Barack Obama on Government Reform Democratic President (2008); IL Senator (2004)

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Earmark Reform
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Government Reform

OpEd: Broke promise to pay for every dime of new spending

Constitution says what states CAN'T do to you

"To that extent, as radical as I think the people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

Citizens United decision: major victory for Big Oil

This decision will allow the giant pharmaceutical companies and the factory farm conglomerates to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their water carriers into office and defeat the all-too-rare candidates who actually stand up for the public good. It has now become even easier to auction off our democracy to the highest bidder.

We face a deficit of trust, not just a budget deficit

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why--for the first time in history--my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

FactCheck: Yes, set up first reverse-revolving door policy

Obama, by executive order last January, did put in place the federal government's first-ever reverse-revolving door policy, which says that anyone who has lobbied within the previous two years can't join a part of the administration that he or she lobbied.

The order allows for waivers, however, and several have been granted. For instance, former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn became deputy secretary of defense. Obama might have been trying to leave himself some wiggle room when he specified "policymaking jobs." But Lynn's job sounds to us like it involves policymaking. And it's hard to claim that Ron Kirk, the United States trade representative, doesn't have a policymaking role. Kirk didn't need a waiver because he was a lobbyist--for Merrill Lynch and others--in Texas, not Washington, but Obama made no such distinction.

Economic agenda builds new foundation for lasting prosperity

Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely--to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do

Eliminate government programs that no longer work

FactCheck: Worked with McCain on ethics, but bill fell apart

It’s true that Obama approached McCain on the floor of the Senate in early 2006, amid the unfolding Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and suggested that they work together on an ethics bill. But Obama backed out of the effort, saying to McCain in a letter dated Feb. 2, 2006, that he and other Senate Democrats had decided against McCain’s idea of a “task force” on ethics, preferring to let standing Senate committees work on the matter.

McCain sent back an angry, blistering response, accusing Obama of insincerity and “self-interested partisan posturing.”

[However] it’s true that both Obama and McCain wanted tougher ethics legislation than either the Democratic or Republican leadership at first was willing to support.

Cabinet members should hold national town hall meetings

Obama intends to close the revolving door that allows former government employees to work as lobbyists, then rotate back into government. Political appointees will not be allowed to work on any regulation or contract related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to leave government service and lobby the government for the remainder of the administration.

Need a government that listens to the people again

Give D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives

A: The first thing I would do would be to move forward with an agenda to make sure that we give D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives and have some political power on Capitol Hill. Representation would make a big difference. I want to deal with the homeless situation here in Washington, D.C. I think it is a travesty that we’ve got men--and increasingly women--families, across the street and the in shadow of this great capital, that shows a lack of concern, not just for the capital, but for American, when we are allowing something like that to happen. And as president of the United States I would be offended to drive by it. It’s something that we are going to focus on directly.

Bad idea to over-classify information

A: I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy--which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

Bush’s signing statements are a clear abuse of prerogative

A: Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws--more than any president in history--is a clear abuse of this prerogative.

Public submits policy ideas on Obama’s “My Policy” website

Prayer can’t prevent disasters; good policy can handle them

A: I believe in the power of prayer. And part of what I believe in is that, through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in adversity, but that we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control. Most of the issues that we’re debating here today are ones that we have the power to change. We may not have the power to prevent a hurricane, but we do have the power to make sure that the levees are properly reinforced and we’ve got a sound emergency plan. And so, part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control. And that’s what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We’ve got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions.

Registered 150,000 new minority voters in Chicago in 1992

A: You know, when I moved to Chicago to organize minority communities, I saw what happened when folks don’t have enough political power. So when I got out of law school, I organized the voter registration drive and we registered 150,000 new voters in 1992. Then I became a civil rights attorney, enforcing voting rights against the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois.

