John Yarmuth on Government Reform Democrat

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.

Member of House Committee on Ethics.

The House Ethics Committee's functions revolve around the standards of ethical conduct for members of the House. Under this authority, it:

• Agrees on a set of rules that regulate what behavior is considered ethical for members (rules relating to gifts, travel, campaign activities, treatment of staff, conflicts of interest, etc.)
• Conducts investigations into whether members have violated these standards
• Makes recommendations to the whole House on what action, if any, should be taken as a result of the investigations (e.g. censure, expulsion from the House, or nothing, if the member is found not to be violating a rule)
• Provides advice to members before they (the members) take action, so as to avoid uncertainty over ethical culpability.

In response to criticism of the House Ethics Committee, the House created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), an independent non-partisan entity established to monitor ethical conduct in the House.

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.

Yarmuth 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.

Yarmuth 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.

  Yarmuth 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

  Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

  Yarmuth sponsored Fair Elections Now Act

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

  • 500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
  • a public debate requirement;
  • establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
  • remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
  • Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

  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.

  Yarmuth 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.

  Yarmuth 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

  Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

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

  Congressional Summary:<

  • Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.
  • Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
  • Provide, upon request, a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50.
  • Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
  • Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
  • Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
  • Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

  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

  No separate contribution limits for party activities.

  Yarmuth co-sponsored H.R.154

  Congressional Summary: To repeal the Federal Election Campaign provisions which established separate contribution limits for contributions made to national parties to support Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and recounts.

  Supporters reasons for voting YEA: Rep. KILMER. This legislation repeals the last-minute changes to campaign finance law that were tacked into a 1,600-page bill to fund the government. As a result of this legislation, the wealthiest donors can now each contribute more than $750,000 per year to a political party, more than seven times the previous cap. Worst of all, these changes were buried in a bill with no hearing and no public debate. This bill protects the interests of "We the People" and make sure that the wealthiest donors don't get another chance to flood our elections with even more money and to undermine our democracy.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Washington Post article, Oct. 9, 2014): The FEC said that contributions to presidential convention committees will not count against the annual limit on donations to national parties--allowing wealthy donors to double their support for party operations. The FEC's move came in response to a rare joint request by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, which argued that they needed a new avenue to raise funds for the events after a federal law eliminated public funding for the conventions. But critics of the decision said the FEC created an end-run around federal contribution limits. Under the current rules, individuals can give up to $32,400 per year to a national party committee. Now, donors will be able to give an additional $32,400 each year to a separate committee set up to finance the quadrennial convention. That means that a single donor could give nearly $130,000 to support a party and its convention in a two-year election cycle.

  Source: Close the Floodgates Act 15_H154 on Jan 6, 2015

  Statehood for the District of Columbia.

  Yarmuth co-sponsored H.R.317

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

  • Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution, and issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia.
  • Requires the President to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union.
  • Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices.

  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.

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

  Congressional Summary:

  • Require each state to make available official public websites for online voter registration.
  • Authorizes automated voter registration and establishes same day registration, and voter registration of individuals under 18 years of age.
  • Declares that the right to vote shall not be denied because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.

  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.

  (PopVox.org blog)
  • TN-8: I have voted in every election federal, state or local that I chose to. If people want to vote there is nothing but laziness preventing them from doing so today! Regarding photo ID's you have one to drive, buy alcohol, and go to the doctor.
  • AL-2: This bill is so general that anyone that is alive, has lived, or will live in this century will be able to vote as well as non-Americans, pets, people without voting rights, and some people multiple times.
  • TN-3: This bill will surely bring about fixed voting in favor of the one who can cheat the most. How about having a voter photo card and a test to see if they are capable of voting and not just voting for whoever promises them more free stuff.
  Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-H12 on Mar 19, 2015

  Signed term limit pledge: 6 years House; 12 years Senate.

  Yarmuth signed pledging 6-year term limit

  Organizational Self-Description: U.S. Term Limits, the nation's oldest and largest term limits advocacy group, announced that 14 new signers of its congressional term limits amendment pledge have been elected to the 114th Congress. The group includes five new senators, eight new House members and one House incumbent who signed the pledge for the first time this cycle. The pledge calls for members to co-sponsor and vote for a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms (six years) and Senators to two terms (12 years). The USTL President said, "The American people are fed up with career politicians in Washington and strongly embracing term limits as a remedy. Gallup polling shows that 75% of Americans support term limits."

  Opposing legal argument: [ACLU, Nov. 7, 2014]: In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (May 22, 1995), the Court ended the movement to enact term limits for Congress on a state-by-state basis. The Court held that the qualifications for Congress established in the Constitution itself could not be amended by the states without a constitutional amendment, and that the notion of congressional term limits violates the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy 'that the people should chose whom they please to govern them.'"

