John McCain on Government Reform Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Earmarks & Pork
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Government Reform

Hayworth was unethical lobbyist hawking infomercials

"These are the facts," McCain said. "J.D. Hayworth was a lobbyist. He was in late-night infomercials. He said he didn't d due diligence. My God man, didn't you know that this was a group that was taking people's money to say it could give them free government money."

Hayworth said, "It's really sad to see John McCain, who should be revered as a statesman, basically reduce to a political shape-shifter," he said, then turned to his opponent. "John, you've changed positions so much in this campaign maybe we'll have to set up an extra podium for you depending on which John McCain is going to answer which question."

Considered one-term pledge to address age issue

McCain had reservations, but knew his campaign needed electroshock. But not everyone thought the pledge was a good idea. Some considered it crazy, in fact. They told McCain that the pledge would marginalize him and the office of the presidency. That it would make him a lame duck from day one

Picked Palin because she took on entrenched bureaucracy

John explained his search for a vice presidential candidate "I found someone with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies. Someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past. Someone who stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money on things they don't want or need, and put it back to work for the people."

"She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down," John continued. "She's fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats, and anyone who put their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve. My friends and fellow Americans, I am very pleased and very privileged to introduce to you the next vice president of the US--Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska!"

Led bipartisan "Gang of 14" on judicial nominee standoff

His relations with the new White House were distant and chilly. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle quietly approached McCain and encouraged him to switch parties. McCain mulled over the idea but would not do it.

Then he began to flex his muscles. With Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, he put together a coalition to pass the most significant campaign finance reform act since Watergate. In Bush's second term, McCain fought the president over torture policy and forced him to give ground. He led a bipartisan group known as the :Gang of 14" that defused a tense standoff over Bush's judicial nominees. Conservatives, looking ahead to probable Supreme Court vacancies, were infuriated.

Partisan rancor isn’t a cause, it’s a symptom

Fought corruption and the big spenders in both parties

Share the credit for good ideas instead of fighting over it

Eliminate broken government programs--20% of all program

Wasteful spending in Washington has gone from irresponsible to indefensible. Right now, even the government reports that one-fifth of programs are receiving failing marks. McCain will restore the trust that Americans have lost in their government spending their hard earned money wisely.
• Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: Veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. Seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption.
• Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that 1 in 5 programs do not perform.
• Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.
• Eliminate earmarks, wasteful subsidies, and pork-barrel spending.
• Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.

More sunshine on the Working Group on Financial Markets

A: Obviously we’d like to see more sunshine. But I as president, rely primarily on my secretary of the Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisers, on the head of that. I would rely on the circle that I have developed over many years. I have a process of leadership that is sort of an inclusive one that I have developed.

No signing statements: either sign or veto bills

A: As President, I won’t have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk.

Focus on homeland safety, restoring trust, and fiscal policy

A: We must make the country safe. This is a military, diplomatic, intelligence and cyberspace challenge. If we’re going to complete that laundry list, is restoring trust and confidence in government. There is none today. We have to fix Medicare. We have to stop this wasteful pork-barrel spending that has led to corruption in Washington. Of course we have to fix our borders. We have to sit down together and fix Medicare and Social Security.

Authored line-item veto law; struck down by Supreme Court

Keating Five mea culpa established openness to press

Though there would be plenty of exceptions to this rule --various members of the Arizona press, and myself [Matt Welch], for example--the general strategy took root and was central to McCain’s christening by the national press as ”Washington’s last honest man.“

Skepticism in government can lead to chaos

As usual, responsible for none of 309 earmarks in 2007

Pork is one issue that bedevils defense budgeting, but the proper stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars also depends on the overall size and strategic priorities of the defense bill itself. So I asked McCain a follow-up question: "We now spend about roughly the same amount on defense as the rest of the world combined. Is that a healthy ratio, and if it's not, what would be a healthy ratio?"

"Oh, it's healthy," he responded. "We need a bigger Army, we need a bigger Marine corps. You look around the world--Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan--it's not going to be over for a long time."

There’s only one president; V.P. sticks to official duties

A: Having been considered for that post several times, I’ve thought a lot about that. The vice president really only has two duties. One is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of a tied vote in the Senate. And the other is to inquire daily as to the health of the president. I really would do what some presidents have done in the past. A vice president brings a certain area of expertise and talent. I would probably assign some of those areas, like telecommunications or some other important issues.

Q: So not as wide-ranging as Vice President Cheney had?

A: Look, I would be very careful that everybody understood that there’s only one president.

OpEd: Led campaign finance reform because of Keating Five

What Democrats point out about McCain: He's more conservative than you think he is. He's as anti-abortion as the next guy. He will be with them on the Supreme Court and vote for whoever Bush nominates. By the time the election rolls around, his conservative striped will be clear. The reason he led the charge on campaign finance reform was that he was one of the Keating Five.

McCain-Feingold is latest in line of 200 years of CFR

The link between money and politics is pervasive throughout American history. Periodically, reforms clean up the worst offenses and then new loopholes and techniques are discovered; like any reform, campaign finance changes are an ongoing process.

The most contemporary version followed the Watergate scandals. The subsequent presidential elections were as clean as an in modern history. Then, aided by an inept Federal Elections Commission, soft, or unregulated, money started to creep into the system. It became a major source of funding and a narcotic for both parties.

Infuriates fellow senators by battling pork-barrel spending

Russ Feingold is more diplomatic, although he's widely viewed as a holier-than-thou moralist. As part of the huge Watergate class of reformers reached Congress in 1975.

But without this intensity and conviction--and willingness to pay a price-- McCain-Feingold never would have gotten on the radar screen, much less passed the United States Senate. These two disparate politicians displayed exceptional courage.

Reform called incumbent protection, but fought by incumbents

McCain-Feingold would alter, not revolutionize, the connection between politics and money. But it would reduce the reliance on money in elections and minimize the huge advantage enjoyed by incumbents in a system that gives comparatively little challenges. That's why it produces such fury in the cloakrooms of both parties; several years ago Mitch McConnell, the head of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and Bob Kerrey, his Democratic counterpart, both told their respective caucuses in the same week that McCain-Feingold would cost them the Senate. Both cannot be true, but both men believed it; in campaigns, money is a narcotic.

Reform election system, and get rid of electors

A: I do believe so. I think we’re going to have hearings. I don’t think we’re going to change the fundamental electoral system that requires three-fourths of the states and small states are not going to agree to being excluded from the process. But I do believe that we would eliminate this elector business. When I was elected to the Senate, the secretary of state certified the votes and sent it on. I think we could eliminate that “electoral portion” of it. But I would not change the system because I think small states need to have representation.

Q: How about standard kind of ballots?

A: [Congress should] give funds to the poorer counties that can’t afford or have a very low priority on their machines. Out in California they had a touch screen technology, which they say works very well. So I think we in Congress can help these less wealthy areas of the country update and modernize their technology. I think we could do that and should.

2000: Theme "reformer & outsider" attacked as Senate insider

The Bush team had asked what McCain had actually accomplished in Washington. What were his so-called reforms? On key issues, they argued, McCain had been consistently shot down. McCain had failed to persuade Congress to pass either tobacco legislation or campaign finance reform.

Second, the Bush campaign attacked McCain's claim to outsider status. Reminding voters that McCain was far more the Washington insider than he suggested, Bush took to calling the senator "Chairman McCain." Of course, McCain had indirectly given them this issue, by overplaying his outsider status.

Third, Bush stole McCain's message, in effect, calling himself a "reformer with results."

Most Republican primary voters got exactly what they wanted: NOT reform but restoration, albeit one with a patina of reformist veneer to make it palatable.

Early Congressional races included large war chests

Though the McCain-Feingold proposals have gone through multiple incarnations, the gist of the reform legislation touched on accepting voluntary spending limits, which differ from state to state, in exchange for free broadcast time and other concessions. A second component has involved banning so-called "soft money," that is, money given, not to the candidates outright, but for party-building purposes. "Soft money" is, in fact, a camouflaged donation to candidates, a way of evading the campaign finance laws.

McCain-Feingold reforms never appealed to GOP base

Many Republicans have opposed McCain-Feingold because it would constrain their ability to rake in money from corporate donors. Quite simply, Republicans currently have a fund-raising edge over Democrats. By contrast, the Democrats, with the support of organized labor, are better organized at the grass-roots level, which perhaps makes them objectively less dependent upon, but in reality no less addicted to, "soft money." Though less conspicuous, Democrats have discreetly opposed any reform of the campaign finance laws for much the same reasons as Republicans have. Nonetheless, because they are a minority party within Congress (and thus have less to lose from opposing the status quo), Democrats have tended to support reform.

Reform focus endears him to many, but alienates GOP insiders

The issue of campaign finance reform has made McCain the darling of many who believed that money has indeed corrupted the political process; it also has, however, made him something of a persona non grata among those within his own party who rather like the status quo.

