Christopher Smith on Government Reform

	Christopher Smith on Government Reform Republican Representative (NJ-4)

Voted NO on Senate pay raise.

Congressional Summary:

expense allowances;
representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
agency contributions for employee benefits;
inquiries and investigations;
the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
miscellaneous items;
the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
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-H413 on Jun 19, 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:

file a quarterly report with Congress; and
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 granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress.

Bill to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for representation in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College. Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members beginning with the 110th Congress. [Political note: D.C. currently has a non-voting delegate to the US House. Residents of D.C. overwhelmingly vote Democratic, so the result of this bill would be an additional Democratic vote in the House and for President].

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.

Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act; Bill H R 1905 ; vote number 2007-231 on Apr 19, 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:

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.
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.
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.

527s' primary purpose is to influence the election or defeat of a Federal candidate. They have to file with the FEC because after Watergate in 1974 this Congress passed a law that said if you are going to have a political committee whose primary purpose is to influence an election, then they have to register with the FEC.
The FEC ignored 30 years of congressional actions and Supreme Court jurisprudence in allowing 527s to evade the law. In short, the FEC failed to do its job and regulate 527s as required under the Watergate statute.

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:

Prohibit such lawsuits in this act in federal or state courts
Dismiss any pending lawsuits upon this bill's enactment
Maintain an individual's right to bring a lawsuit to court for false marketing, advertising or labeling of food when such information led to injury, obesity or weight gain

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:

a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
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
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:

require courts to impose sanctions on attorneys, law firms, or parties who file frivolous lawsuits (currently, sanctions are discretionary);
disallow the withdrawal or correction of pleadings to avoid sanctions;
require courts to award parties prevailing on motions reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, if warranted;
authorize courts to impose sanctions that include reimbursement of a party's reasonable litigation costs in connection with frivolous lawsuits; and
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

Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

Smith 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

Oppose expanding voter registration and voter access.

Smith voted NAY 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: Congressional vote 21-HR1 on Jan 4, 2021

Don't impeach President Trump for events of Jan. 6.

Smith voted NAY 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

No statehood for Washington D.C.

Smith voted NAY 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: Congressional vote 21-HR51 on Jan 4, 2021

Don't restrict presidential power; don't help whistleblowers.

Smith voted NAY Protecting Our Democracy Act

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

abuses of presidential power;
checks and balances, accountability, and transparency; and
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: Congressional vote 21-HR5314 on Sep 21, 2021

Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress.

Smith 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.

Smith 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.

Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
Select a major independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud, and abuse;
Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
Limit the terms of all committee chairs;
Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
Require committee meetings to be open to the public;
Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase
Guarantee an honest accounting of our federal budget by implementing zero baseline budgeting.

Source: Contract with America 93-CWA2 on Sep 27, 1994

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Christopher Smith. Click here for a summary of Christopher Smith's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Christopher Smith's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Christopher Smith. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Christopher Smith. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Christopher Smith. Click here for other NJ politicians. Click here for NJ primary archives. Click here for NJ secondary archives.
*2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform:*			*Christopher Smith on other issues:*
*NJ Gubernatorial:* Barbara Buono Chris Christie Cory Booker Doug Steinhardt Hirsh Singh Jack Ciattarelli Joe Rullo John Wisniewski Kim Guadagno Phil Murphy Seth Kaper-Dale *NJ Senatorial:* Bob Hugin Cory Booker Hirsh Singh Jeff Chiesa Murray Sabrin Rich Pezzullo Rik Mehta Robert Menendez Stuart Meissner	*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 NJ politicians Contact info: Fax Number: 202-225-7768 Mailing Address: Rayburn HOB 2373, Washington, DC 20515 Phone number: (202) 225-3765

Page last updated: Jan 21, 2022

Christopher Smith on Government Reform

Republican Representative (NJ-4)

Voted NO on Senate pay raise.

Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

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

Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.

Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections.

Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees.

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.

Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.

Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties.

Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads.

Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

Oppose expanding voter registration and voter access.

Don't impeach President Trump for events of Jan. 6.

No statehood for Washington D.C.

Don't restrict presidential power; don't help whistleblowers.

Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress.

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