Bernie Sanders on Government Reform Democratic primary challenger; Independent VT Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large)

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Right to Vote
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Government Reform

Power to the people, not the billionaires

Keep filibuster and use other ways to pass laws

WARREN: The mass shootings are terrible, but they get all the headlines. We have a gun violence problem. The question is when 90 percent of Americans want to see us do background checks, want to get assault weapons off the streets, why doesn't it happen? The answer is corruption. We have a Congress that is beholden to the gun industry. Unless we're willing to roll back the filibuster, we're not going to get anything done on guns.

Q: Senator Sanders, you've said if Donald Trump supports ending the filibuster, you should be nervous. Would you support ending the filibuster?

SANDERS: No. But what I would support is passing major legislation, the gun legislation, Medicare for all, climate change legislation that saves the planet. I will not wait for 60 votes to make that happen, and you can do it in a variety of ways. You can do that through budget reconciliation law.

Keep filibuster and use other ways to pass laws

WARREN: The mass shootings are terrible, but they get all the headlines. We have a gun violence problem. The question is when 90 percent of Americans want to see us do background checks, want to get assault weapons off the streets, why doesn't it happen? The answer is corruption. We have a Congress that is beholden to the gun industry. Unless we're willing to roll back the filibuster, we're not going to get anything done on guns.

Q: Senator Sanders, you've said if Donald Trump supports ending the filibuster, you should be nervous. Would you support ending the filibuster?

SANDERS: No. But what I would support is passing major legislation, the gun legislation, Medicare for all, climate change legislation that saves the planet. I will not wait for 60 votes to make that happen, and you can do it in a variety of ways. You can do that through budget reconciliation law.

We need major filibuster reform, but don't abolish it

SANDERS: I have not.

Q: What will you do if bad actors like Senator Mitch McConnell use the filibuster to block climate legislation?

SANDERS: I haven't wavered. What I believe is the Senate should not be the House and we shouldn't simply have a majority body. But what I have said repeatedly is we need major filibuster reform. And second of all, just as Bush got through major tax breaks for the rich through the Budget Reconciliation Act, we can do that, as well. So if your question is, "are we going to need 60 votes to save the planet?", the answer is, no, we will not. There are ways to get that through the Budget Reconciliation Act, which will require 51 votes, and that's the method we will use.

Hard to defend the Electoral College

Among those who support repealing it, the remedies vary. Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, said they would back a constitutional amendment. Four Democrats said they are open to abolishing the system but didn't explicitly back doin

Rotate judges on Supreme Court, like term limits

They came closest to tackling the issue in an exchange about Roe v. Wade and what the candidates would do to protect abortion rights if it were overturned. Sanders replied by saying he opposed adding additional justices to the bench, a solution several other candidates have proposed. "I do not believe in packing the court," Sanders said. But "I do believe that constitutionally we have the ability to rotate judges to other courts."

At a forum in April, Sanders offered up a similar proposal. "What may make sense is, if not term limits, then rotating judges to the appeals court as well. Letting them get out of the Supreme Court and bringing in new blood." The proposal is constitutionally dubious and might require an amendment, but it's not without merit if it gets rid of corrosive confirmation battles.

Mainstream media focuses on gossip, lies, & personality

The internet and social media now allow for the worldwide transmission of total lies, and the capability of targeting those lies to susceptible populations.

Further, recent studies show what the average American has long known. More and more mainstream media political coverage is devoted to gossip and issues of personality, and less and less to the major problems facing our country and the world. During the last presidential campaign, for example, there was almost no discussion devoted to climate change, the greatest environmental crisis facing our planet. There was hardly a mention that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, 40 million Americans live in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of nearly any major country.

Wall Street regulates Congress; do it the other way around

Greed, fraud, dishonesty, and arrogance. These are the words that best describe the reality of Wall Street today.

Fortunately, the American people are catching on. They understand that there is something profoundly wrong when a handful of billionaires on Wall Street wield extraordinary power and influence over the political and economic life of our country. They understand that Congress does not regulate Wall Street--it is Wall Street that regulates Congress.

Allow Post Offices to offer banking services

You go to a payday lender, who will likely charge an interest rate of over 300 percent and trap you into a vicious cycle of debt.

One important way to provide decent banking opportunities for low-income communities is to allow the U.S. Postal Service to engage in basic banking services, which could include offering savings accounts, cashing checks, and wiring money.

End private prisons; end profit of incarceration

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.

Best dairy policy is USDA board's supply management

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.

Competitive bidding saves government money

Wealthy donors turn their backs on working families

Sanders then touted his campaign platforms: "And what is unique about our campaign is we say unashamedly we are raising our campaign contributions not from billionaires but from working-class people, that our campaign is about the working families of this country for the working class of this country. And that is the administration that we will run. It is time to take on the big money interest. It is time to change our national priorities."

