OnTheIssuesLogo

Dennis Kucinich on Government Reform

Democratic Representative (OH-10)

 


14th and 15th Amendment are being shredded

I carry a copy of the constitution with me, which is very relevant to this audience, because in the 14th amendment it talks about the guarantee of due process and equal protection of the law; in the 15th amendment not denying the right to vote based on race & color. But you know what our constitution is being shredded. We’re losing our country to lies. To war based on lies. And to debt. This is one of the reasons why I’ve introduced articles of impeachment to call this administration accountable.
Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007

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

I entered the City Council Committee for the first time [at a public meeting]. One by one the Councilmen attacked the idea of Council reduction [to fewer elected seats].

“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.

Source: The Courage to Survive, by Dennis Kucinich, p.277-280 , Nov 1, 2007

Introduced impeachment resolution to make Cheney accountable

Why did I introduce this resolution of impeachment? It wasn’t because I am after Mr. Cheney. I believe that the most important thing that binds us as a people is the Constitution. That is the sacred text for us in a democratic society. And when someone takes that oath of office and they pledge to support the Constitution of the US, that’s a sacred oath for our society.

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.

Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007

Public campaign financing yields to public control

Q: What about public financing of elections?

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.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A , Nov 4, 2003

Public financing for elections

[Kucinich supports] comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public’s elections; ample free television time for candidates, coupled with the break-up of the media monopolies that restrict political debate.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Register on election day; more voting rights enhancements

[Kucinich supports] election day as a holiday; election day voter registration; enhanced voting rights enforcement; an end to the racially-biased disenfranchisement of felons who have served their time.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Give DC residents proper representation

[Kucinich supports] full Congressional representation for residents of the District of Columbia.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Debate reform opens the door to new candidates

[Kucinich supports] an inclusive debate process that does not exclude credible 3rd-party candidates and expansion of elections using full (proportional) representation, which assure more accurate and broader representation than winner-take-all elections.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Implement Instant Runoff Voting in US

I support “Instant Runoff Voting.” IRV offers a cost-effective way of insuring that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters; it encourages voters to vote their wishes and not their fears; it promotes greater voter turnout and positive campaigning.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Will not accept corporate PAC money

I am running my presidential campaign in line with [my] reform principles. I don’t take corporate PAC money. My campaign is financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers. A true grassroots campaign.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Private campaign financing leads to private control of gov’t

Private control of campaign financing leads to private control of the government itself and schemes like the privatization of social security which would put nearly seven trillion dollars in retirement funds of Main Street workers at the disposal of Wall Street speculators over the next twenty five years.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, Kucinich.us, “On The Issues” , Aug 1, 2003

Spend money on job creation, not corporate cronies

Q: What do you think about the policies of the Bush administration?

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.

Source: MoveOn.org interview , Jun 17, 2003

End privatization: it sells government to lowest bidder

As president I’ll lead the way to stopping privatization which has been about carving up our government and selling it to the lowest bidder. We’ll put an end to that. As president, I’ll lead the way to protecting Social Security and stop the privatization of Social Security and bring the retirement age back to 65. As president, I’ll stop the privatization of Medicare.
Source: AFSCME union debate in Iowa , May 17, 2003

Dennis Kucinich on Voting Record

Voted against certifying 2004 election because of Ohio fraud

Q: What would you do to ensure that all Americans are able to cast a free and unfettered vote and that that vote be counted?

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.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum , Jul 12, 2007

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

Q: Is anyone on this stage willing to enter into Congressman Kucinich’s effort to impeach Vice President Cheney? [none are willing]. That being the response, Congressman, is this a proper use of public congressional time and energy?

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.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC , Apr 26, 2007

Voted YES on Senate pay raise.

Congressional Summary:
    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.
Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1968 to increase by $50,000 the gross compensation paid all employees in the office of a Senator. Increases by $96,000 per year the aggregate amount authorized for the offices of the Majority and Minority Whip.

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.

Reference: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act; Bill HR2918&S1294 ; vote number 2009-H413 on Jun 19, 2009

Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require a registered lobbyist who bundles contributions totaling over $5,000 to one covered recipient in one quarter to:
  1. file a quarterly report with Congress; and
  2. notify the recipient.
"Covered recipient" includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs].

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.

Reference: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; Bill H R 2316 ; vote number 2007-423 on May 24, 2007

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

Bill to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for representation in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College. Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members beginning with the 110th Congress. [Political note: D.C. currently has a non-voting delegate to the US House. Residents of D.C. overwhelmingly vote Democratic, so the result of this bill would be an additional Democratic vote in the House and for President].

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.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill H R 1905 ; vote number 2007-231 on Apr 19, 2007

Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals for federal employees, particularly on national security issues.

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.
Reference: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act; Bill H R 985 ; vote number 2007-153 on Mar 14, 2007

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

Requires that to vote in federal elections, an individual present a government-issued, current, and valid photo identification. After 2010, that ID must require providing proof of US citizenship as a condition for issuance. An individual who does not present such an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot, and then present the required ID within 48 hours. Exempts from this requirement the absentee ballot of any eligible overseas military voter on active duty overseas.

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.

Reference: Federal Election Integrity Act; Bill H R 4844 ; vote number 2006-459 on Sep 20, 2006

Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees.