McCain has not reassured his GOP fellow travelers how such reform would work to their mutual advantage. He has not convincingly suggested how it would be tactically shrewd for conservatives to get ahead on the issue. In short, he has not argued the case on its conservative merits. Instead, McCain has framed the issue in terms that played to his maverick strengths but also to his maverick weaknesses.

Reform was a lonely message in 2000

Ultimately, reform is a complicated process of watering down strident ideas, thereby bringing change, but perhaps not too much.

What is perhaps most intriguing about McCain 2000 was the loneliness of his message. He has ventured down a public road that politicians, particularly senators, tend not to take, preferring instead the technical aspects of brokered deals. McCain possesses Clinton's policy knowledge but matches it to Reagan's conviction and credibility and, in the politics of reform, credibility is the most important asset. What is certain is that change will take place. The real question concerns the direction of change, and just how much influence McCain will have. And that is a chapter that remains to be written.

No term limits; they throw away the good with the bad

Influence peddling helps the Chinese Army

Politicans poll, posture, & influence-peddle

Supports Line-Item Veto and Balanced Budget

Supports term limits on Congress

Citizens United was worst decision ever, but don't overturn

Kirkpatrick: No. Supports Constitutional amendment to overturn.

McCain: No. "Worst decision ever." But voted against Constitutional amendment to overturn.

Q: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which requires key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads?

Kirkpatrick: Yes

McCain: No. Says objection is about how Act is written.

Alleged affair with lobbyist hurt image as reformer

Iseman, a lobbyist, had been bragging to others that she had professional sway over McCain, which threatened the senator's image as a reformer. John was sure the campaign was over. That the story wasn't politically survivable.

The next morning, John met the press. He answered many questions with a simple yes or no. He said that Iseman was a friend, concluding, "This whole story is based on anonymous sources...I'm very disappointed in that." Although The Washington Post and Newsweek promptly ran their own similar anonymously sourced versions of the Iseman tale, the stories disappeared without a trace. The unequivocal denials of McCain & Iseman, and the criticism of the "Times" for venturing into tabloid territory, defused the story.

5-year struggle for CFR portrayed in press as epic tale

The McCain-Feingold bill was introduced in 1997, along with companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The main feature of the bill was a ban on "soft money"--the unlimited donations to political parties that had been legal up until the bill's passage.

The ensuing five years would see fits and starts, ups and downs, and the eventual passage of the bill into law with President Bush's signature in 2002. During that time an extraordinary amount of media coverage was given to the bill and the cause of campaign finance reform more broadly, most of it positive.

Every epic tale needs a hero, and so McCain was the hero of the campaign finance reform narrative. The story the press told was about a lonely man fighting overwhelming odds, waging a noble campaign to clean up the system, with only perseverance and justice on his side.

CFR cut soft money & increased hard money; both helped GOP

CFR, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, banned "soft money"--individuals and corporations could skirt contribution limits by giving large donations to the parties (sometimes in amounts running into the millions) had been a complaint of critics for some time.

In sum, McCain's great triumph of maverick rebellion and bipartisanship:

1. damaged the Democratic Party by eliminating the one fund-raising area, soft money, in which they had an advantage over Republicans;
2. allowed wealthy donors, most of whom are Republicans, to give more money to Republican candidates; and
3. allowed the total amount of special interest money pouring into political campaigns to increase, not decrease.

1993: Proposed barring campaign funds for personal expenses

No litmus test for Supreme Court nominees on McCain-Feingold

A: I was very aware of the opinion of Justices Roberts and Alito, and I was one who fought hard for the confirmation of both of them. First of all, I wouldn’t impose any litmus test. That would be totally inappropriate. But second of all, I will appoint justices such as the ones I’ve strongly supported and gotten through the Senate, with the help of many others or help along with others, only those who strictly interpret the Constitution and do not legislate from the bench.

Q: Even if they might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and also McCain-Feingold?

A: Look, you cannot impose litmus tests. If you have justices that have a clear conservative, then you don’t have to worry about what their decisions will be, because it’s pretty obvious that people who strictly interpret the Constitution are worthy of our confidence.

The 527s need to be eliminated

A: Well, I’m grateful for Fred’s support on that. It was McCain-Feingold-Thompson and we couldn’t have done it without him, so I’m very appreciative of his support.

Q: Yes, that was five years ago. He’s not saying that now.

A: Look, there’s millions of more small donors. The 527s need to be eliminated. But soft money was corrupting. If anybody thinks that we need more special interest money in Washington, I’d like to meet them.

Q: So, bottom line, if you had it all to do over again, would you still go for McCain-Feingold?

A: Absolutely. You’ve seen the corruption in Washington.

OpEd: McCain-Feingold chilled grassroots political speech

In choosing a side, journalists missed not only the story of McCain-Feingold’s chilling effects on grassroots political activities, but also of McCain’s flippant attitude toward the Constitution. McCain no longer held the Bill of Rights as such an immovable object. “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt,” he told syndicated radio host Don Imus. “If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

527s are clearly illegal; reform intended for small donors

A: We’ve strengthened the parties. There’s millions more small donors. We have taken soft money, which was rampant in Washington, out of the game. The 527s are a violation of the 1974 law. The 527s are clearly illegal. It’s not a problem with law. It’s a problem with the FEC who will not enforce the law. So, yeah, we made significant progress, absolutely, and I’m proud of a lot of the results of this. I lived in the environment where a powerful committee chairman would call and say, “I need a check for seven figures from you, and by the way, your bill is up before my committee next week.” That was routine operation in Washington, and we’re still seeing manifestations of this kind of corruption.

Supported then opposed transparency in grassroots reporting

A: Over a year ago, I had changed my position on this issue because I believe that it was too big a bite to take. I believe that there’s ambiguities concerning it, and so I believe that it was better to move forward with the reforms that we can make.

Q: But it also helps you politically.

A: I don’t know how it helps me politically.

Q: In currying favor with conservative groups that were opposed to your original legislation.

A: There are as many liberal groups who were opposed to the legislation as well. Some of these grassroots organizations are very legitimate organizations. As we found out during the Abramoff investigations, some are not. We should be able to find out and discriminate between the two.

Profile in Courage award for preserving integrity of system

• Carl Elliott, Sr
• Charles Longstreet Weltner
• Lowell Weicker, Jr.
• James Florio
• Henry B. Gonzalez
• Michael L. Synar
• Corkin Cherubini
• Charles Price
• Nickolas C. Murnion
• The Irish Peacemakers
• John McCain and Russell Feingold
• Hilda Solis
• Gerald R. Ford
• John Lewis

Campaign finance reform needed to restore faith in politics

Now, as he undertook his seventh year of leading the effort to reform the campaign finance system, there were reasons for optimism. The Democrats had picked up four Senate seats in the previous election, the new Democratic senators providing a presumed four more votes for reform, and the Senate was now divided 50-50. McCain’s effort to enact reform of the campaign finance system had met with defeat in the Senate five times in the past six years.

Finance reform will prevail if we have the votes & the guts

McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign struck a chord when he told people he would “shake things up in Washington.” Public disgust with the role of money in our political system was rising, and he gave it voice.

The amount of money spent in a presidentia election had grown to $2.75 billion in the 2000 election. The amounts in themselves, though quite large, were less significant than what they reflected: the ever-increasing time that the politicians had to spend raising the money, the access that came with accepting that money, especially the six- or seven-figure amounts in “soft money”. Senators also were becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of ads by outside groups, some of mysterious origin, that could come at them from any direction.

Supported non-severability as key component of CFR

The non-severability amendment has been confined to the two main sections of the bill--the soft-money ban and the limits on electioneering ads would be severable--in the hope of attracting more votes. Now, not any little thing could bring down the whole law. Members of both parties are worried about ads, especially if the soft-money ban stands and the restrictions on ads don’t.

Then McCain speaks: “We’re now facing perhaps the last major hurdle,” he says. “If you vote for this amendment you are voting for soft money. That’s really what this debate is about.”

In the end, the vote isn’t even close. The Senate voted 57-43 against non-severability, with twelve Republicans voting with McCain.

CFR passes Senate; focus on House, not court challenges

In addition to banning soft money, it would raise the amount of direct contributions for candidates from $1,000 to $2,000, beef up disclosure requirements and restrict advertising by independent groups. McCain said he would worry about a court challenge when it comes. First, he said, he will focus on getting the bill through the House of Representatives.

Republicans left open the possibility that McCain would not even be named to the conference committee [which will work on the bill after House approval]. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE, said McCain’s views on campaign finance reform did not square with those of most of his GOP colleagues.

Differentiate “electioneering” from real issue ads

So the bill creates a new category, “electioneering communications,” defined as broadcast ads that refer to specific candidates, within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Interest groups would be allowed to air issue ads, if paid for with individual contributions. “There will be questions about issue ads,” McCain said, “but Supreme Court justices do read newspapers & watch TV. It would be hard to argue from a logical standpoint that the sham ads are not intended to affect the election of candidates.

Clearer rules about campaign finance; no soft money

McCain says, “The American people are unanimous that they want their government back. We can do that by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions that give special interests a seat at the table while average Americans are stuck in the back of the room.” The new version of the campaign-finance bill will include the following provisions:
• A ban on soft money, the unlimited contributions to the political parties, from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals.
• Prohibiting corporate and union spending on ads that mention federal candidates within 60 days of an election; [a ban on] phony issue ads.
• A provision outlining the circumstances under which spending by outside groups or parties will be considered to be coordinated with candidates.
• A clear prohibition on political fundraising of federal property.
• A clear prohibition on contributions of any sort by foreign nationals.
• A prohibition on candidate using campaign funds for their personal benefit.

Replace battle of bucks with battle of ideas

Fight iron triangle: special interests, money, & legislation

Campaign reform that’s best for country, not for GOP

HATCH: [The] bill is unconstitutional. [It] leaves all the first amendment rights for the public interest groups to speak and do whatever they want to and raise any kind of moneys they want to and takes away the first amendment rights from the two political parties. Have you ever wondered why all the Democrats love McCain-Feingold and hardly any Republicans do?

MCCAIN: I’ve always thought that what’s best for the country is best for the party. You are defending an illegal system. You are defending a system that has caused the debasement of every institution of government and it’s got to be stopped. It is now legal for a Chinese-army-owned corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign. We’re awash in it.

Take away soft money & “hurt the unions bad”

McCAIN: The unions carry millions of dollars in checks and soft money down to the Democratic National Committee. Trial lawyers do the same thing. We’ll hurt the unions bad if we take away their soft money. But what you’re saying is that we should continue what happened in 1996. That’s disgraceful. Chinese & Indonesian money came in to the campaign. We’ll never know about the breaches of security.

Money corrupts politics, and soft money corrupts absolutely

A: I don’t believe in public financing because I don’t think my tax dollars should be used to fund a person’s campaign that I philosophically disagree with... I think soft money is the primary evil. I believe that there’s going to come a time when people will say ‘this system is broken.’... It’s now legal in America for a Chinese Army-owned corporation with a subsidiary in the U.S. to give unlimited amounts of money to an American campaign.

Campaign Finance: ban both labor union & corporate donations

Save $30M just by ending duplicative catfish regulation

Our sustainable debt is the real wake up. It should prompt us to stop spending money we don't have on things we don't need. We can start by clearing away duplicative programs instead of creating new ones.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) ridiculed duplication in food safety. "GAO estimates that the USDA would spend about $30 million in taxpayer dollars to implement the agency's new catfish inspection program and that we would be further fragmenting our federal food safety system by having catfish regulated twice by both USDA and FDA."

Authorized earmarks OK; unauthorized earmarks not

During the appropriations process, Congress may designate, through an earmark, that a certain amount of the funds available must be spent on a particular program or issue. These earmarks or appropriations are not additional funds added to the federal budget.

Senator John McCain and other conservatives have joined me in a solution to the earmark issue. We have introduced legislation to redefine "earmarks" as "an appropriation that has not been authorized." That should solve the Congressional earmark problem.

As Senator McCain stated on the floor, "Some of those earmarks are worthy. If they are worthy then they should be authorized." He also said, "You've got to get the definition of an earmark: that is, an unauthorized appropriation."

Would fight for line-item veto, and veto pork

McCAIN: I would have an across-the-board spending freeze. I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. One would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be subsidies for ethanol. I would fight for a line-item veto, and I would certainly veto every earmark pork-barrel bill.

OBAMA: Every dollar I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut hat it matches. To give an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t help seniors get better. It’s a giveaway. I want to go through the federal budget line by line, programs that don’t work, we cut. Programs we need, we should make them work better. Once we get through this economic crisis, we’re going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals who may be living beyond their means

We need a reformer because system in Washington is broken

OBAMA: Most of the people here, you’ve got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. That’s not what happens in Washington.

McCAIN: I can see why you feel that cynicism and mistrust, because the system in Washington is broken. And I have been a consistent reformer. I have advocated and taken on the special interests, whether they be the big money people by reaching across the aisle and working with Sen. Russ Feingold [D-Wisconsin] on campaign finance reform, whether it being a variety of other issues, working with Sen. Lieberman on trying to address climate change. I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Sen. Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform. And so let’s look at our records as well as our rhetoric.

