OnTheIssuesLogo

Roger Wicker on Government Reform

Republican Jr Senator; previously Republican Representative (MS-1)

 


Opposes limiting campaign donations, and opposes disclosure

Q: Campaign Finance: Require political ads & contributions to disclose their largest funders? Limit political donations from corporations & unions?

David Baria (D): Has offered numerous bills to increase more campaign finance disclosure from lobbyists & candidates. Would limit political donations.

Roger Wicker (R): No. Voted against 2012 DISCLOSE Act. Also against limiting political donations.

Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Mississippi Senate race , Oct 9, 2018

Responded to FEC inquiry about mixed House & Senate funds

Musgrove and Wicker each alleged that the other has violated federal campaign finance laws. Each side denied the allegations.

Musgrove charged that Wicker violated campaign-finance law by combining funds from two separate 2008 election accounts and therefore exceeded the limit on individual contributions from some individuals under federal law. Musgrove said Wicker transferred $550,000 from his 2008 House of Representatives election account to his Senate election fund.

Wicker’s staff contends they’ve responded to an FEC inquiry saying the money is from a previous election cycle, and not from Wicker’s 2008 House bid, which had already begun when he was chosen to replace Trent Lott. But Musgrove’s staff contends Wicker “didn’t have adequate funding in his House account prior to the 2008 cycle to transfer the funds.”

Musgrove said in a news release, “This type of Washington politics needs to change. Rather than wait for the FEC to fine him, Wicker should return the illegal contributions.”

Source: Gulf South Free Press on 2008 MS Senate Debate , Jul 17, 2008

Remove limits on campaign financing, but require disclosure

Source: Congressional 1998 National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 1998

Voted YES on Congressional 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-S217 on Jul 6, 2009

Voted NO on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

Congressional Summary:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill S.160 ; vote number 2009-S073 on Feb 26, 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 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 YES 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 NO 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 YES 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 NO 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

    Ensure delivery of absentee ballots for troops overseas.

    Wicker co-sponsored ensuring delivery of absentee ballots for troops overseas

    A bill to improve procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of absent overseas uniformed services voters. Congress makes the following findings:

    1. In the defense of freedom, members of the United States Armed Forces are routinely deployed to overseas locations.
    2. We live in what senior Army leaders have referred to as an 'era of persistent conflict'.
    3. The right to vote is one of the most basic and fundamental rights enjoyed by Americans, and one which the members of the Armed Forces bravely defend.
    4. The ability of the members of the Armed Forces to vote while serving overseas has been hampered by numerous factors, including inadequate processes for ensuring their timely receipt of absentee ballots, delivery methods that are typically slow and antiquated, and a myriad of absentee voting procedures that are often confusing.
    5. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which requires the States to allow absentee voting for members of the Armed Forces and other specified groups of United States citizens, was intended to protect the voting rights of members of the Armed Forces.
    6. 992,034 absentee ballots were requested in the 2006 general election. However, less than one-third of such ballots were ultimately received by local election officials, evidencing an unacceptable failure of the current absentee ballot system.
    7. Modern technology continues to rapidly advance, greatly expanding the range of potential solutions to these problems and increasing the ability to remove obstacles encountered by overseas members of the Armed Forces in the past in trying to cast their votes; [specifically]:
    Source: S.3073 08-S3073 on May 22, 2008

    Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

    Wicker co-sponsored Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act

    Congressional summary:: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act: Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, for determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status as an organization operated exclusively for social welfare to apply to such determinations after enactment of this Act. Prohibits any regulation, or other ruling, not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to such standards and definitions.

    Proponent's argument in favor (Heritage Action, Feb. 26, 2014): H.R. 3865 comes in the wake of an attack on the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a "facts and circumstances" test to determine what constitutes "political activity" by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test. IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.

    Text of sample IRS letter to Tea Party organizations:We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for exemption. Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or officer whose name is listed on your application.

    Source: H.R.3865 & S.2011 14-S2011 on Feb 11, 2014

    Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

    Wicker 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_S366 on Feb 4, 2015

    CC:Appoint strict Constitutionalist judges.

    Wicker supports the CC survey question on judicial constitutionalism

    The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution' Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."

    Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1a on Jul 1, 2018

    Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

    Wicker signed Enumerated Powers Act

    A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.

    Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.

    Constitutional Authority for This Act: This Act proposes to establish new procedures by which legislation shall be considered by Congress and is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution establishing that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

    Source: S.1319&HR450 2009-S1319 on Jun 22, 2009

    President Trump not guilty of inciting insurrection.

    Wicker voted NAY removing President Trump from office 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-HR24S on Jan 11, 2021

    Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress.

    Wicker signed the Contract with America:

    [As part of the Contract with America, within 100 days we pledge to bring to the House Floor the following bills]:

    The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act:
    “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages, and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.
    The Citizen Legislature Act:A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
    Source: Contract with America 93-CWA11 on Sep 27, 1994

    Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money.

    Wicker signed the Contract with America:

    This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

    Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

      On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
    1. Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
    2. Select a major independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud, and abuse;
    3. Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
    4. Limit the terms of all committee chairs;
    5. Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
    6. Require committee meetings to be open to the public;
    7. Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase
    8. Guarantee an honest accounting of our federal budget by implementing zero baseline budgeting.
    Source: Contract with America 93-CWA2 on Sep 27, 1994

    Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

    Wicker 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
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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:
    1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
    2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
    3. 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: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019

    2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform: Roger Wicker on other issues:
    MS Gubernatorial:
    Bill Waller
    David Baria-x
    Howard Sherman
    Jim Hood
    Phil Bryant
    Robert Foster
    Tate Reeves
    Trent Lott
    MS Senatorial:
    Chris McDaniel
    Cindy Hyde-Smith
    David Baria
    Jensen Bohren
    Mike Espy     		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
    MS politicians

    Contact info:
    Fax Number:
    202-228-0378
    Mailing Address:
    Senate Office SD-555, Washington, DC 20510
    Phone number:
    (202) 224-6253





    Page last updated: Jun 07, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org