Rick Santorum on Government Reform Republican Jr Senator (PA)

Line-item veto needed; spending transparency until then

SANTORUM: You're misrepresenting the facts. What happens in the earmark process was that members of Congress would publicly request these things, put them on paper, and have them allocated, and have them voted on.

ROMNEY: And the president can't veto it?

SANTORUM: He can veto the bill.

ROMNEY: But he can't veto the earmark?

SANTORUM: Well, we tried to do that. I supported a line-item veto.

ROMNEY: That's what I support.

SANTORUM: I agree with you. I support the line-item veto. I voted for a line-item veto so we could do just that. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck it down. I would like to go back, as president, again, and give the president the authority to line-item veto. But that's not the issue. The issue is, were they transparent? When I was in the Senate, there was transparency.

Endorsed Arlen Specter to assure conservative Supreme Court

SANTORUM: I supported Arlen Specter because he was going to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee when two to three Supreme Court nominees were going to be available. And maybe all three were going to be out of the conservative block. Arlen Specter asked me to support him; I said "will you support the president's nominees?" We had a 51/49 majority in the Senate. He said "I'll support the president's nominees as chairman." He saved Justice Thomas. Every nominee Arlen Specter supported, passed; Why? Because it gave Democrats cover to vote for it and it gave Republican moderates cover to vote for it. He gave the moderate Republicans and the conservative Democrats the leeway to then support that nominee. Arlen Specter defended Roberts, defended Alito. We have a 5/4 majority on the court, and I did the right thing for our country.

Overturn & freeze all Obama regulations in process

A: Refuse to spend the money to implement Obamacare. I would freeze all Obama regulations in process and overturn any antibusiness executive order. I would tell the businesses around the world America is open for business and you have a president who wants you here!

DC doesn't work; ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment

Gingrich: We don't need Obama's "balanced approach" (code for raise taxes). We need a balanced budget.

Santorum: Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment and work for its ratification across the country!

Gingrich: When you balance the budget there is no need to raise the debt ceiling. I am the only candidate who has balanced the budget.

Johnson: I'd avoid continually raising the debt ceiling by not incurring more debt! I'd submit to Congress a balanced budget in 2013, & veto any appropriation that exceeds that budget.

Santorum: DC doesn't work; we need to impose discipline on politicians who want to buy their reelection with your money. BBA is the only way.

Gingrich: We can balance the budget again by growing the economy, cutting spending and reforming government. That's how we did it before. We CAN do it again.

1997: In-state campaign donation cap $4K; out-of-state $1K

But Santorum has supported a milder form of limits on political speech. Namely, he advocated low contribution limits in his 1997 bill. His proposal actually increased the individual cap from $1,000 to $4,000, but only for in-state residents. Out-of-state donors would still be capped at $1,000. On the Senate floor, Santorum said, "The fact of the matter is, we have low limits. I think we should keep them relatively low, but they should be high enough so people can have some ability to form a little bit of seed corn to start a campaign if they want to run for office."

Campaign finance should be purely voluntary

Voted YES 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 NO 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.

Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.