Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Ned Lamont on Government Reform

 


Earmarks should be outlawed as lobbyist over-influence

LAMONT: Let me talk about that transportation bill with 6,341 earmarks. An earmark is a special piece of pork written by a lobbyist, submitted at the last moment. And it's wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. If you're not shouting from the rafters that this is wrong, then you're complicit and you're part of the problem. That bill also included the infamous bridge to nowhere.

LIEBERMAN: We were all against the bridge to nowhere. But there are earmarks that are good. Is he against the earmarks I put in the bill for $50 million to decrease congestion along I-95, or the money for ferry service from Bridgeport? Those are good earmarks.

LAMONT: Alaska gets 10 times what we do. We're not doing very well on that front. But more importantly, I think we should outlaw these earmarks. They corrupt the political process. They are written by lobbyists & they're wrong. You support the earmarks, you work with the lobbyists, & that's what needs to be changed.

LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut

Source: 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary debate Jul 6, 2006

Supports cap on campaign spending and public financing

Q: Are you ready to challenge Lieberman to a specific set of campaign caps or restrictions on how the campaign is financed or run?

A: I've tried to do it by example. I said that we're not taking any Washington lobbyist money. There's a quid pro quo there. Also, we've said publicly on a number of cases that we widely endorse the idea of a cap on spending. I think that is the key campaign finance reform. Longer term, public financing is probably a place we have to end up. These incumbents don't really get challenged. There aren't many folks who come along and jump-start a campaign, like I've been able to do. But I think with the blogs, grass roots, net roots, I think you'll see more populist types of campaigns. I hope that's an example people can take from our case. Because that's going to mean you have more competition in the marketplace, and that's always good.

Source: The Truthdig Interview, by Blair Golson Apr 25, 2006

Bridge-to-nowhere symptomatic of governing by lobbyists

Q: What issues prompted your run?

A: It was three unrelated incidents. The Terri Schiavo case: I thought the federal government was intruding on our private lives in a way that the founding fathers never anticipated. Sen. Lieberman said the federal government has to intervene in a case of life and death like that.

Two, the bridge to nowhere: It was symptomatic of a government not serious about transportation or the environment; it was a government run by lobbyists and a bunch of career politicians who weren't speaking out. And the five or six thousand earmarks [in the budget] were symptomatic of a government process gone awry.

Thirdly, when Jack Murtha stood up: We finally we had a Democrat who was so well regarded in the military saying that staying the course is not a winning strategy in Iraq--and it was Sen. Lieberman who took the Republican talking points and said that these critics were undercutting the credibility of the president.

Source: The Truthdig Interview, by Blair Golson Apr 25, 2006

Other candidates on Government Reform: Ned Lamont on other issues:
CT Gubernatorial:
Jodi Rell
John Rowland
CT Senatorial:
Alan Schlesinger
Chris Dodd
Joseph Lieberman

2004 Presidential:
Pres.George W. Bush
Sen.John Kerry
Ralph Nader

2008 possibilities:

Sen.Hillary Clinton
Sen.John Edwards
Sen.Russ Feingold
Rudy Giuliani
V.P.Al Gore
Sen.Barack Obama
Sen.John McCain


2006 Senate retirements:
Jon Corzine(D,NJ)
Mark Dayton(DFL,MN)
Bill Frist(R,TN)
Jim Jeffords(I,VT)
Paul Sarbanes(D,MD)
2006 Senate Races:
(AZ)Kyl v.Pederson
(CA)Feinstein v.Mountjoy
(CT)Lieberman v.Lamont v.Schlesinger
(DE)Carper v.Ting
(FL)Nelson v.Harris
(HI)Akaka v.Thielen
(IN)Lugar v.Osborn
(MA)Kennedy v.Chase
(MD)Cardin v.Steele v.Zeese
(ME)Snowe v.Bright
(MI)Stabenow v.Bouchard
(MN)Kennedy v.Klobuchar
(MO)Talent v.McCaskill
(MS)Lott v.Fleming v.Bowlin
(MT)Burns v.Tester
(ND)Conrad v.Grotberg
(NE)Nelson v.Ricketts
(NJ)Menendez v.Kean
(NM)Bingaman v.McCulloch
(NV)Ensign v.Carter
(NY)Clinton v.Spencer
(OH)DeWine vBrown
(PA)Santorum v.Casey
(RI)Chafee vWhitehouse
(TN)Ford v.Corker
(TX)Hutchison v.Radnofsky
(UT)Hatch v.Ashdown
(VA)Allen v.Webb
(VT)Sanders v.Tarrant
(WA)Cantwell v.McGavick v.Guthrie
(WI)Kohl v.Vogeler v.Redick
(WV)Byrd v.Raese
(WY)Thomas v.Groutage
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
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
HouseMatch
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes