Chris Murphy on Government Reform
Senate Challenger; Democratic Rep. (CT-5)
Voted YES on Senate pay raise.
Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for: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.
- 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.
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;
; 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:
"Covered recipient" includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs].
- file a quarterly report with Congress; and
- 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.
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:
Reference: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act;
Bill H R 985
; vote number 2007-153
on Mar 14, 2007
- 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.
Member of House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.
Murphy is a member of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's government-wide oversight jurisdiction and expanded legislative authority make it one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House. The Committee serves as Congress' chief investigative and oversight committee. The chairman of the committee is the only committee chairman in the House with the authority to issue subpoenas without a committee vote.
|Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Stephen Lynch (D-MA) |
|Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial Management||Todd Platts (R-PA) ||Ed Towns (D-NY) |
|Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives ||
Trey Gowdy (R-SC) ||Danny K. Davis (D-IL) |
|National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations ||Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) ||John F. Tierney (D-MA) |
|Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending ||Jim Jordan (R-OH) ||Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) |
|TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs ||Patrick McHenry (R-NC) ||Michael Quigley (D-IL) |
Source: U.S. House of Representatives website, www.house.gov 11-HC-OGR on Feb 3, 2011
|Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform ||James Lankford (R-OK) ||Gerry Connolly (D-VA)|
Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.
Murphy 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):
Source: H1148/S1871 11-S1871 on Nov 15, 2011
- 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.
Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.
Murphy co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act
Wikipedia & OnTheIssue Summary:
- Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
- Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of "independent expenditure" an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
- Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
- Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
- Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.
- On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.
The result of Citizens United was that "Super PACs" spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.
Source: S3369/HR4010 12-HR4010 on Feb 9, 2012
Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.
Murphy co-sponsored H.R.20 & S.366
- Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as "My Voice Federal" contributions.
- Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
- Provide, upon request, a "My Voice Voucher" worth $50.
- Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
- Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
- Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
- Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress' priorities and erodes the public's trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to
the American people:
- Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
- Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
- Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won't moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for "the rational small donor who right now isn't going to give $25 because they've figured out that it's not going to matter." The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.
Source: Government By the People Act 15_S366 on Feb 4, 2015
CC:Oppose strict Constitutionalist judges.
Murphy opposes the CC survey question on judicial constitutionalism
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution'
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1a on Jul 1, 2018
Sponsored bill for election holiday & easier voting access.
Murphy co-sponsored For the People Act of 2019
- This bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
- The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
- The bill also sets forth provisions for sharing intelligence information with state election officials, and supporting states in securing their election systems, and establishing the National Commission to Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions.
- This bill addresses campaign spending, by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; and expanding disclosure rules.
- This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system [with] federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
- The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.
Opposing argument from the Heritage Foundation, 2/1/2019: HR1 federalizes and micromanages
the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process. What HR1 Would Do:
- Seize the authority of states to regulate the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
- Make it easier to commit fraud at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration.
- Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV.
- Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 234-193-5 on 3/8/19; received with no action in Senate thru 12/31/2019
Source: H.R.1 &S.949 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019
Voted YES on two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Murphy voted YEA Impeachment of President Trump
RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that includedThese actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.
- Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
- With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House,
which the President of Ukraine sought.
- Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections.
Source: Supreme Court case ImpeachK argued on Dec 18, 2019
- Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
- defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
- and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
Page last updated: May 17, 2020