Dennis Kucinich on Government Reform Democratic Representative (OH-10)

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

14th and 15th Amendment are being shredded

1967: Argued “not a job agency”; reduce size of City Council

“I think that the people are not getting their money’s worth from the Council.” A dozen men wearing nice-looking suits leaned forward. Some began to fidget. “I think you ought to give the people a chance to vote on this issue. The people know which Councilmen are worth the money. I favor reducing the size of the Council....”

“Now, Mr. Kucinich,“ asked one Councilman, ”aren’t you running for City Council?“

”Yes, I am.“

”You are running for City Council and you want Council reduced?“

”That’s right,“ I said.

”He’s talking about legislation which may put me out of a job,“ said the Councilman.

”I don’t believe that Council should be an employment agency,“ I responded.

[The story made the newspapers, favorably.] In my first appearance in a public forum, I was credited with besting the sharpest debater in the Council.

Introduced impeachment resolution to make Cheney accountable

And because I see our Constitution at risk, and because I think that the vice presidency and the presidency have to have the highest standards for anyone in a democratic society, I laid down that challenge. And I ask all members of Congress to join me in making the vice president finally accountable. And when we do that, then we will make our president accountable.

This is about our Constitution, it is about our adherence to international law. I’ll move to have the US join the International Criminal Court. It is absolutely necessary that all of us be held to the same standards that we would want everyone else in the world held to.

Public campaign financing yields to public control

A: Public financing of campaigns is essential. Public financing yields to public control. Private financing of campaigns makes for private control. Private interests control our government today. All federal candidates should participate in the matching funds program as a first step of indicating their solidarity with public control of elections. Many in Congress are captive to the current system in which corporations have enormous influence.

Public financing for elections

Register on election day; more voting rights enhancements

Give DC residents proper representation

Debate reform opens the door to new candidates

Implement Instant Runoff Voting in US

Will not accept corporate PAC money

Private campaign financing leads to private control of gov’t

Spend money on job creation, not corporate cronies

A: I will emphasize my battles against unfair, corporate-friendly trade deals that threaten workers, family farmers and the environment. I will compare the billions given to the President’s wealthy and corporate cronies to what could be done instead for job creation, universal healthcare and education. I will win by stressing that this Administration’s aggressive, unilateral foreign policy makes Americans less secure, not more.

End privatization: it sells government to lowest bidder

Voted against certifying 2004 election because of Ohio fraud

A: I stand in a unique position because I believe I’m the only one on this stage who actually voted against certification of the last election in the electoral college because of the fraud that occurred in Ohio. I have a bill that I’m introducing that calls for paper ballots in all federal elections, so that every vote counts, every vote is counted & there’ll be a paper trail.

Impeach VP Cheney for taking US into Iraq War based on lies

A: This is a pocke copy of the Constitution, which I carry with me, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. This country was taken into war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida’s role with respect to Iraq, which there wasn’t one at the time we went in. I want to state that Mr. Cheney must be held accountable. He is already ginning up a cause for war against Iran. Now, we have to stand for this Constitution. We have to protect & defend this Constitution. And this vice president violated this Constitution. So I think that while my friends on this stage may not be ready to take this stand, the American people should know that there’s at least one person running for president who wants to reconnect America with its highest principles.

Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

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.

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.

Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

1. file a quarterly report with Congress; and
2. notify the recipient.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This measure will more effectively regulate, but does not ban, the practice of registered lobbyists bundling together large numbers of campaign contributions. This is a practice that has already taken root in Presidential campaigns. "Bundling" contributions which the lobbyist physically receives and forwards to the candidate, or which are credited to the lobbyist through a specific tracking system put in place by the candidate. This bill requires quarterly reporting on bundled contributions.

We ultimately need to move to assist the public financing of campaigns, as soon as we can. But until we do, the legislation today represents an extremely important step forward.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this legislation?

If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to political party committees, those same disclosure rules should also apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members of that party affiliation. PACs, on the other hand, represent more narrow, special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more sunshine, but not the latter?

The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not the only answer. Time and again the majority party picks favorites, when what the American people want is more honesty and more accountability.

Voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress.

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.

Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

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.

Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections.

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.

Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees.