Dean Heller on Government Reform Republican

Don't require disclosure of political campaign donors

Dean Heller (R): No. Voted against bill to require this.

Jacky Rosen (D): Yes. Co-sponsored bill to require this.

Q: Support Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political donations from corporations and unions?

Dean Heller (R): Unclear. Has called for the end of corporate & union donations, but not for overturning the decision.

Jacky Rosen (D): No. Supports constitutional amendment to overturn decision.

Voted NO 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 NO 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.

Require defining constitutional authority for every new law.

Congressional Summary: Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.

Constitutional Authority for This Act- This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution.

Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

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.

Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

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.

• Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums or other events at which candidates running for public offices are invited to speak?
• Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation?
• Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?
• Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?

CC:Appoint strict Constitutionalist judges.

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."

Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

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.

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Dean Heller. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Dean Heller. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Dean Heller. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Dean Heller. Click here for issue positions of other Nevada politicians. Click here for Nevada primary archives. Click here for Nevada secondary archives.
Other governors on Government Reform:			Dean Heller on other issues:
[Title7]	Gubernatorial Debates 2021: CA Recall: S.D.Mayor Kevin_Faulconer(R) vs.Former Gov. nominee John Cox(R) vs.Former U.S.Rep Doug Ose(R) vs.Laura Smith(R) vs.Former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner(R) vs.Radio Host Larry Elder(R) vs.Kevin Paffrath(D) vs.Gavin Newsom(D) NJ: Incumbent Phil Murphy(D) vs.State Rep. Jack Ciattarelli(R) vs.Candidate Hirsh Singh(R) vs.GOP Chair Doug Steinhardt(R) VA: Incumbent Ralph Northam(D,term-limited) vs.Former Governor Terry McAuliffe(D) vs.CEO Glenn Youngkin(R) vs.A.G. Mark Herring(D) vs.State Sen. Amanda Chase(I) vs.Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax(D) vs.State Rep. Jennifer Carroll Foy(D) vs.State Rep. Lee Carter(D) vs.State Sen. Jennifer McClellan(D) vs.State Rep. Kirk Cox(R) vs.CEO Pete Snyder(R) Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.Former Gov. Matt Bevin(? R) vs.Senator Rand Paul(? R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Biden Adviser Cedric Richmond(? D) vs.Senator John Neely Kennedy(? R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R) Gubernatorial Debates 2022: AK: Incumbent Mike Dunleavy(R) vs.Bill Walker(I) vs.Les Gara(D) vs.Billy Toien(L) vs.State Rep. Chris Kurka(R) AL: Incumbent Kay Ivey(R) vs.Chris Countryman(D) vs.Stacy Lee George(R) vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R) vs.State Sen. Malika Sanders-Fortier(D) vs.Challenger Tim James(R) AR: Incumbent Asa Hutchinson(R,term-limited) vs.Trump Adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders(R) vs.A.G. Leslie Rutledge(R,withdrew Nov.2021) vs.Ricky Dale Harrington(L) vs.Anthony Bland(D) AZ: Incumbent Doug Ducey(R,term-limited) Mayor Marco Lopez(D) vs.Former news anchor Kari Lake(R) vs.Secretary of State Katie Hobbs(D) vs.State Treasurer Kimberly Yee(R) vs.U.S.Rep.Matt Salmon(R) vs.Steve Gaynor(R) vs.State Rep.Aaron Lieberman(D) vs.Jorge Rivas(R) vs.Karrin Taylor Robson(R) CA: Incumbent Gavin Newsom(D) vs.S.D.Mayor Kevin_Faulconer(R) vs.Former Gov. nominee John Cox(R) vs.Kevin Paffrath(D) vs.State Sen. Brian Dahle(R) CO: Incumbent Jared Polis(D) vs.Mayor Greg Lopez(R) vs.Heidi Ganahl(R) CT: Incumbent Ned Lamont(D) vs.Bob Stefanowski(? R) FL: Incumbent Ron DeSantis(R) vs.Former Gov.Charlie Crist(D) vs.Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried(D) vs.Annette Taddeo(D) vs.Brian Moore(G) GA: Incumbent Brian Kemp(R) vs.Minority Leader Stacey Abrams(D) vs.Senate candidate Shane Hazel(L) vs.State Rep.Vernon Jones(R) vs.2020 candidate Kandiss Taylor(R) vs.Senator David Perdue(R) HI: Incumbent David Ige(D,term-limited) vs.Marissa Kerns(R) vs.Lt.Gov.Josh Green(D) vs.Vicky Cayetano(D) vs.Paul Morgan(R) vs.State Rep.Kirk Caldwell(D) vs.U.S.Rep.Kai Kahele(D) IA: Incumbent Kim Reynolds(R) vs.Deidre DeJear(D) vs.State Rep.Ras Smith(D) ID: Incumbent Brad Little(R) vs.Raul Labrador(R) vs.Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin(R) vs.Ammon Bundy(R) vs.Ed Humphreys(R) IL: Incumbent J.B. Pritzker(D) vs.State Sen.Darren Bailey(R) vs.Paul Schimpf(R) vs.Jesse Sullivan(R) KS: Incumbent Laura Kelly(D) vs.Jeff Colyer(R) vs.State Sen.Derek Schmidt(R) vs.Chase LaPorte(R)	Gubernatorial Debates 2022 (continued): MA: Incumbent Charlie Baker(R) vs.Lt.Gov.Karyn Polito(R) vs.State Rep. Geoff Diehl(R) vs.Harvard Professor Danielle Allen(D) vs.State Sen.Ben Downing(D) vs.State Sen.Sonia Chang-Diaz(D) vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(I) vs.A.G. Maura Healey(D) MD: Incumbent Larry Hogan(R,term-limited) vs.State Del.Robin Ficker(R) vs.State Del.Peter Franchot(D) vs.State Del.Kelly M. Schulz(R) vs.Secretary John B. King(D) vs.Ashwani Jain(D) vs.State A.G. Doug Gansler(D) vs.County Exec. Rushern Baker(D) vs.Secretary Thomas Perez(D) vs.Wes Moore(D) vs.Dan Cox(R) ME: Incumbent Janet Mills(D) vs.Former Gov. Paul LePage(R) MI: Incumbent Gretchen Whitmer(D) vs.Chief James Craig(R) vs.Police Chief Tudor Dixon(R) vs.Garrett Soldano(R) vs.John E. James(? R) MN: Incumbent Tim Walz(DFL) vs.Mayor Mike Murphy(R) vs.State Sen.Scott Jensen(R) vs.Michelle Benson(R) vs.Paul Gazelka(R) NE: Incumbent Pete Ricketts(R,term-limited) vs.U.S.Senator Bob Krist(R) vs.Chuck Herbster(R) vs.Jim Pillen(R) vs.Brett Lindstrom(R) vs.Carol Blood(D) vs.State Sen. Theresa Thibodeau(R) NH: Incumbent Chris Sununu(R) vs.Dan Feltes(D) vs.Karen Testerman(R) NM: Incumbent Michelle Lujan Grisham(D) vs.Commissioner Jay Block(R) vs.State Rep.Rebecca Dow(R) vs.Mark Ronchetti(R) NV: Incumbent Steve Sisolak(D) vs.A.G.Adam Laxalt(R) vs.North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee(R) vs.Dean Heller(R) vs.Joe Lombardo(R) vs.Mayor Michele Fiore(R) NY: Incumbent Andrew Cuomo(D,resigned) vs.Acting Gov.Kathy Hochul(D) vs.Rob Astorino(R) vs.Andrew Giuliani(R) vs.US.Rep.Lee Zeldin(R) vs.Tom Suozzi(D) vs.Attorney General Letitia James(D) OH: Incumbent Mike DeWine(R) vs.Former Rep.Jim Renacci(R) vs.Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley(D) vs.Mayor John Cranley(D) OK: Incumbent Kevin Stitt(R) vs.State Sen. Ervin Yen(R) vs.Connie Johnson(D) vs.Joy Hofmeister(D) vs.Natalie Bruno(L) OR: Incumbent Kate Brown(D,term-limited) vs.Gov. nominee Bud Pierce(R) vs.Paul Romero(R) vs.Casey Kulla(D) vs.Kerry McQuisten(R) vs.Tina Kotek(D) vs.Nicholas Kristof(D) vs.Tobias Read(D) vs.State Rep. Christine Drazan(R) PA: Incumbent Tom Wolf(D,term-limited) vs.U.S.Rep. Lou Barletta(R) vs.Commissioner Joe Gale(R) vs.A.G.Josh Shapiro(D) vs.William McSwain(R) vs.U.S.Rep.Melissa Hart(R) vs.State Sen.Scott Martin(R) vs.State Sen. Scott Martin(R) vs.State Sen. Doug Mastriano(R) RI: Incumbent Gina Raimondo(D,to Cabinet) vs.Gov. Dan McKee(D) vs.Secy.Matt Brown(D) vs.Mayor Allan Fung(R ?) vs.Luis-Daniel Munoz(D) vs.RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea(D) vs.Seth Magainer(D) vs.Helena Foulkes(D) SC: Incumbent Henry McMaster(R) vs.US.Rep.Joe Cunningham(D) vs.State senator Mia McLeod(D) SD: Incumbent Kristi Noem(R) vs.State Rep. Billie Sutton(? D) vs.Speaker Steven Haugaard(R) TN: Incumbent Bill Lee(R) vs.Carnita Atwater(D) vs.J B Smiley(D) TX: Incumbent Greg Abbott(R) vs.Beto O`Rourke(D) vs.Chad Prather(R) vs.State Sen.Don Huffines(R) vs.U.S.Rep. Allen West(R) vs.Deidre Gilbert(D) VT: Incumbent Phil Scott(R) (no prospective opponents yet) WI: Incumbent Tony Evers(D) vs.CEO Jonathan Wichmann(R) vs.Rebecca Kleefisch(R) vs.State Rep. Timothy Ramthun(R) WY: Incumbent Mark Gordon(R) vs.Rex Rammell(R) vs.Minority Leader Chris Rothfuss(? D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Contact info: Email Contact Form Mailing Address: Cannon HOB 125, Washington, DC 20515 Official Website Phone number: (202) 225-6155