Half of us don’t vote; time for taking it back

We know what fills the void: the lobbyists, the influence peddlers with the cash and connections. It’s the pharmaceutical companies that get to write our drug bills. It’s the oil lobbyists that get to meet with the same White House that silences the scientists who’ve warned us about the destruction of our planet. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills. They get the access; you get to write a letter. They think they own this government, but we are here to tell them today that our government is not for sale and we are taking it back, right here and right now. We are taking it back.

Bush administration has done “great damage” to U.S.

Filibuster has long tradition, but used to harm civil rights

There is another, grimmer history to the filibuster, one that carries special relevance for me. For almost a century, the filibuster was the South’s weapon of choice in its efforts to protect Jim Crow from federal interference, the blockade that effectively gutted the 14t & 15th Amendments. Decade after decade, courtly, erudite men like Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia used the filibuster to choke off any and every piece of civil rights legislation before the Senate, whether voting rights bills, or fair employment bills, or anti-lynching bills. With words, with rules, with procedures & precedents--with law--Southern senators had succeeded in perpetuating black subjugation in ways that mere violence never could. For many blacks, the filibuster had snuffed out hope.

Electing US Senators empowers people: keep 17th Amendment

KEYES: Senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures for the simple reason that the US Senate was supposed to represent the state government as sovereign entities. Our laws in Illinois are passed by the state legislature. Are the people disenfranchised in the passing of these laws I don’t think so.

OBAMA: Listen, I love my colleagues in the state legislature but I think [Illinois citizens] should be voting, not state legislatures. I have a little understanding about our constitution because I teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago and I understand that’s how the constitution was framed. It also prohibited anyone but white, male property owners from voting. That’s why we had amendments. It’s a funny way to empower people to take their vote away.

People are really ready for a message for change

Campaign race baiting works in both directions

Only a few waivers on lobbyists in senior positions

Pres. OBAMA: I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren't participating in the administration than any administration that's come before us. Now, what we did was, if there were lobbyists who were on boards an commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn't been completed, we didn't kick them off. We simply said that moving forward any time a new slot opens, they're being replaced. There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled--for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist; on the other end, has more experience than anybody in figuring out how kids don't get hooked on cigarettes.

Post all earmark request online before each vote

FactCheck: Yes, agreed to public financing, then declined it

The Facts:Public financing refers to the $85 million in public money that candidates are eligible to receive, if they agree not to raise additional funds for the general election.

McCain refers to a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network, which asked presidential candidates whether they would forgo private funding in the general election campaign. In an e-mailed response on Nov., 17, 2007, Obama wrote: “Yes: I have been a long-time advocate for public financing.” But on June 19, he announced he would not be accepting public financing, allowing him to raise unlimited funds.

The Verdict: Mostly true. Obama did indicate he would accept public financing if his opponent did the same. But he did not sign anything, as McCain states.

GovWatch: Promised public financing, and then retreated

Fast forward 16 months. Obama announces that the system of public financing “is broken,” and he will rely on his well-oiled private fundraising machine. The McCain camp accuses Obama of “breaking his word.” True or false?

While the Sept. 2007 “Yes” seemed unequivocal, the Obama camp argued that the fine print of the deal remained to be worked out with the eventual Republican nominee. Obama only promised to “aggressively pursue” such an agreement; there never were serious negotiations between the Obama and McCain campaigns.

We judge this as a carefully parsed retreat on public financing--the turnaround is blatant.

AdWatch: I opt out of broken public campaign finance system

It’s not an easy decision, especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the RNC are fueled by contributions from lobbyists & special interest PACs. We’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before.

GovWatch: No, McCain & RNC don’t get much money from PACs

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7% of McCain’s total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1% of the RNC’s receipts.

It’s not our place to comment on Obama’s financial strategy, except to note that it is perfectly legal and also that McCain and Obama both refused to accept public funds or spending limits during the primary campaign. We also note that Obama’s decision is likely to give him a big financial advantage over McCain in the weeks just before the election.

Lobbyists & special interests have strangle-hold on agenda

The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. They go to die because the lobbyists and special interests have a strangle-hold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in Washington because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.

And so the central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we’re going to solve these problems and enlist them in taking back their government.