I fought earmarks even in defense spending

I know a lot of them that aren’t working. One of them is in defense spending, because I’ve taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion.

I believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. And sometimes those projects that are really good projects, will have to be eliminated, as well. And they’ll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others.

So we’re going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut. And I recommend a spending freeze--except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs--we’ll just have to have across-the-board freeze

FactCheck: Killed corrupt $6.8B contract, but reinstated it

There is more to the story. McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. The contract is still up in the air, however, and questions have been raised about the role McCain played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest. The New York Times reported that “McCain’s top advisers were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies.”

Get earmarks under control to deal with the financial crisis

A: The first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. We have no presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. We Republicans came to power to change government and government changed us. The worst symptom of this disease is what Sen. Coburn calls “earmarking as a gateway drug,” because it’s a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption. We have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending. We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana It was $3 million of our taxpayers’ money and it has got to be brought under control. As president, I’ve got a pen and I’m going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names.

Obama requested for $932M of pork projects; I fought pork

McCAIN: Obama suspended requests for pork barrel projects after he was running for president. He didn’t happen to see that light there in the first three years as a member of the US Senate. $932 million in requests maybe to Obama is not a lo of money. It’s only $18 billion. Do you know it’s tripled in the last five years? Do you know it’s gone completely out of control, to the point where it corrupts people? It corrupts people. That’s why we have people under federal indictment and charges. It’s a system that’s got to be cleaned up. I have fought against it. I was called the sheriff by one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee. I didn’t win Miss Congeniality in the US Senate.

FactCheck: Earmarks have gone down in last 5 years

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That’s a decrease of 24%.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that “Congress has cut earmarks by 23% from the record 2005 levels,” according to its analysis.

And while we’re on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line, claiming, “We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana.” The study in question was done by the US Geological Survey. McCain voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Earmarks are terrible and pernicious; Palin learned that

A: And then she learned that earmarks are bad. I know lots of people that are converts And then when she became governor, she said, “No more for my state.” She said, “We don’t want the ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’” She, of course, understood, over time, how terrible and pernicious these earmarks are and how great an evil they are.

FactCheck: $35B in pork meant $484 per child, not $1000

It’s not clear where McCain is getting the $35 billion figure. But that’s more pork than the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste has diagnosed in the budget for any one year of the Bush presidency: The highest amount the group has calculated is $29 billion in 2006. Perhaps McCain meant $35 billion in two years: the smallest two-year sum was $38.6 billion in 2001 and 2002.

Even if we assume $35 billion in pork, however, McCain mus be defining “child” rather narrowly. According to the 2000 Census, there are about 72 million people under the age of 18, which would come to about $484 each. To apportion $35 billion in $1000 chunks, you’d have to leave out some elementary-schoolers.

I’m “the sheriff”, not Miss Congeniality, about pork bills

FactCheck: Claim of “24 years with no earmarks” mostly true

McCain has certainly made a crusade out of attacking “earmarks,” and watchdog groups don’t know of any instance in which McCain has asked for an earmark. But here’s what rivals point to:

• In a 1992 letter to the EPA, McCain asked for $5 million for a wastewater project in Nogales AZ, either out of existing funds or “earmark the amount from an appropriate account.” But McCain’s letter was a request, not a legislative earmark carrying the force of law.
• In 2006, McCain proposed $10 million to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. It wasn’t slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation.

Close corporate loopholes; veto pork-barrel spending

BUSH: If I’m the president and you’re a Senator, you can come in my office and you can outline all the different corporate loopholes you think are wrong. And we can pick and choose. But what I’m doing, John, is I’m selling my tax cut plan without claiming I’m going to close some kind of corporate loophole. Your plan uses so-called corporate loopholes to pay for it. I used cash to pay for it. And if the money stays in Washington -- my problem with your plan is that it’s going to be spent on bigger government.

Drain the big money swamp to kill lobbyist mosquitoes

McCAIN: The fact is if you want to drain the swamp, you take the big money away from the big-time K Street lobbyists and that way they lose their power and their influence. Look, anybody who wants the status quo in Washington, they don’t want John McCain. Because there ain’t going to be the status quo when I’m president of the United States. You take away the big money, you’re going to take away their power and you’re going to break that iron triangle of lobbyists, big money and influence over the legislative process which has so badly embarrassed so many of us and it is the gateway to draining the swamp.

End sugar subsidy; corporate welfare at its worst

Gets legislation passed despite lack of congeniality

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

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

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.

Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. 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.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for 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]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
• The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
• The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Supports Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform.

In a press conference today the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 32 moderate to conservative Democrats, announced their continued support for the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill (H.R. 2356), which is being debated on the House floor today. The Coalition was joined by the lead sponsors of the Senate Campaign Finance Reform bill. “I believe that we need to end the influence of ‘soft money’ generated from undisclosed sources. And I believe that we need to rein in illegal foreign contributions,” said Rep. Ken Lucas (KY), Blue Dog Campaign Finance Reform Task Force Co-Chairman. “True campaign finance reform will restore to the American people their voice in the legislative process--a voice that has been drowned out in recent years by big-money donors.”

The Blue Dog Coalition endorsed the Shays-Meehan bill in March of this year. An official Blue Dog endorsement comes with the approval of no less than two-thirds of the Coalition’s 32 members. “My own campaign experience has demonstrated to me the need for strong campaign finance reform measures,” said freshman Blue Dog Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), whose victory last November was the most expensive House race to date – combined, both candidates spent $11 million. “In order to protect the integrity of our democratic electoral process, we must reduce the corrosive influence of unregulated soft money donations.”

“I have been a strong supporter of Shays-Meehan and urge my colleagues to join with us so we can restore the faith of the American people in our elections,” said Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), a member of the Blue Dog Campaign Finance Reform Task Force. “I’ve worked with Sen. McCain on reform legislation before and I know that by working in a bipartisan manner, we can get big money out of politics.”

Sponsored bill subjecting 527s to political committee rules.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: "527 organizations" were inspired by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The "527" refers to the relevant section of the tax code. 527s are independent organizations which raise and spend money on behalf of a candidate, without coordinating with the candidate. An example is the "Swift Boat" group in the 2004 elections. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code must register as political committees.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would end the illegal practice of "527" groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. A number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the FEC has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal elections.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress and the Constitution. We've fought too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill prohibiting non-legislated earmarks.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

Report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management & Government Information; hearings held; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill disclosing lobbyist info & gifts on Internet.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

• Title I: Enhancing Lobbying Disclosure: Requires...
  1. quarterly instead of semiannual filing of lobbying disclosures reports;
  2. an annual report on registered lobbyists' contributions;
  3. maintenance of lobbying information in an electronic database, available to the public free of charge over the Internet;
  4. disclosure by registered lobbyists of all past executive and congressional employment; and
  5. disclosure of registered lobbyists' payments or reimbursements for travel and related expenses of government officials.
• Title II: Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying: annual report to Congress on lobbying registration and reports for compliance or noncompliance by lobbyists and their clients.
• Title III: Slowing the Revolving Door - Extends from one to two years the ban on lobbying contacts by former Members of Congress, and officers of the legislative branch; and prohibits former Congressional employees, within one year after leaving office, from making lobbying contacts with a Member or employee of Congress.
• Title IV: Ban on Provision of Gifts or Travel by Lobbyists in Violation of the Rules of Congress: Prohibits a registered lobbyist from making a gift or providing travel to a Member or employee of Congress, unless the gift or travel may be accepted under the rules of the House or the Senate.
• Title V: Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2006 - Establishes a Commission to report to Congress on congressional ethics requirements and to recommend improvements to ethical safeguards.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar No. 369; never came to a vote.

Rethink flawed Presidential daily intelligence briefings.

Mr. President:

After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong.

Here, we focus on recommendations that we believe only you can effect if you choose to implement them:
• Give the Director of National Intelligence powers--and backing--to match his responsibilities.
• Bring the FBI all the way into the Intelligence Community. Pull all of the FBI's intelligence capabilities into one place and subject them to the coordinating authority of the DNI.
• Demand more of the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed.
• Rethink the President's Daily Brief. The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs. So far, despite some successes, our Intelligence Community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs. Other commissions and observers have said the same. We should not wait for another commission or another Administration to force widespread change in the Intelligence Community. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p. iii-iv 05-WMD-01 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA yielded to conventional wisdom, not political pressure.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Politicization: Conclusion 26

  The Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion, but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD affected the analytic process.

  Conclusion 27

  The CIA took too long to admit error in Iraq, and its Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center actively discouraged analysts from investigating errors.

  ACCOUNTABILITY: Recommendation

  The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.188-194 05-WMD-09 on Mar 31, 2005

  Sponsored bill allowing individual votes on each earmark.

  McCain sponsored allowing individual votes on each earmark

  OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers' dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking.

  SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bipartisan bill changes the Senate rules to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending.

