9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
  10. official mail costs.
Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1968 to increase by $50,000 the gross compensation paid all employees in the office of a Senator. Increases by $96,000 per year the aggregate amount authorized for the offices of the Majority and Minority Whip.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Reference: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act; Bill HR2918&S1294 ; vote number 2009-H413 on Jun 19, 2009

Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress.

Bill to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for representation in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College. Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members beginning with the 110th Congress. [Political note: D.C. currently has a non-voting delegate to the US House. Residents of D.C. overwhelmingly vote Democratic, so the result of this bill would be an additional Democratic vote in the House and for President].

Proponents support voting YES because:

This bill corrects a 200-year-old oversight by restoring to the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to elect a Member of the House of Representatives who has the same voting rights as all other Members.

Residents of D.C. serve in the military. They pay Federal taxes each year. Yet they are denied the basic right of full representation in the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia was created to prevent any State from unduly influencing the operations of the Federal Government. However, there is simply no evidence that the Framers of the Constitution thought it was necessary to keep D.C. residents from being represented in the House by a voting Member.

Opponents support voting NO because:

The proponents of this bill in 1978 believed that the way to allow D.C. representation was to ratify a constitutional amendment. The Founders of the country had the debate at that time: Should we give D.C. a Representative? They said no. So if you want to fix it, you do it by making a constitutional amendment.

Alternatively, we simply could have solved the D.C. representation problem by retroceding, by giving back part of D.C. to Maryland. There is precedent for this. In 1846, Congress took that perfectly legal step of returning present-day Arlington to the State of Virginia.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill H R 1905 ; vote number 2007-231 on Apr 19, 2007

Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals for federal employees, particularly on national security issues.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This bill would strengthen one of our most important weapons against waste, fraud and abuse, and that is Federal whistleblower protections. Federal employees are on the inside and offer accountability. They can see where there is waste going on or if there is corruption going on.

One of the most important provisions protects national security whistleblowers. There are a lot of Federal officials who knew the intelligence on Iraq was wrong. But none of these officials could come forward. If they did, they could have been stripped of their security clearances, or they could have been fired. Nobody blew the whistle on the phony intelligence that got us into the Iraq war.

Opponents support voting NO because:

It is important that personnel within the intelligence community have appropriate opportunities to bring matters to Congress so long as the mechanisms to do so safeguard highly sensitive classified information and programs. The bill before us suffers from a number of problems:

  1. The bill would conflict with the provisions of the existing Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which protecting sensitive national security information from unauthorized disclosure to persons not entitled to receive it.
  2. The bill violates the rules of the House by encouraging intelligence community personnel to report highly sensitive intelligence matters to committees other than the Intelligence Committees. The real issue is one of protecting highly classified intelligence programs and ensuring that any oversight is conducted by Members with the appropriate experiences, expertise, and clearances.
  3. This bill would make every claim of a self-described whistleblower, whether meritorious or not, subject to extended and protracted litigation.
Reference: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act; Bill H R 985 ; vote number 2007-153 on Mar 14, 2007

Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections.

Requires that to vote in federal elections, an individual present a government-issued, current, and valid photo identification. After 2010, that ID must require providing proof of US citizenship as a condition for issuance. An individual who does not present such an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot, and then present the required ID within 48 hours. Exempts from this requirement the absentee ballot of any eligible overseas military voter on active duty overseas.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The election system is the bedrock that our Republic is built on and its security and oversight is of paramount concern. Only US citizens have the right to vote in Federal elections, but our current system does not give State election officials the tools they need to ensure that this requirement is being met.

This bill is designed to increase participation by ensuring that each legitimate vote will be counted and not be diluted by fraud. There are many elections in this country every cycle that are decided by just a handful of votes. How can we be certain that these elections, without measures to certify the identity of voters, are not being decided by fraudulent votes?

Opponents support voting NO because:

There is something we can all agree on: only Americans get to vote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in this bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a felony for a non-American to vote. We had hearings and what we found out was that the issue of illegal aliens voting basically does not occur.

The impact of this will disproportionately affect poor people and African Americans, because many are too poor to have a car and they do not have a license. We have no evidence there is a problem. We have ample evidence that this will disenfranchise many Americans. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.

Reference: Federal Election Integrity Act; Bill H R 4844 ; vote number 2006-459 on Sep 20, 2006

Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees.