Ended corporate jet travel subsidized by lobbyists

• Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

• Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.

• Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.

Never took money from federal lobbyists or their companies

No lobbyist money; no PAC money; fund campaigns instead

Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless

A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

Reduced cost TV ads for candidates; $85M presidential limit

Obama supported numerous reforms that his colleagues would not embrace, including proposals to prohibit paid coordination of lobbying, ban lawmakers from negotiating future employment as lobbyists, prohibit earmarks in which a member of Congress has a financial interest, and ban the use of earmarks to buy votes.

So far, John McCain has been the only Republican to agree to Obama’s proposal to limit general election spending to $85 million.

Ok to take $5 donations from drug company employees

A: I don’t accept money from federal registered lobbyists and from federal PACs. Now, I’m sure that we’ve received money from people who work at insurance companies or work at drug companies, because we’re getting contributions of $5, $10, $100 from all sorts of people. We don’t want to finance our campaign by people whose professional job it is to influence legislation in Washington. The drug companies, the insurance companies spent a billion dollars over the last 10 years blocking reform. That’s how we ended up with a prescription drug bill that is better for drug companies than it is for our seniors. So it is an imperfect system. Money is the original sin of politics, & when you’re running for president, you’re going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can’t compete. But it’s less important what your health-care plan is, than are you able to overcome the special-interest-driven agendas?

Public campaign financing with free television & radio time

1998: First law passed, 52-4, stripping legislator perks

The senate’s Democratic leader offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit fo the do-good persona projected by Obama. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. One colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers’ inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue by an overwhelming 52-4 vote.

The bill lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to restrictions.

2004: Used state money for seemingly political mailing

[A Chicago Tribune story] began like this: “Obama claims the mantle o a reformer, but he spent $17,191 in state taxpayer money on a mailer that had the look and feel of a campaign flier. The mailing went out just days before a new ban on the pre-election dissemination of such state-paid constituent newsletters went into effect, part of a package of ethics reforms that Obama takes credit for getting passed.“

The story never implied illegality, but said that he appeared to have breached ”the spirit of the law.“ Obama said to the author, ”Okay, I’ll give you that.“

No “bundled” money from federal-registered lobbyists

A: No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me, just like I don’t take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I’m in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks.

Campaigns last too long & cost too much

Doesn’t take PAC money or federal lobbyists’ money

KUCINICH: The new doctrine that I’m going to promote throughout this campaign is that we’ll use the science of human relations and diplomacy to settle your differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it’s absolutely necessary.

CLINTON: The issue is: Which of us is ready to lead on day one? I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change.

OBAMA: I don’t think this is just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don’t just need a change in political parties in Washington. We’ve got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don’t take PAC money, I don’t take federal lobbyists’ money is because we’ve got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests. And that is something that I’ve got a track record doing.

People know his “bundlers” because he pushed disclosure law

GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received $195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.

OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ve shown in the Senate. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ll show as president of the United States.

FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby

Gravel and Obama weren’t actually contradicting each other. However, Obama’s policy is an ethical tightrope. Obama’s official policy is: “The Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs.” Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions.

[The largest bundler was] Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. Those contributions don’t violate the letter of Obama’s pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other “bundlers” (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site.

First bill ever passed was campaign finance reform

A: We have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some unethical behavior and I have denounced it. But I have a track record of bringing people around this new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature. The first bill I ever passed was campaign finance reform legislation--the first in a generation in Illinois. Now, in the US Senate we were able to work to strengthen the lobbying ethics reform bill, despite the resistance of some of my colleagues in both parties. And, in terms of how we’ve been running this campaign, we have seen that I have not taken money from federal registered lobbyists. We are not taking money from PACs.

FactCheck: no lobbyist money, yes from lobbyist spouses

Nevertheless, Obama accepts money from lobbyists’ spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren’t registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. The campaign says it is making a “best effort” to stay away from tainted money. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol,” a spokesman said.