  In 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300%! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23 billion in 1994 to $47 billion in 2005.

  Our bill would establish a new procedure which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be removed from the conference report.

  To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration.

  To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose.

  LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

  Source: Pork-Barrel Reduction Act (S.2265) 06-S2265 on Feb 9, 2006

  Require Internet disclosure of all earmarks.

  McCain signed H.R.5258& S.3335
  • Establishes a free public searchable website, listing all requests by Members of Congress for congressionally directed spending items (congressional earmarks).
  • Requires each congressional committee, within five calendar days of receipt of a request for a congressional earmark from a Member of Congress, to provide the initial information regarding that request that is required to be placed on the website.
  • Makes it out of order to consider any legislation unless it meets the requirements of this Act.
  The website shall be comprised of a database including the following information, in searchable format, for each earmark:
  1. The fiscal year in which the item would be funded.
  2. The number of the bill or joint resolution for which the request is made, if available.
  3. The amount of the initial request made by the Member of Congress.
  4. The amount approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
  5. The amount carried in the bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) as passed.
  6. The name of the department or agency, and the account or program, through which the item will be funded.
  7. The name and the State or district of the Member of Congress who made the request.
  8. The name and address of the intended recipient.
  9. The type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or private for profit entity) of the intended recipient.
  10. The project name, description, and estimated completion date.
  11. A justification of the benefit to taxpayers.
  12. Whether the request is for a continuing project and if so, when funds were first appropriated for such project.
  13. A description, if applicable, of all non-Federal sources of funding.
  14. Its current status in the legislative process
  Source: Earmark Transparency Act 10-HR5258 on May 11, 2010

  Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

  McCain 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.

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

  Ban paid voter registration.

  McCain signed Voter Fraud Prevention Act

  A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the distribution of voter registration application forms and to require organizations to register with the State prior to the distribution of such forms.

  Prohibits any individual from distributing, for compensation, a voter registration application form for federal elections in a state if the individual:
  1. has been convicted of a felony under any state or federal law;
  2. does not sign and print legibly the individual's name on the form;
  3. does not provide identifying information to the proper election official; or
  4. does not certify, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has not received financial compensation based on the number of voter registration application forms submitted by the individual to an election official upon completion by the applicant, and that the information provided by the individual is accurate to the best of the individual's knowledge.
  Excepts from this prohibition the distribution of a voter registration application form by an individual who is not compensated directly or indirectly for it.

  Establishes criminal penalties for: (1) individuals not meeting such standards; and (2) anyone who employs such an individual knowingly, or who should reasonably be expected to know the individual is ineligible.

  Source: S.1103 2009-S1103 on May 20, 2009

  Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

  McCain 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

  Reduce federal government size & scope, including military.

  McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:

  The federal government must reduce its size and scope, and cede certain federally operated policies and services to the states and private sector that are better equipped to handle them. One way to accomplish this would be to limit growth of government spending at or even below the inflation rate. Long-term economic growth is dependent upon sustained federal discipline. We believe this is the time to carefully assess both our domestic discretionary and our military commitments. In both areas, we face a potential fiscal imbalance between our program commitments and our available resources. Perhaps neither the Congress nor the American people fully appreciate the impact of budget decisions in these areas. We owe it to the nation and its future to undertake an honest dialogue regarding the implications of these decisions on the state, local and private sectors.

  Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP4 on Sep 9, 1998

  Click here for 17 older quotations from John McCain on Government Reform. Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for VoteMatch responses by John McCain. Click here for AmericansElect.org quiz by John McCain. Click here for MyOcracy.org quiz by John McCain. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of John McCain. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of John McCain.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:	John McCain on other issues:
  Former Presidents/Veeps: George W. Bush (R,2001-2009) V.P.Dick Cheney Bill Clinton (D,1993-2001) V.P.Al Gore George Bush Sr. (R,1989-1993) Ronald Reagan (R,1981-1989) Jimmy Carter (D,1977-1981) Gerald Ford (R,1974-1977) Richard Nixon (R,1969-1974) Lyndon Johnson (D,1963-1969) John F. Kennedy (D,1961-1963) Dwight Eisenhower (R,1953-1961) Harry_S_TrumanHarry S Truman(D,1945-1953) Religious Leaders: New Testament Old Testament Pope Francis Political Thinkers: Noam Chomsky Milton Friedman Arianna Huffington Rush Limbaugh Tea Party Ayn Rand Secy.Robert Reich Joe Scarborough Gov.Jesse Ventura	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 27, 2021