Mary Landrieu on Government Reform

Democratic Sr Senator (LA)

I have delivered for Louisiana; send me back for more

In past debates Kennedy opened by aligning himself with John McCain, but [in this debate] he described his ideas for re-establishing economic stability in the financial markets and the US economy, an attempt to take control of an issue widely considered a drag on GOP candidates nationwide. “I know many of you are scared. Don’t be. Be concerned, be angry, but don’t be scared,” Kennedy said. “We will survive this economic crisis.”

Landrieu, meanwhile, continued to push herself as a centrist senator who works across party lines and has brought home billions of dollars in aid to Louisiana during her 12 years in Congress, particularly since the blows of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. “Send me back to continue to fight for you, to deliver for you,” she said.

Source: 2008 Louisiana Senate Debate by Associated Press on NOLA.com , Oct 16, 2008

Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

Congressional Summary:

The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill S.160 ; vote number 2009-S073 on Feb 26, 2009

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:

Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

[Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill S. 1257 ; vote number 2007-339 on Sep 18, 2007

Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. 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.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for 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]. I urge a "no" vote.

Reference: Dole Amendment to the Help America Vote Act; Bill S.2350, amending SP2350 ; vote number 2007-269 on Jul 19, 2007

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

A motion to table (kill) an amendment to clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists. Voting NAY would define employees of lobbying companies as registered lobbyists and therefore subject to the gift ban. Voting YEA would apply the gift ban only to specific people who registered as lobbyists.

Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.
For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?
Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Reference: Feingold Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act; Bill S.Amdt.2962 to S.2349 ; vote number 2006-080 on Mar 29, 2006

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

An amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity. Voting YEA would establish the new office, and voting NAY would keep ethics investigations within the existing Senate Ethics Committee.

We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Reference: Collins Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act; Bill S.Amdt.3176 to S.2349 ; vote number 2006-077 on Mar 28, 2006

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban “soft money” contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation. Reference: Bill HR.2356 ; vote number 2002-54 on Mar 20, 2002

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 2937; To permit the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of verifying the identity of voters who register by mail, and for other purposes. Voting Yes would kill the amendment. The amendment would allow a signature to identify voters who register by mail, instead of requiring showing photo identification or other proof of residence before being allowed to vote. Reference: Bill S.565 ; vote number 2002-38 on Feb 27, 2002

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. Reference: Bill S.27 ; vote number 2001-64 on Apr 2, 2001

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Support of the campaign finance bill proposed by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI).
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)53; N)47 Reference: Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997

Voluntary public financing for all general elections.

Landrieu signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Return Politics to the People
At a time when much of the world is emulating American values and institutions, too many Americans have lost confidence in their political system. They are turned off by a partisan debate that often seems to revolve not around opposing philosophies but around contending sets of interest groups. They believe that our current system for financing campaigns gives disproportionate power to wealthy individuals and groups and exerts too much influence over legislative and regulatory outcomes.

The time for piecemeal reform is past. As campaign costs soar at every level, we need to move toward voluntary public financing of all general elections and press broadcasters to donate television time to candidates.

The Internet holds tremendous potential for making campaigns less expensive and more edifying and for engaging Americans directly in electoral politics. We should promote the Internet as a new vehicle for political communication and champion online voting.

Goals for 2010

Introduce voluntary public financing for all general elections.
Allow properly regulated voter registration and voting online.
Implement civic education courses in every public school.

Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC9 on Aug 1, 2000

Make Election Day a national holiday.

Landrieu introduced the Federal Election Day Act

Designates November 5, 2002, and November 2, 2004, as Federal Election Day. Makes Federal Election Day a legal public holiday. Identical bills introduced in House HR.934, Senate S.1388 and S.2104.

Source: Bill sponsored by 2 Senators and 1 Rep 01-SR21 on Aug 1, 2001

Establish the United States Public Service Academy.

Landrieu co-sponsored establishing the United States Public Service Academy

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. CLINTON: I rise today to introduce legislation that will create an undergraduate institution designed to cultivate a generation of young leaders dedicated to public service. The US Public Service Academy Act (The PSA Act) will form a national academy to serve as an extraordinary example of effective, national public education.