  Opposing political argument: [Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 14, Feb. 18, 1992]: Several considerations may explain political scientists' open hostility to term limitation:

  • Political scientists were instrumental in promoting the professionalization of legislators.
  • They are cynical about the attentiveness, general knowledge, and judgmental capacity of the average voter.
  • They are committed to the conservation of leadership.
  • They perceive attacks on professional politicians as a threat to their own self-proclaimed professionalism.
  • And political partisanship may encourage them to oppose term limits.
  Source: Press release from U.S. Term Limits 16-USTL on Nov 8, 2014

  Holiday on election day; revamp for easier voting access.

  Yarmuth voted YEA For the People Act of 2019
  • This bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
  • The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
  • The bill also sets forth provisions for sharing intelligence information with state election officials, and supporting states in securing their election systems, and establishing the National Commission to Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions.
  • This bill addresses campaign spending, by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; and expanding disclosure rules.
  • This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system [with] federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
  • The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

  Opposing argument from the Heritage Foundation, 2/1/2019: HR1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process. What HR1 Would Do:

  • Seize the authority of states to regulate the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
  • Make it easier to commit fraud at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration.
  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV.
  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

  Legislative outcome: Passed House 234-193-5 on 3/8/19; received with no action in Senate thru 12/31/2019

  Source: Congressional vote 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019

  Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.

  Yarmuth co-sponsored For the People Act

  S.1 and H.R.1: For the People Act: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government:

  • The bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting).
  • It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.
  • The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.
  • The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

  Sen. John Thune in OPPOSITION (9/22/21): This radical legislation would provide for a massive federal takeover of our electoral system, chill free speech, and turn the Federal Election Commission--the primary enforcer of election law in this country--into a partisan body. This radical legislation would undermine state voter ID laws and make it easier for those here illegally to vote.

  And, most of all, it would put Washington, not state governments, in charge of elections--for no reason at all. There is no systemic problem with state election laws. And state election officials do not need Washington bureaucrats dictating how many days of early voting they should offer, or how they should manage mail-in ballots.

  Biden Administration in SUPPORT (3/1/21): In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy.

  Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-210-2 on March 3, 2021 (rollcall #62); received in the Senate on March 11; no further Senate action during 2021.

  Source: S.1/H.R.1 21-HR1 on Jan 4, 2021

  Sponsored impeachment of Trump for inciting insurrection.

  Yarmuth voted YEA impeaching President Trump for inciting insurrection

  GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:

  The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.

  Legislative Outcome:

  Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)

  Source: Congressional vote 21-HR24 on Jan 11, 2021

  Sponsored bill for statehood for Washington D.C.

  Yarmuth co-sponsored Washington D.C. Admission Act

  Legislative Summary: This bill provides for admission into the United States of the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, composed of most of the territory of the District of Columbia. The commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states. District territory excluded from the commonwealth shall be known as the Capital and shall be the seat of the federal government. The bill maintains the federal government's authority over military lands and specified other property. The bill provides for expedited consideration of a joint resolution repealing the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution [the current rule for D.C.].

  WETM 18-Elmira analysis: The House of Representatives passed a bill that would make Washington D.C. into a state. While Democrats say it's time to make D.C. a state, Republicans say the motivation is purely political.

  D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) introduced this bill and says district residents deserve full representation in Congress. "D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they as American citizens must live," Norton said.

  While Democrats say this is about fairness, Republicans say this isn't about the people, it's about the politics. As a state, D.C. would likely add two new Democrats to the Senate.

  "This is about a Democrat power grab," Congressman Fred Keller (R-Penn.) said. Keller and Congressman James Comer (R-Ky.) say Democrats are forcing this issue through for one reason. "HR 51 is not really about voting representation. It's about Democrats consolidating their power in Washington," Comer said.

  Legislative Outcome: Passed House 216-208-6 on 4/22/21 (rollcall #132); introduced in Senate with 45 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.

  Source: H.R.51/S.51 21-HR51 on Jan 4, 2021

  Sponsored "Protecting Our Democracy" to restrict president.

  Yarmuth co-sponsored Protecting Our Democracy Act

  H.R.5314, "Protecting Our Democracy Act," addresses issues involving

  1. abuses of presidential power;
  2. checks and balances, accountability, and transparency; and
  3. election integrity and security.
  Specifically, regarding abuses of presidential power, the bill:
  • requires the President to submit to Congress specified materials relating to certain pardons,
  • prohibits presidential self-pardons,
  • suspends the statute of limitations for federal offenses committed by a sitting President or Vice President,
  • prohibits the acceptance of foreign or domestic emoluments,
  • imposes limits on presidential declarations of emergencies,
  • requires DOJ to maintain a log of specified communications between it and the White House,
  • increases whistleblower protections, and
  • requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years.

