Kyrsten Sinema on Government Reform
Q: Limiting PAC contributions?
Q: Political Parties?
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].
Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): 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.Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole's amendment] 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].
Congressional Summary: To repeal the Federal Election Campaign provisions which established separate contribution limits for contributions made to national parties to support Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and recounts.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA: Rep. KILMER. This legislation repeals the last-minute changes to campaign finance law that were tacked into a 1,600-page bill to fund the government. As a result of this legislation, the wealthiest donors can now each contribute more than $750,000 per year to a political party, more than seven times the previous cap. Worst of all, these changes were buried in a bill with no hearing and no public debate. This bill protects the interests of "We the People" and make sure that the wealthiest donors don't get another chance to flood our elections with even more money and to undermine our democracy.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Washington Post article, Oct. 9, 2014): The FEC said that contributions to presidential convention committees will not count against the annual limit on donations to national parties--allowing wealthy donors to double their support for party operations. The FEC's move came in response to a rare joint request by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, which argued that they needed a new avenue to raise funds for the events after a federal law eliminated public funding for the conventions. But critics of the decision said the FEC created an end-run around federal contribution limits. Under the current rules, individuals can give up to $32,400 per year to a national party committee. Now, donors will be able to give an additional $32,400 each year to a separate committee set up to finance the quadrennial convention. That means that a single donor could give nearly $130,000 to support a party and its convention in a two-year election cycle.
|Other candidates on Government Reform:||Kyrsten Sinema on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate races 2017-8:
AL: Strange(R) vs.Jones(D) vs.Moore(R)
AZ: Flake(R) vs. Ward(R) vs.Sinema(D)
CA: Feinstein(D) vs. Eisen(D) vs. Sanchez?(D) vs. Garcetti?(D) vs.de_Leon(D)
CT: Murphy(D) ; no opponent yet
DE: Carper(D) vs.Boyce(R) vs. Markell?(D)
FL: Nelson(D) vs. DeSantis(R) vs. Jolly(R) vs. Lopez-Cantera(R)
HI: Hirono(D) vs.McDermott(R)
IN: Donnelly(D) vs. Hurt(R) vs.Messer(R) vs.Rokita(R)
MA: Warren(D) vs. Ayyadurai(R) vs.Waters(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Diehl(R) vs.Wellman(R) vs.Kingston(R)
MD: Cardin(D) ; no opponent yet
ME: King(I) vs.Brakey(C)
MI: Stabenow(D) vs. Bouchard?(R) vs.Young(R) vs.Monetti(R)
MN: Klobuchar(D) vs.Newberger(R)
MO: McCaskill(D) vs.Petersen(R)
MS: Wicker(R) vs. McDaniel?(R)
MT: Tester(D) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Rosendale(R)
ND: Heitkamp(D) vs.Peyer(D) vs.Campbell(R)
NE: Fischer(R) vs.Raybould(D)
NJ: Menendez(D) vs. Chiesa(R) vs. Codey?(D) vs. Chiesa?(R)
NM: Heinrich(D) vs. Sanchez(R)
NV: Heller(R) vs.Tarkanian(R)
NY: Gillibrand(D) vs. Kennedy?(D)
OH: Brown(D) vs. Mandel(R) vs.Gibbons(R)
PA: Casey(D) vs. Saccone(R) vs.Christiana(R)
RI: Whitehouse(D) vs.Nardolillo(R)
TN: Corker(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(D)
TX: Cruz(R) vs. Bush?(R)
UT: Hatch(R) vs. McMullin?(R) vs. Romney?(R)
VT: Sanders(I) vs. Giordano(D) vs.Wilson(D)
VA: Kaine(D) vs. Cuccinelli?(R) vs. Fiorina?(R) vs.Stewart(R)
WA: Cantwell(D) ; no opponent yet
WV: Manchin(D) vs. Raese(R) vs. Goodwin?(R) vs.Morrisey(R) vs.Swearengin(D)
WI: Baldwin(D) vs.Vukmir(R)
WY: Barrasso(R) ; no opponent yet
Senate Votes (analysis)