The tragic events of September 11 and the devastation of natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita underscore how much our Nation depends on strong public institutions and competent civilian leadership at all levels of society. Congress must take a step forward to ensure competent civilian leadership and improve our Nation's ability to respond to future emergencies and to confront daily challenges.

This legislation will create the US Public Service Academy to groom future public servants and build a corps of capable civilian leaders. Modeled after the military service academies, this academy will provide a four-year, federally-subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five year commitment to public service.

The PSA Act will meet critical national needs as the baby-boomer generation approaches retirement. Already, studies show looming shortages in the Federal civil service, public education, law enforcement, the non-profit sector and other essential areas.

Unfortunately our young people are priced out of public service careers all too often. By providing a service-oriented education at no cost to the student, the PSA Act will tap into the strong desire to serve that already exists among college students while erasing the burden of enormous college debt.

The establishment of a United States Public Service Academy is an innovative way to strengthen and protect America by creating a corps of well-trained, highly-qualified civilian leaders. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today.

Source: United States Public Service Academy Act (S.960 & HR.1671) 07-HR1671 on Mar 23, 2007

Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.

Landrieu co-sponsored prohibiting voter intimidation in federal elections

Makes it unlawful for anyone before or during a federal election to knowingly communicate false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. Increases from one year to five years' imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. OBAMA: This bill seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls. It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. We saw countless examples in this past election.

Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration."
Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called "Virginia Elections Commission" informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.
Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems election after election, and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices. This bill makes voter intimidation & deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes--people who are prevented from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time. Source: Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (H.R.1281 & S.453) 07-S453 on Mar 1, 2007

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Landrieu co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act

Congressional Summary:

Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of "independent expenditure" an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

Wikipedia & OnTheIssue Summary:

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

The result of Citizens United was that "Super PACs" spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

Source: S3369/HR4010 12-S3369 on Jul 10, 2012

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a profile of Mary Landrieu. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Mary Landrieu. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Mary Landrieu. Click here for a summary of Mary Landrieu's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other LA politicians.
*Other candidates on Government Reform:*		*Mary Landrieu on other issues:*
*LA Gubernatorial:* Bobby Jindal James Carville *LA Senatorial:* David Vitter LA politicians *Retiring in 2014 election:* GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) NE:Johanns(R) NJ:Lautenberg(D) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) *Senate Vacancies 2013:* HI:Inouye(Deceased) HI:Schatz(Appointed) MA:Kerry(Resigned) MA:Cowan(Appointed) SC:DeMint(Resigned) SC:Scott(Appointed) *Retired as of Jan. 2013:* AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	*Senate elections Nov. 2012:* AZ:Flake(R) vs.Carmona(D) CA:Feinstein(D) vs.Emken(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CT:McMahon(R) vs.Murphy(D) DE:Carper(D) vs.Wade(R) vs.Pires(I) FL:Nelson(D) vs.Mack(R) HI:Hirono(D) vs.Lingle(R) vs.~~Case~~(D) vs.~~Pirkowski~~(R) IN:~~Lugar~~(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D) MA:Brown(R) vs.Warren(D) MD:Cardin(D) vs.Bongino(R) vs.Sobhani(I) ME:King(I) vs.Dill(D) vs.Summers(R) MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hoekstra(R) vs.Boman(L) MN:Klobuchar(D) vs.Bills(R) MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) MS:Wicker(R) vs.Gore(D) MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R)	ND:Heitkamp(D) vs.Berg(R) NE:Kerrey(D) vs.Fischer(R) NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Kyrillos(R) vs.Diakos(I) NM:Heinrich(D) vs.Wilson(R) NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D) NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Long(R) vs.Noren(I) vs.Clark(G) OH:Brown(D) vs.Mandel(R) PA:Casey(D) vs.Smith(R) RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R) TN:Corker(R) vs.Clayton(D) TX:Cruz(R) vs.Sadler(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.~~Dewhurst~~(R) UT:Hatch(R) vs.Howell(D) VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) VT:Sanders(I) vs.MacGovern(R) WA:Cantwell(D) vs.Baumgartner(R) WI:Thompson(R) vs.Baldwin(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R) WY:Barrasso(R) vs.Chesnut(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-9735 Mailing Address: Senate Office SH-328, Washington, DC 20510

Page last updated: Apr 22, 2013