Hopefund PAC pushes government to honor sacred commitments

• Our hope says government must play a constructive role in investing in our communities.
• Our hope says tax breaks can be a very useful tool, but that they should be used to reward the creation of jobs rather than companies that ship them overseas.
• Our hope says health care is every human being’s right, and when the free market fails us, the government must step in to correct its abuses.
• Our hope says the liberties of every person are sacred, but that those liberties must be defended--with military might abroad when absolutely necessary, but also with courage and vigilance at home.

Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money

For most politicians, money is not about maintaining status and power. It is about scaring off challengers and fighting off the fear. Money cannot guarantee a victory, but without money, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

When I decided to run for the Senate, I found myself spending time with people of means. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class.

I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the sense that I spent more time above the fray, outside the world of hardship of the people that I had entered public life to serve.

Would love line-item veto, but start with earmark reform

Pres. OBAMA: I think there's not a President out there that wouldn't love to have it. And I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill. One thing that you have to acknowledge, is that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts. But I am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue.

Freeze discretionary government spending for 3 years

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year.

FactCheck: Yes, earmarks total $18B in this year’s budget

Eliminating earmarks isn’t enough; but I’ll check every line

OBAMA: Nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. Absolutely we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely. But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we’re going to get the middle class back on track.

Google for Government: let public track federal grants

• Federal ethics reform: Mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.
• Google for government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that informatio has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online.
• Illinois reform: In 1998, Obama passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists.

Use technology to shine a light on spending

Consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks

Created a publicly searchable database on earmarks spending

A: No, that’s not true. We’ve actually disclosed all our earmarks. We’ll be happy to provide you with that information, because I believe very strongly in transparency. One of the things that I did was to pass a bill with Tom Coburn, very conservative Republican but a sincere fiscal conservative. We got together and created what we call Google for Government. It’s a searchable database, where every single dollar of federal spending is posted on the Internet, so that ordinary voters can take a look. If they see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it’s going and who sponsored it. If they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out, too. The idea is that we open up the process so that the American people can make judgments about whether or not government is doing what it’s supposed to be doing with its taxpayer money.

Shine light on federal contracts, earmarks, & proposed bills

• Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the ‘state secrets’ privilege more than any other previous administration.

• Shine Light on Washington Lobbying: Create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings.
• Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: Disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting.
• Sunlight Before Signing:As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to comment online for five days.
• Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification.

Create “Google for Government” to track government spending

Obama also introduced legislation that would shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each project earmark, along with a written justification, at least 72 hours before a full Senate vote. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project.

In 2007, Obama co-introduced a bipartisan plan described as the “gold standard for reform.” The ethics package that passed the Senate included a number of Obama’s provisions, including bans on subsidized travel on corporate jets, meals and gifts from lobbyists; disclosure of project earmark sponsors and recipients; and disclosure requirements for campaign contributions that lobbyists “bundle.”

Sponsored bill to disclose earmarks on Internet

Pro: This is logical, cost-efficient, and sensible.
A future president should be committed to transparency in government spending.

Con: he’s spoiling the fun for everyone.
“One man’s pork is another man’s beef.” Without Congressional earmarks, where would we be? In a strange land where members of Congress could not rely on earmarked appropriations to do favors for friends and entrench themselves in office.

Pro: This is patriotic.
Section 3 of S.2590 excludes classified information from the Act’s purview, so there is no danger that the Coburn-Obama Act will gore and sacred bulls.

FactCheck: Yes, Obama cast 130 “present” votes in IL Senate

It’s true that Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. But the article that said he “essentially took a pass” was an op-ed piece quoting a Clinton endorser, not the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board.

Beyond that, there’s some substance to Clinton’s general criticism. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The NY Times found a mixed record: “Sometimes the ‘present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. But in at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.”

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

• 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.

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.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• 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.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• 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.

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• 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.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• 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.

Election reform is #1 priority to prevent disenfranchisement.