  Opinion by Rep. Brooks (R-AL-5) to vote NO, 12/9/21: Brooks voted "No" on H.R. 5314, a bill that perpetuates the now-debunked Russian Collusion claims that have resulted in indictments against the Democrat shills that fabricated it. Brooks said, "Trump Derangement Syndrome does not do justice to the word 'obsession'. HR 5314 is a list of grievances against President Trump that go back to 2016." Brooks concluded, "The American people would be better served if Socialist Democrats spent their time investigating Hunter Biden's shady art and influence-peddling deals that reek of corruption. The American people would be better served if the House considered border security legislation, welfare give-a-way program rollbacks, or bills aimed at addressing rising prices. Instead, we're wasting time on partisan, unnecessary legislation that's going nowhere in the Senate."

  Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-208-6 on 12/9/2021, Roll no. 440); introduced in Senate on 12/13/21; no further Senate action during 2021.

  Source: H.R.5314/S.2921 21-HR5314 on Sep 21, 2021

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 John Yarmuth. Click here for a summary of John Yarmuth's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of John Yarmuth's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for John Yarmuth. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of John Yarmuth. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of John Yarmuth. Click here for other KY politicians. Click here for KY primary archives. Click here for KY secondary archives.
2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform:			John Yarmuth on other issues:
KY Gubernatorial: Adam Edelen Alison Grimes Andy Beshear Ben Chandler Jim Gray Mark Harmon Matt Bevin Robert Goforth Rocky Adkins KY Senatorial: Amy McGrath C. Wesley Morgan Charles Booker Jim Gray Mary Ann Tobin Mitch McConnell Rand Paul Steven Cox	Republican Freshman class of 2021: AL-1: Jerry Carl(R) AL-2: Barry Moore(R) CA-8: Jay Obernolte(R) CA-50: Darrell Issa(R) CO-3: Lauren Boebert(R) FL-3: Kat Cammack(R) FL-15: Scott Franklin(R) FL-19: Byron Donalds(R) GA-9: Andrew Clyde(R) GA-14: Marjorie Taylor Greene(R) IA-2: Mariannette Miller-Meeks(R) IA-4: Randy Feenstra(R) IL-15: Mary Miller(R) IN-5: Victoria Spartz(R) KS-1: Tracey Mann(R) KS-2: Jake LaTurner(R) LA-5: Luke Letlow(R) MI-3: Peter Meijer(R) MI-10: Lisa McClain(R) MT-0: Matt Rosendale(R) NC-11: Madison Cawthorn(R) NM-3: Teresa Leger Fernandez(D) NY-2: Andrew Garbarino(R) NY-22: Claudia Tenney(R) OR-2: Cliff Bentz(R) PR-0: Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon(R) TN-1: Diana Harshbarger(R) TX-4: Pat Fallon(R) TX-11: August Pfluger(R) TX-13: Ronny Jackson(R) TX-17: Pete Sessions(R) TX-22: Troy Nehls(R) TX-23: Tony Gonzales(R) TX-24: Beth Van Duyne(R) UT-1: Blake Moore(R) VA-5: Bob Good(R) WI-5: Scott Fitzgerald(R)	Incoming Democratic Freshman class of 2021: CA-53: Sara Jacobs(D) GA-5: Nikema Williams(D) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux(D) HI-2: Kai Kahele(D) IL-3: Marie Newman(D) IN-1: Frank Mrvan(D) MA-4: Jake Auchincloss(D) MO-1: Cori Bush(D) NC-2: Deborah Ross(D) NC-6: Kathy Manning(D) NY-15: Ritchie Torres(D) NY-16: Jamaal Bowman(D) NY-17: Mondaire Jones(D) WA-10: Marilyn Strickland(D) Republican takeovers as of 2021: CA-21: David Valadao(R) defeated T.J. Cox(D) CA-39: Young Kim(R) defeated Gil Cisneros(D) CA-48: Michelle Steel(R) defeated Harley Rouda(D) FL-26: Carlos Gimenez(R) defeated Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) FL-27: Maria Elvira Salazar(R) defeated Donna Shalala(D) IA-1: Ashley Hinson(R) defeated Abby Finkenauer(D) MN-7: Michelle Fischbach(R) defeated Collin Peterson(D) NM-2: Yvette Herrell(R) defeated Xochitl Small(D) NY-11: Nicole Malliotakis(R) defeated Max Rose(D) OK-5: Stephanie Bice(R) defeated Kendra Horn(D) SC-1: Nancy Mace(R) defeated Joe Cunningham(D) UT-4: Burgess Owens(R) defeated Ben McAdams(D) Special Elections 2021-2022: CA-22: replacing Devin Nunes (R, SPEL summer 2022) FL-20: replacing Alcee Hastings (D, SPEL Jan. 2022) LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile KY politicians Contact info: Email Contact Form Mailing Address: Cannon HOB 435, Washington, DC 20515 Official Website

Page last updated: Feb 03, 2022