Bernie Sanders on Government Reform Socialist Jr Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large)

It's oligarchy when billionaires buy elections

Billionaires and Wall Street should not be buying elections. We've got to end this rigged economy where people are working longer hours for low wages, almost all new income and wealth going to the top 1 percent, and of course, we need comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship.

We know that we have got to combat climate change, transform our energy system, and leave this planet in a way that is healthy and habitable for our kids and our grandchildren.

Is it acceptable that Wall Street and billionaires are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy elections? Is that democracy or this that oligarchy? Which is why I believe we've got to overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections.

Campaign financing is corrupt; no Super PAC for me

CLINTON: You're referring to a Super PAC that we don't coordinate with, that has decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to questions. Let's talk about our campaigns. I'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors. But, the real issue, I think, that the Senator is injecting into this is that if you take donations from Wall Street, you can't be independent.

SANDERS: What we are talking about is a corrupt campaign finance system. It is undermining American democracy. We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? We said no. Secretary Clinton's Super PAC received $25 million dollars last reporting period, $15 million dollars from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27 dollars.

Dept. of Defense is only agency never to have been audited

CLINTON: There are a number of programs are redundant and not producing the results that people deserve. There are a lot of training programs and education programs that I think can be streamlined. I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence that we're taking a hard look about what we have and what we don't need anymore.

SANDERS: We have also got to take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the Department of Defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been able to be audited. I have the feeling you're going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities.

Establishment candidates are beholden to big money

CLINTON: I'm grateful to have the support of many elected officials. I think it's because they've worked with me. They want me as their partner in the White House.

SANDERS: I am proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign. That our campaign is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent ordinary Americans. What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests. If we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed for the middle class and working families.

Congress represents the wealthy; they donate to ensure that

SANDERS: Let's talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions? Let's ask why it is that we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Let's talk about climate change. Do you think there's a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system? There is a reason these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not working families.

Litmus test for Supreme Court on Citizens United

Overturn Citizens United: America is one person, one vote

Presidency isn't winnable with public financing

SANDERS: I believe in public funding of elections. But this system is currently antiquated and nobody can become president on that system. Should we do a Super PAC, but I concluded that I don't represent billionaires. The alternative was to ask working families and the middle class to help in a transformational campaign. We got 3.5 million individual contributions.

GOP loves voter suppression because it lets them win

Citizens United means billionaires donate for THEIR interest

Super-PACs pervert the democratic process

SANDERS: I wish it were. But, I don't think the Koch brothers learned that lesson. I think the power of money over the political process is horrendous. I think that super PACs are playing a destructive role in our political system. And I will do, if president, everything that I can to see that this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision is overturned. American democracy is not about billionaires buying elections or trying to buy elections.

Public funding of elections to promote even playing field

• Bernie wants to overturn Citizens United, a "disastrous Supreme Court decision" which allows unlimited sums of money to be funneled into electoral politics.
• DISCLOSE Act: protect the integrity and transparency of federal elections by establishing disclosure requirements for all contributions.
• Public Funding of Elections: Bernie wants to move towards public funding of elections to promote a more even playing field where all Americans can participate.
• Democracy Day: Bernie wants to celebrate democracy by creating a holiday to encourage voter turnout for elections.

We now have government of, by, and for the billionaires

Reinforce voting rights to end voter suppression

• Gerrymandering & Voter Suppression: Bernie wants to curb redistricting as well as reinforce the Voting Rights Acts by making it easy for anyone to cast a vote, including former felons who have served their time.
• Bernie believes that many Americans have rejected the two-party system and is one of the Senate's only two Independents.
• He has supported legislation to introduce Instant Runoff Voting in order to give third parties a fair shot at competing in our elections.

Constitutional amendment to reverse Citizen United ruling

Sanders proposes a Constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling and ban corporations and nonprofits from unlimited campaign expenditures. The independent senator would also require disclosure of any organizations spending $10,000 or more on an election-related campaign.

Citizens United opens up the road to oligarchy

SANDERS: The Koch brothers and the other billionaires are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That is not a way you bring about change. We've got to mobilize the American people.

Q: If a billionaire agrees with you on issues are you okay with them participating in the process?

SANDERS: I think Citizens United will go down in history as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. I think it is opening up the road to oligarchy, where the billionaires, like the Koch brothers--

Q: Left or right?

SANDERS: Left or right, but it's mostly right. It will always be. The Koch brothers are going to spend $400 million. Do you know what their agenda is? They want to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. More tax breaks for the rich and large corporations. Nobody in America wants that except the billionaire class. This is a real danger to American democracy.

Underclass see the political deck stacked; and don't vote

One of the great tragedies that we face today politically is that most people have given up on the political process. They understand the political deck is stacked against them. They think there is no particular reason for them to come out and vote--and they don't.

America struggles between organized people & organized money

Best dairy policy is USDA board's supply management

Rich people use wealth to elect people to make them richer

The wealthy contribute huge sums of money into campaigns. The wealthy have all kinds of lobbyists around here through corporate America. What they are going to get out of this [Obama-Republican] agreement are huge tax breaks that benefit themselves. That is not what we should be supporting.

We should understand this agreement is just the beginning of an assault on legislation and programs that have benefited the American people for 70 or 80 years. Mark my words, there will be an intensive effort to privatize Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Furthermore, it is part of the Republican agenda. They want to expand--and it is not only Republicans here, some Democrats as well--our disastrous trade policies.

Introduced Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Ron Paul

He may well be protected by the law, but he is in defiance of the Constitution. The courts, under today's circumstances, will never rule that the Federal Reserve Bank chairman must reveal the information that the Congress or the people seek.

One thing I have noticed in studying the issue is that the more power the Fed has gained, the greater the secrecy they demand. Transparency is currently a hot issue in Congress because the people have awoken and have sent a message. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it's not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is pervasive, across the political spectrum.

I introduced a Federal Reserve audit bill the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, which Bernie Sanders introduced in the Senate.

Low-income workers don't vote because it's irrelevant

Why bother to vote? And millions don't.

Competitive bidding saves government money

Receives more contributions, but fewer dollars, than GOP

Most importantly, the vast majority of my contributors do not have a lot of money and are unable to give large amounts. In campaign after campaign, I receive MORE individual contributions from Vermont than my opponents, but FEWER total dollars. Our average campaign contribution is less than $35. My Republican opponent will always have a much higher average contribution.

Accepts PAC money, but not from special interests

While I will not accept PAC money from corporate America, I gladly accept PAC contributions from organizations fighting to improve life for ordinary people. Over the years, my campaigns have received strong financial support from PACs associated with organized labor, the environment, women, senior citizens, human rights, and the needs of children. My opponents call me a "hypocrite" for accepting PAC money. How can I accept PAC money, they say, and then claim that I am fighting against "special interests"? Isn't a PAC, by definition, a "special interest"? [It does] make a difference who the PAC represents--the problem is NOT that ordinary people have too much influence.

Same-day automatic voter registration & 3-day voting

Similarly, we must make it more convenient for people to vote. We can open the polls, as is done in other nations, over a 2- or 3-day period--including at least one weekend day-- so that working Americans will have more time to vote. Oregon has shown us another possible route: in that state, voting can be done by mail over a period of up to 4 weeks, and as a consequence voter turnout has risen.

Publicly fund elections, or small individual contributions

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 providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• 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.

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 requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

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.

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.