A "527 organization" is a political committee which spends money raised independently of any candidate's campaign committee, in support or opposition of a candidate or in support or opposition of an issue. Well-known examples include MoveOn.org (anti-Bush) and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (anti-Kerry). Voting YES would regulate 527s as normal political committees, which would greatly restrict their funding, and hence would shift power to candidate committees and party committees. The bill's opponents say:
  • This legislation singles out 527 organizations in an effort to undermine their fundraising and is a direct assault on free speech.
  • This bill would obstruct the efforts of grassroots organizations while doing nothing to address the culture of corruption in Congress.
  • H.R. 513 is an unbalanced measure that favors corporate trade associations over independent advocates. Corporate interests could continue spending unlimited and undisclosed dollars for political purposes while independent organizations would be subject to contribution limits and source restrictions.
  • H.R. 513 also removes all limits on national and state party spending for Congressional candidates in primary or general elections--an unmasked attack on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and clear evidence that the true intention in advancing H.R. 513 is not reform, but partisan advantage in political fundraising.
    Reference: Federal Election Campaign Act amendment "527 Reform Act"; Bill H.R.513 ; vote number 2006-088 on Apr 5, 2006

    Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

    The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act ("The Cheesburger Bill") would prevent civil liability actions against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. A YES vote would:
    Reference: The Cheesburger Bill; Bill HR 554 ; vote number 2005-533 on Oct 19, 2005

    Voted NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.

    Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Amends the Federal judicial code to specify the calculation of contingent and other attorney's fees in proposed class action settlements that provide for the award of coupons to class members. Allows class members to refuse compliance with settlement agreements or consent decrees absent notice. Prohibits a Federal district court from approving:
    1. a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
    2. a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; or
    3. a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley [R, IA]; Bill S.5 ; vote number 2005-038 on Feb 17, 2005

    Voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

    Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004: Amends the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to:
    1. require courts to impose sanctions on attorneys, law firms, or parties who file frivolous lawsuits (currently, sanctions are discretionary);
    2. disallow the withdrawal or correction of pleadings to avoid sanctions;
    3. require courts to award parties prevailing on motions reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, if warranted;
    4. authorize courts to impose sanctions that include reimbursement of a party's reasonable litigation costs in connection with frivolous lawsuits; and
    5. make the discovery phase of litigation subject to sanctions.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]; Bill H.R.4571 ; vote number 2004-450 on Sep 14, 2004

    Voted YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.

    Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Overhaul: Vote to pass a bill that would ban soft money contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Shays, R-CT, and Meehan D-MA; Bill HR 2356 ; vote number 2002-34 on Feb 14, 2002

    Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties.

    Support a ban on soft money donations to national political parties but allow up to $10,000 in soft-money donations to state and local parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote activity.
    Bill HR 2356 ; vote number 2001-228 on Jul 12, 2001

    Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads.

    Campaign Finance Reform Act to ban "soft money" and impose restrictions on issue advocacy campaigning.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Shays, R-CT; Bill HR 417 ; vote number 1999-422 on Sep 14, 1999

    Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections.

    Kucinich co-sponsored criminalizing false or 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.
    Creates a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of such prohibition. Prescribes a criminal penalty for such deceptive acts.

    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.

    Source: Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (S.1975/H.R.4463) 05-S1975 on Nov 8, 2005

    Reject photo ID requirements for voting.

    Kucinich co-sponsored rejecting photo ID requirements 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.

    Source: Resolution on Voting (S.CON.RES.53) 05-SC53 on Sep 20, 2005

    Member of House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

    Kucinich is a member of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

    The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's government-wide oversight jurisdiction and expanded legislative authority make it one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House. The Committee serves as Congress' chief investigative and oversight committee. The chairman of the committee is the only committee chairman in the House with the authority to issue subpoenas without a committee vote.
    Source: U.S. House of Representatives website, www.house.gov 11-HC-OGR on Feb 3, 2011

    Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

    Kucinich co-sponsored STOCK Act

    Congressional Summary:Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act): Amends the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit purchase or sale of either securities or commodities by a person in possession of material nonpublic information regarding pending or prospective legislative action.

    Bill explanation (ProCon.org, "Insider Trading by Congress", Feb. 3, 2012):

    Source: H1148/S1871 11-S1871 on Nov 15, 2011

    Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

    Kucinich co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act

    Congressional Summary:

    Wikipedia & OnTheIssue Summary:
    SubcommitteeChairRanking Member
    Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
    Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial ManagementTodd Platts (R-PA) Ed Towns (D-NY)
    Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives Trey Gowdy (R-SC) Danny K. Davis (D-IL)
    National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) John F. Tierney (D-MA)
    Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending Jim Jordan (R-OH) Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
    TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Michael Quigley (D-IL)
    Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform James Lankford (R-OK) Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
    Other candidates on Government Reform: Dennis Kucinich on other issues:
    Former Presidents:
    George W. Bush (R,2001-2009)
    Bill Clinton (D,1993-2001)
    George Bush Sr. (R,1989-1993)
    Ronald Reagan (R,1981-1989)
    Jimmy Carter (D,1977-1981)
    Gerald Ford (R,1974-1977)
    Richard Nixon (R,1969-1974)
    Lyndon Johnson (D,1963-1969)
    John F. Kennedy (D,1961-1963)
    Dwight Eisenhower (R,1953-1961)
    Harry_S_TrumanHarry S Truman(D,1945-1953)

    Former Contenders:
    V.P.Al Gore
    Pat Buchanan
    V.P.Dick Cheney
    Sen.Bob Dole
    Ralph Nader
    Gov.Sarah Palin

    Political Thinkers:
    Noam Chomsky
    Milton Friedman
    Arianna Huffington
    Rush Limbaugh
    Tea Party
    Ayn Rand
    Secy.Robert Reich
    Joe Scarborough
    Donald Trump
    Gov.Jesse Ventura     		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: Jan 13, 2015