OnTheIssuesLogo

Joe Kennedy III on Government Reform

 

 


Supports People's Pledge: no outside PAC spending

Markey and Kennedy sparred over a "People's Pledge," which would limit outside money spent in the race. Kennedy supports it, while Markey only limits negative advertisements. Markey has been endorsed by Environment Massachusetts, which plans to put together a $5 million campaign to support his candidacy.

"We should welcome positive voices, disclosed voices," like those from "environmental groups," Markey said.

"Who gets to say these are voices we like?" Kennedy replied.

Source: CNN coverage of 2020 Massachusetts Senate debate , Feb 18, 2020

Proposed pledge to limit spending from outside groups

The three-way Democratic primary for incumbent Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's seat may see the candidates sign the so-called People's Pledge to limit outside campaign financing. Politico reported that U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy's campaign had recently reached out to Markey and labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan with proposed language to limit spending from outside groups and plans for a pledge signing ceremony. Kennedy had already called on his opponents to sign a pledge after he entered the race in September, the Boston Globe reported.

Politico reported that the campaigns were finalizing details and could sign an agreement within the next two weeks. Liss-Riordan and Kennedy had confirmed plans to sign the pledge, but the pair postponed while the Senate was in session, with the Markey campaign telling Politico that the senator was "actively looking at" a pledge agreement.

Source: Springfield Republican on 2020 Massachusetts Senate race , Nov 7, 2019

Necessary regulations costs are crippling

On federal compliance: "Back home in my district just outside Boston, the 4th District, I hear concerns about the cost of compliance from those regulations in almost all the cities and towns that I visit," said Kennedy. "They don't disagree with the importance of these regulations, but as they struggle to get back on their feet post recession and deal with an already crippling loss of state and federal dollars due to our budget situation here, that cost of compliance can seem almost impossible."
Source: Taunton Gazette on 2020 Massachusetts Senate race , Nov 15, 2013

Citizens United decision should be reversed

Q: Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?

A: Yes. I strongly believe that the Citizens United decision should be reversed. At a minimum we should pass legislation, such as the Disclose Act, to create transparency in the system.

Source: MA Congressional 2012 Political Courage Test , Oct 30, 2012

Full disclosure of campaign spending.

Kennedy co-sponsored DISCLOSE 2013 Act

Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2013 or DISCLOSE 2013 Act:

Source: H.R.148 13-HR0148 on Jan 3, 2013

Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

Kennedy co-sponsored Fair Elections Now Act

Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won't be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we'll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we'll win.

Source: S.375/H.R.269 14_H269 on Jan 15, 2013

No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

Kennedy signed Voting Rights Amendment Act

Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].

Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): 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.

Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole's amendment] 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].

Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_H3899 on Jan 16, 2014

Establish "My Voice Voucher" small campaign contributions.

Kennedy co-sponsored Government By the People Act

Congressional summary:

Proponent's argument in favor (by Reps. Nancy Pelosi & John Sarbanes): Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government. Most members of Congress would leap at the chance to fund their campaigns without having to turn to a familiar cast of big donors and entrenched interests. Today, that's virtually impossible. But we can and must break the grip of special interests on our politics: rally around H.R. 20.

Opponent's argument against (The Examiner): The proposed legislation seeks to undo the Citizens United v. FEC ruling which has been a thorn in the side of progressives ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending was "a form of protected speech under the First Amendment." Although the "Government by the People Act" innocently claims to want to get big money out of politics, the real goal is to smash the Tea Party. The fear that conservative groups would have access to funds typically granted to progressive groups and unions was too much to bear.

Source: H.R.20 14-H0020 on Feb 5, 2014

Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

Kennedy co-sponsored H.R.20 & S.366

Congressional Summary:<

Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress' priorities and erodes the public's trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

  1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
  2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
  3. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won't moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for "the rational small donor who right now isn't going to give $25 because they've figured out that it's not going to matter." The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

Source: Government By the People Act 15_H020 on Jan 21, 2015

Statehood for the District of Columbia.

Kennedy co-sponsored H.R.317

Congressional Summary: Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (DCist.com, Sept. 2014): The Argument Against: Congress does not have the authority to grant statehood to D.C.; the 23rd amendment, which gave D.C. three electoral votes, would have to be repealed before statehood was granted. Washington is a wholly urban, one-industry town, dependent on the federal government far in excess of any other state. Moreover, with Congress no longer having authority over New Columbia but dependent on it, New Columbia could exert influence on the federal government far in excess of any other state.

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: [Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC; the District of Columbia has one representative to Congress and no Senators; Rep. Holmes can introduce bills but her vote does not count]: This 51st state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. Those would remain under federal jurisdiction. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced in 1991. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States.

Source: New Columbia Admission Act 15_H317 on Jan 13, 2015

Automatic voter registration for all citizens.

Kennedy co-sponsored H.R.12 & S.1088

Congressional Summary:

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (BrennanCenter.org): Too many Americans go to vote on Election Day only to find their names are not on the voter rolls--often, wrongly deleted. The US is on the verge of a new paradigm for registering voters: automatic, permanent registration of eligible voters, which would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Gov. Christie's veto message on the "Democracy Act", Nov. 2015): Christie called a provision establishing automatic voter registration that requires New Jerseyan to opt out a "government-knows-best, backwards approach that would inconvenience citizens and waste government resources for no justifiable reason." Automatic voter registration would have added 1.6 million people to the state's voter rolls.

Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-H12 on Mar 19, 2015

Holiday on election day; revamp for easier voting access.

Kennedy voted YEA For the People Act of 2019