|
John Neely Kennedy on Government Reform
Democratic Senate Challenger (LA)
|
|
|
No pay-for-play; campaign contributions notwithstanding
Landrieu questioned why Kennedy would take more than $350,000 in campaign contributions from businesses and individuals who had projects before the Bond Commission, which Kennedy chairs.
Landrieu suggested that was an impropriety since Kennedy can decide what projects appear on commission agendas each month. “There’s a lot of talk around Louisiana about how you get on the agenda,” Landrieu said.
Kennedy denied any pay-for-play suggestions, and he said he was glad to compare his record to Landrieu’s campaign contributions, which he said include $300,000 from Wall Street firms and more than
$200,000 from executives with collapsed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “Sen. Landrieu criticizing my fundraising is a little bit like being called vain by Donald Trump,” Kennedy said.
Source: Associated Press on NOLA.com on 2008 Louisiana Senate Debate
, Oct 16, 2008
Full disclosure of all earmarks
Kennedy released the following statement in response to Senator Landrieu’s attack on earmark reform legislation in the State Legislature supported by John Kennedy:“Senator Landrieu’s gleeful celebration of yesterday’s temporary defeat of earmark refor
legislation is exactly what’s wrong with politics today--and why Louisianans are fed up with Washington. Reform is carrying the day in our state, and John Kennedy will never stop fighting to bring accountability and sunshine to our earmarking process.”
“Senator Landrieu has a clear, twelve year record in staunch defense of earmarks. We wish her good luck with that. But a
Washington politician who refuses to fully disclose each and every one of her earmarks, then doubles down by attacking her opponent for supporting earmark reform is out of touch and on the wrong side of history in Louisiana.”
Source: Press release, “Earmark Reform”
, Jun 11, 2008
No pay raise for state elected officials, including himself
The Legislature is scheduled to hear a revised pay raise plan for elected officials on April 21, and State Treasurer John Kennedy does not support the proposed measure to increase statewide elected officials’ pay to $114,016. “The pay raise increase
in the new proposal is smaller than what was originally on the table for elected officials, but I still do not support it,” said Treasurer Kennedy. “I will not take a raise, even if it’s only $1 more than my current salary. I do not feel comfortable
accepting more money when the state - especially our healthcare system - is facing a tight budget and so many people are out of work.“Kennedy cited additional reasons for not accepting a pay raise including the deal he made with voters when he was
elected to take the State Treasurer’s position at $85,000. Kennedy also said his current salary is a small fortune for many Louisianians, and he noted that teachers, school workers and state employees are not receiving raises this year.
Source: Treasurer’s press release, “Revised Pay Plan”
, Apr 20, 2004
Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Neely Kennedy voted NAY Impeachment of President Trump
RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included- Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
- With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House,
which the President of Ukraine sought.
- Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:- Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
- defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
- and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections.
Source: Supreme Court case ImpeachK argued on Dec 18, 2019
Page last updated: Apr 17, 2020