A "527 organization" is a political committee which spends money raised independently of any candidate's campaign committee, in support or opposition of a candidate or in support or opposition of an issue. Well-known examples include MoveOn.org (anti-Bush) and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (anti-Kerry). Voting YES would regulate 527s as normal political committees, which would greatly restrict their funding, and hence would shift power to candidate committees and party committees. The bill's opponents say:
  • This legislation singles out 527 organizations in an effort to undermine their fundraising and is a direct assault on free speech.
  • This bill would obstruct the efforts of grassroots organizations while doing nothing to address the culture of corruption in Congress.
  • H.R. 513 is an unbalanced measure that favors corporate trade associations over independent advocates. Corporate interests could continue spending unlimited and undisclosed dollars for political purposes while independent organizations would be subject to contribution limits and source restrictions.
  • H.R. 513 also removes all limits on national and state party spending for Congressional candidates in primary or general elections--an unmasked attack on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and clear evidence that the true intention in advancing H.R. 513 is not reform, but partisan advantage in political fundraising.
    Reference: Federal Election Campaign Act amendment "527 Reform Act"; Bill H.R.513 ; vote number 2006-088 on Apr 5, 2006

    2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform: John Campbell on other issues:
    CA Gubernatorial:
    Antonio Villaraigosa
    Eric Garcetti
    Jerry Brown
    Jerry Sanders
    CA Senatorial:
    Barbara Boxer
    Dianne Feinstein



    Lame-duck session 2012:
    KY-4: Thomas Massie(R)
    MI-11:Dave Curson(D)
    NJ-9: Donald Payne Jr.(D)
    WA-1: Suzan DelBene(D)

    Re-seated Former Reps:
    AZ-1: Ann Kirkpatrick(D)
    AZ-5: Matt Salmon(R)
    FL-8: Alan Grayson(D)
    IL-11:Bill Foster(D)
    NH-1: Carol Shea-Porter(D)
    NV-3: Dina Titus(D)
    NY-24:Dan Maffei(D)
    TX-36:Steve Stockman(R)

    2013 Resignations and Replacements:
    AL-1:Jo Bonner(R,resigned)
    IL-2:Jesse Louis Jackson(D,resigned)
    IL-2:Robin Kelly(D)
    MA-5:Ed Markey(D,to Senate)
    MA-8:Stephen Lynch(D)
    MO-8:Jo Ann Emerson(R,resigned)
    MO-8:Jason Smith(R,elected June 2013)
    SC-1:Tim Scott(R,resigned)
    SC-1:Mark Sanford(R)
    SC-1:Elizabeth Colbert-Busch(D)
    Newly-elected Democrats:
    AZ-9: Kyrsten Sinema
    CA-2: Jared Huffman
    CA-7: Ami Bera
    CA-15:Eric Swalwell
    CA-24:Julia Brownley
    CA-29:Tony Cardenas
    CA-35:Gloria Negrete McLeod
    CA-36:Raul Ruiz
    CA-41:Mark Takano
    CA-47:Alan Lowenthal
    CA-51:Juan Vargas
    CA-52:Scott Peters
    CT-5: Elizabeth Esty
    FL-18:Patrick Murphy
    FL-22:Lois Frankel
    FL-26:Joe Garcia
    HI-2: Tulsi Gabbard
    IL-8: Tammy Duckworth
    IL-10:Brad Schneider
    IL-12:Bill Enyart
    IL-17:Cheri Bustos
    MD-6: John Delaney
    MA-4: Joe Kennedy III
    MI-5: Dan Kildee
    MN-8: Rick Nolan
    NV-4: Steven Horsford
    NH-2: Annie Kuster
    NM-1: Michelle Lujan-Grisham
    NY-5: Grace Meng
    NY-10:Hakeem Jeffries
    NY-18:Sean Maloney
    OH-10:Joyce Beatty
    PA-17:Matt Cartwright
    TX-16:Beto O`Rourke
    TX-20:Joaquin Castro
    TX-23:Pete Gallego
    TX-33:Marc Veasey
    TX-34:Filemon Vela
    WA-6: Derek Kilmer
    WA-10:Denny Heck
    WI-2: Mark Pocan
    Newly-elected Republicans:
    AR-4: Tom Cotton
    CA-1: Doug LaMalfa
    CA-21:David Valadao
    CA-41:Paul Cook
    FL-3: Ted Yoho
    FL-6: Ron DeSantis
    FL-19:Trey Radel
    GA-9: Doug Collins
    IL-15:Rodney Davis
    IN-2: Jackie Walorski
    IN-5: Susan Brooks
    IN-6: Luke Messer
    KY-6: Andy Barr
    MI-11:Kerry Bentivolio
    MO-2: Ann Wagner
    MT-0: Steve Daines
    NY-26:Chris Collins
    NC-8: Richard Hudson
    NC-9: Robert Pittenger
    NC-11:Mark Meadows
    NC-13:George Holding
    ND-0: Kevin Cramer
    OH-2: Brad Wenstrup
    OH-14:Dave Joyce
    OK-1: Jim Bridenstine
    OK-2: Markwayne Mullin
    PA-4: Scott Perry
    PA-12:Keith Rothfus
    SC-7: Tom Rice
    TX-14:Randy Weber
    TX-25:Roger Williams
    UT-2: Chris Stewart
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families/Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Infrastructure/Technology
    Jobs
    Principles/Values
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    War/Iraq/Mideast
    Welfare/Poverty

    Main Page
    Profile
    CA politicians
    CA Archives

    Contact info:
    Fax Number:
    202-225-9177
    Official Website
    Phone number:
    (202) 225-5611

    Page last updated: Jun 20, 2013