Bruce Braley on Government Reform Democrat

AdWatch: Opponent never made a peep about wasteful spending

Bruce Braley (D-IA), who's battling Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst for Iowa's open Senate seat, criticized his opponent's record in a new ad, showing a baby chick onscreen as the narrator says Ernst never made a "peep" about wasteful spending as a state lawmaker. "When Joni Ernst had the chance to do something in Iowa, we didn't hear a peep," the narrator explains as the chick onscreen chirps. "In the state Senate, Ernst never sponsored a bill to cut pork, never wrote one measure to slash spending."

While the ad never labels Ernst a "chick," or even mentions the word, Republicans were quick to pounce on what they saw as the spot's sexist undertones. Ernst's spokeswoman said the ad "degrades & insults Iowa women by comparing Joni Ernst to a 'chick.'"

Voted YES on Senate 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 requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

1. file a quarterly report with Congress; and
2. notify the recipient.

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.

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

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.

Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

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.

Establish the United States Public Service Academy.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. CLINTON: I rise today to introduce legislation that will create an undergraduate institution designed to cultivate a generation of young leaders dedicated to public service. The US Public Service Academy Act (The PSA Act) will form a national academy to serve as an extraordinary example of effective, national public education.

The tragic events of September 11 and the devastation of natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita underscore how much our Nation depends on strong public institutions and competent civilian leadership at all levels of society. Congress must take a step forward to ensure competent civilian leadership and improve our Nation's ability to respond to future emergencies and to confront daily challenges.

This legislation will create the US Public Service Academy to groom future public servants and build a corps of capable civilian leaders. Modeled after the military service academies, this academy will provide a four-year, federally-subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five year commitment to public service.

The PSA Act will meet critical national needs as the baby-boomer generation approaches retirement. Already, studies show looming shortages in the Federal civil service, public education, law enforcement, the non-profit sector and other essential areas.

Unfortunately our young people are priced out of public service careers all too often. By providing a service-oriented education at no cost to the student, the PSA Act will tap into the strong desire to serve that already exists among college students while erasing the burden of enormous college debt.

The establishment of a United States Public Service Academy is an innovative way to strengthen and protect America by creating a corps of well-trained, highly-qualified civilian leaders. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today.

Member of 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.

Braley 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.

• Amends the Ethics in Government Act to require formal disclosure of certain securities and commodities futures transactions.
• Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to subject to its registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements all political intelligence activities, contacts, firms, and consultants.

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

• On Mar. 17, 2011, Tim Walz (D-MN) introduced the STOCK Act where it gained nine co-sponsors by Nov. 4, 2011.
• On Nov. 13, 2011, the TV show "60 Minutes" reported that several members of Congress allegedly used insider information for personal gain. The STOCK Act received 84 additional House co-sponsors in the five days following the report, and Scott Brown (R-MA) filed the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 15, 2011. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also filed a variation of the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 17, 2011.
• On Jan. 24, 2012, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama said "Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow."
• Immediately after the speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters, "I think people should have enough sense not to do it [insider trading] without legislation, but I will support legislation."
• On Feb. 2, 2012, a revised version of the STOCK Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-3 with Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) dissenting.

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

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Braley co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act

Congressional Summary:

• Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
• Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of "independent expenditure" an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
• Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
• Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
• Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

Wikipedia & OnTheIssue Summary:

• On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

  The result of Citizens United was that "Super PACs" spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

  Source: S3369/HR4010 12-HR4010 on Feb 9, 2012

  Full disclosure of campaign spending.

  Braley 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:

  • Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to redefine the term "independent expenditure" as an expenditure that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because it can be interpreted only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
  • Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
  • Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and campaign-related disbursements.
  • Requires any communication transmitted through radio or television to include an individual or organizational disclosure statement, together with:
    1. the Top Two Funders List of the persons providing the largest and second largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a radio communication, and
    2. the Top Five Funders List of the five persons providing the largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a television communication.
  • Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.
  • Requires a covered organization which submits regular, periodic reports to its shareholders, members, or donors on its finances or activities to include in each report, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the information included in the statements it has filed about campaign-related disbursements the organization has made during the period covered by the report.
  • Requires semiannual reports on election campaign contributions by registered lobbyists for any independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, including electioneering communication.
  Source: H.R.148 13-HR0148 on Jan 3, 2013

  No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

  Braley 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.

  Braley co-sponsored Government By the People Act

  Congressional summary:

  • A refundable tax credit of 50% of congressional House campaign contributions, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.
  • Establishes the Government by the People Oversight Commission, which will launch a pilot program and select 3 eligible states to operate a voucher pilot program.
  • Provide each qualified individual during the election cycle, upon his or her request, with a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50 (in either paper or electronic form).
  • Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
  • Prohibits a certified participating candidate from establishing or controlling a leadership PAC (political action committee).

  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

Subcommittee	Chair	Ranking Member
Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial Management	Todd 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)

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Bruce Braley. Click here for a summary of Bruce Braley's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Bruce Braley's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Bruce Braley. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Bruce Braley. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Bruce Braley. Click here for other IA politicians. Click here for IA primary archives. Click here for IA secondary archives.
2016-17 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform:			Bruce Braley on other issues:
IA Gubernatorial: Chet Culver Jack Hatch Kim Reynolds Rich Leopold Terry Branstad Tom Hoefling IA Senatorial: Doug Butzier Joni Ernst Matthew Whitaker Sam Clovis Newly-elected Democrats as of Jan.2017: AZ-1:O`Halleran(D) CA-17:Khanna(D) CA-20:Panetta(D) CA-24:Carbajal(D) CA-44:Barragan(D) CA-46:Correa(D) DE-0:Rochester(D) FL-5:Lawson(D) FL-7:Murphy(D) FL-9:Soto(D) FL-10:Demings(D) FL-13:Crist(D) HI-1:Hanabusa(D) IL-10:Schneider(D) IL-8:Krishnamoorthi(D) MD-4:Brown(D) MD-8:Raskin(D) NH-1:Shea-Porter(D) NJ-5:Gottheimer(D) NV-3:Rosen(D) NV-4:Kihuen(D) NY-3:Suozzi(D) NY-13:Espaillat(D) PA-2:Evans(D) TX-15:Gonzalez(D) VA-4:McEachin(D) WA-7:Jayapal(D)	Newly-elected Republicans as of Jan.2017: AZ-5:Biggs(R) FL-1:Gaetz(R) FL-2:Dunn(R) FL-18:Mast(R) FL-19:Rooney(R) FL-4:Rutherford(R) GA-3:Ferguson(R) IN-3:Banks(R) IN-9:Hollingsworth(R) KS-1:Marshall(R) KY-1:Comer(R) MI-1:Bergman(R) MI-10:Mitchell(R) MN-2:Lewis(R) NC-13:Budd(R) NE-2:Bacon(R) NY-19:Faso(R) NY-22:Tenney(R) PA-8:Fitzpatrick(R) TN-8:Kustoff(R) TX-19:Arrington(R) VA-2:Taylor(R) VA-5:Garrett(R) WI-8:Gallagher(R) WY-0:Cheney(R)	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 Main Page Wikipedia Profile Ballotpedia Profile IA politicians IA Archives Contact info: Fax Number: 202-225-9129 Mailing Address: Longworth HOB 1019, Washington, DC 20515 Phone number: (202) 225-2911

Page last updated: Jun 23, 2017