Citizens United is most disastrous decisions in history

Require disclosure of campaign expenditures over $10,000

SuperPACs: manifestation of everything wrong with politics

As we contemplated the run for president, several things became clear in terms of fund-raising. First, I was not going to do what every other presidential candidate was doing, and that was to establish a super PAC. Super PACs, which allow for unlimited contributions from wealthy people, are the exact manifestation of everything that is wrong with politics today. The idea of establishing one was tempting, and easy to do, but I wasn't going to do it.

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.

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.

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

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.

America struggles between organized people & organized money

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.

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.

Publicly fund elections, or small individual contributions

Enforce simple rule: every over 18 has the right to vote

Mandate paper ballots

11 CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Michael Bennet; Cory Booker; Julian Castro; Tulsi Gabbard; Kirsten Gillibrand; Kamala Harris; Amy Klobuchar; Beto O`Rourke; Tim Ryan; Eric Swalwell; Elizabeth Warren.

Election security experts overwhelmingly consider paper ballots the most secure form of voting. That mandate is part of the Protecting American Votes and Elections Act, which would also require post-election risk-limiting audits.

End voter suppression; make it easier to vote

Sovereign rights & voting rights for Native Americans

Time and time again, our Native American brothers and sisters have seen the federal government break solemn promises, and huge corporations put profits ahead of the sovereign rights of Native communities. Bernie will stand with Native Americans in the struggle to protect their treaty rights, advance traditional ways of life, and improve the quality of life for Native communities.

Bernie will stand with Native Americans to fight for Indian voting rights, just as he will defend the franchise in minority communities across the country.

Unity Reform Commission: reduce power of superdelegates

The Democratic National Committee had designated 716 political insiders as superdelegates--delegates to the national convention who could support any candidate they wanted, regardless of how the people of their state had voted in their primaries or caucuses.

In other words, the Democratic leadership had created the absurd and undemocratic situation that allowed 30 percent of the votes needed for the presidential nomination to come from the party elite. In 2016, this grossly unfair situation became very apparent when Secretary Clinton received the support of some 500 superdelegates BEFORE the first popular vote was cast in the Iowa caucuses.

[The Unity Reform Commission] in December 2017 unanimously passed a resolution that would significantly reduce the power of superdelegates.

Russian cyber-attacks threaten integrity of US elections

SANDERS: It makes me think that either Trump doesn't understand what Russia has done--not only to our elections, but through cyber-attacks against all parts of our infrastructure--or perhaps he is being blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him. Or maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. We have got to make sure that Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives.

Q: How do you protect yourselves in the next race against something like that happening?

SANDERS: We need a president who is going to do everything to work with statewide officials all over this country to make sure that, when people cast a vote, that vote is going to count. Congress has allocated money to strengthen the protection of our electoral system. The president has got to be aggressive in implementing that. The integrity of American democracy is at stake.

Ruling class wants a lack of political consciousness

A young black man informed me that, to him and his friends, politics was totally irrelevant to their lives. It was not something they cared about or even talked about.

Frankly, this lack of political consciousness is exactly what the ruling class of this country wants. Meanwhile, people who work for low wages, have no health insurance, and live in inadequate housing don't see a connection between the reality of their lives and what government does or does not do. Showing people that connection is a very big part of what a progressive political movement has to do. How can we bring about real social change in this country if people in need are not involved in the political process? We need a political revolution. We need to get people involved. We need to get people voting.

Participation in politics as easy and convenient as possible

Democracy is the right of a free people to control their destiny. Not kings or queens or czars, but ordinary people who come together in a peaceful manner in order to determine the future of their society.

What, in our day, does democracy mean? To my mind, it should mean one person, one vote. It should mean an equal opportunity for all who wish to seek public office. It should mean that the wealthy don't have undue influence over the election process. It should mean that voting and participating in the political process is as easy and convenient as possible, and that barriers are not erected to prevent groups of citizens from exercising their right to participate. It should mean that poor people, old people, young people, and people of color are not discriminated against when they want to vote.

Automatic voter registration at age 18

We should make Election Day a federal holiday, or spread Election Day over a two-day weekend, to increase voters' ability to participate. Too many people don't vote because they simply don't have the time on the appointed day--and yes, some forget. Neither situation should disqualify them from casting a ballot. We must make early voting an option for all voters who need the flexibility. And we must make absentee ballot an option for all Americans who request them--with no tests or conditions that unnecessarily hinder voters from requesting and receiving those ballots.

Automatic voter registration; holiday for Election Day

• Moving to automatic voter registration and the public financing of elections, making Election Day a federal holiday, eliminating super PAC's, and passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United; and
• Creating a comprehensive agenda to protect and expand the rights of Native Americans and indigenous communities.

GOP loves voter suppression because it lets them win

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.

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.

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

Why bother to vote? And millions don't.

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.

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.