• Election Reform is the CBC’s Number One Legislative Priority. What happened in Election 2000 is no way to elect the President – the most powerful position in the world. For the sake of our democracy, it is imperative that Election Reform be the top priority of every Member of Congress, and every American. As the world’s oldest and leading democracy, the outcome of our elections should never be in doubt. We must ensure that every vote cast is counted and that everyone who is eligible to vote is allowed to vote. Election reform is not a black issue or white issue, it is a red, white & blue issue. Voting is the most fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and must be protected.
• Voter Education and Participation. African-Americans turned out to vote in Election 2000 in record numbers, many for the first time. This accomplishment, however, was undercut by allegations of voter intimidation, inaccurate voter registration lists, flawed ballot designs, and antiquated voting machinery. All of these problems led to confusion before, during and after the election. The CBC will partner with state & local governments, civic & religious organizations and higher education institutions to prevent voter intimidation, as well as to enhance and improve voter registration, education and participation.
• Congress Must Act. Congress has the power, authority and absolute obligation to assure that the apparent disenfranchisement does not ever happen again. The CBC is committed to passing a strong and effective election reform package. Legislation should address ballot design, modern voting machines, an accurate vote-counting mechanism that allows for recounts, the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders, assistance for bilingual and disabled persons who vote, and ensure the most accurate voter registration rolls on election day so that every one who is eligible to vote can vote, and have that vote counted.

Sponsored bill criminalizing deceptive info about elections.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends federal criminal law to prohibit any person from knowingly deceiving any other person regarding:

1. the time, place, or manner of conducting any federal election; or
2. the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. I also hope voters go to the polls with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation's voting laws are.

It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor.

Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only: to keep Americans away from the polls.

The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Expresses the sense of Congress that:

1. a requirement that U.S. citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on citizens' legitimate voting rights; (
2. the Department of Justice should challenge any state law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements; and
3. any effort to impose national photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Unfortunately, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters.

According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. Nationwide, at least 12% of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification.

The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform acknowledges that there is "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting."

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill to post earmarks on the Internet.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill attempts to limit earmarks by publicizing them. Rather than banning earmarks, this bill requires that earmarks and other last-minute add-ins get posted on the Internet. Posting provisions on the Internet for 3 days is intended to restrict lobbyists influence on earmarks that would otherwise go unnoticed.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness Through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act or the CLEAN UP Act: Amends the Standing Rules of the Senate to:
• Identify and explain separately each provision of a bill & identify the Member who proposed such provision.
• Make each bill provision available to the general public by means of the Internet for at least 72 hours before its consideration.
• Prohibits consideration of an appropriation bill unless a list of all earmarks in the bill and accompanying reports is available in the same manner.
• Allows a waiver of such prohibitions by a two-thirds majority vote of Members.

Prohibit 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.

Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.

Rep. CONYERS: "Since the late 1950's, the pernicious practice of 'voter caging' has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.

"The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter's name is placed on a 'caging list.' These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter's registration or eligibility.

"In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a Michigan lawmaker advocating 'suppress the Detroit vote,' I cannot help but think that is synonymous with 'suppress the Black vote' as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.

"Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity."

S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list. Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for policy papers on Government Reform. Click here for a profile of Barack Obama. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Barack Obama. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Government Reform or about Barack Obama in The Forum.
Other candidates on Government Reform:	Barack Obama on other issues:
Incoming Obama Administration: Pres.Barack Obama V.P.Joe Biden State:Hillary Clinton HHS:Tom Daschle Staff:Rahm Emanuel DOC:Judd Gregg DHS:Janet Napolitano DOC:Bill Richardson DoD:Robert Gates A.G.:Eric Holder Treas.:Tim Geithner Former Bush Administration: Pres.George W. Bush V.P.Dick Cheney State:Colin Powell State:Condi Rice EPA:Christie Whitman Former Clinton Administration: Pres.Bill Clinton HUD:Andrew Cuomo V.P.Al Gore Labor:Robert Reich A.G.:Janet Reno	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






Page last updated: Jul 23, 2011