Democratic Senator (NY); Democratic Candidate for President (withdrawn)
Eliminate the Electoral College
Gillibrand on Electoral College: It should be eliminated.
16 CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Michael Bennet; Cory Booker; Peter Buttigieg; Julian Castro; Tulsi Gabbard; Kamala Harris; Jay Inslee; Amy Klobuchar; Wayne Messam; Seth Moulton; Beto O`Rourke;
Tim Ryan; Bernard Sanders; Eric Swalwell; Elizabeth Warren; Marianne Williamson.
12 Democratic presidential candidates have explicitly called for the abolition of the Electoral College, while 5 others have said they are open to the idea.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
, Jul 17, 2019
Mandate paper ballots
Gillibrand on Election Security: Mandate paper ballots.
11 CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Michael Bennet; Cory Booker; Julian Castro; Tulsi Gabbard; Kamala Harris; Amy Klobuchar; Beto O`Rourke; Tim Ryan; Bernard Sanders; Eric Swalwell;
Election security experts overwhelmingly consider paper ballots the most secure form of voting. That mandate is part of the Protecting American Votes and Elections Act, which would also require post-election risk-limiting audits.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
, Jul 17, 2019
Publicly-funded elections address many other social issues
Sen. Kirsten GILLIBRAND: Until you go to the root of the [political] corruption, the money in politics, the fact that Washington is run by the special interests, you are never going to solve any of these problems. I have the most comprehensive
approach, that experts agree is the most transformative plan to actually take on political corruption, to get money out of politics through publicly funded elections, to have clean elections.
If we do that and get money out of politics, we can guarantee health care as a right, not a privilege, we can deal with institutional racism, we can take on income inequality, and we can take on the corporate corruption that runs Washington.
Former Vice President Joe BIDEN: And the first constitutional amendment to do that was introduced by me when I was young senator.
Public financing of elections through voter choice
Under Gillibrand's plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time.
Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.
To be eligible to receive "Democracy Dollars," a candidate would have to voluntarily agree to forgo any contributions larger than $200 per donor.
The campaign didn't provide an estimate of the total cost of the plan, but said it would pay for the voucher program by limiting a corporate deduction for executive compensation, which it estimates would raise $60 billion over 10 years.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is backing an amendment to "abolish the Electoral College" introduced by Senator Brian Schatz, while Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders have signaled their willingness to address the
Electoral College's anti-democratic impact, as have former representative Beto O'Rourke, former housing secretary Julian Castro, and mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg.
Source: The Nation magazine on 2018 New York Senate race
, Apr 8, 2019
Campaign finance: Overturn Citizens United. Refuse corporate PAC donations.
Gillibrand would reverse the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allowed for nearly unlimited campaign contributions from corporate and non-profit
She supports a constitutional amendment to change the law.
The New York senator is also among several prominent Democrats who have pledged to not accept donations from corporate Political Action Committees, or PACs.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
, Jan 16, 2019
First member of Congress to post official schedule daily
Gillibrand had built a reputation for bucking the standard way of doing things--she first won a seat in the House of Representatives by running as a Democrat who supported Second Amendment rights and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Once elected, she became the first member of Congress to publish her entire official schedule every day, so that her constituents knew exactly with whom she met, including lobbyists and lawyers.
She also made the point of publishing the earmark requests she had requested and received, as well as her own personal financial statement.
As a senator, she authored parts of the STOCK Act, which imposed limits on the scandalous but legal practice of insider trading by members of Congress. That didn't win her any new friends among her colleagues.
Illegal for members of Congress to profit from insider info
Gillibrand has made her presence felt in Washington. She served as an architect in passing the STOCK Act, that for the first time makes it clearly illegal for members of Congress to profit from non-public information. "The New York Times" called her
commitment to promoting transparency in Congress a "quiet touch of revolution," and The Sunlight Foundation, the leading advocacy organization dedicated to openness in government, praises Gillibrand as a "pioneer" for her work.
Source: Make A Woman President?, by Marianne Schnall, p.289-290
, Nov 5, 2013
Sunlight Report: lobbyist meetings & earmarks on website
She has insisted, to the point of annoying Congressional colleagues, on openness in government, posting a "Sunlight Report" on her
Congressional Web site listing her meetings with lobbyists as well as the names of individuals seeking government grants known as earmarks.
Source: Michael Powell and Raymond Hernandez, New York Times
, Jan 23, 2009
As U.S. rep held dozens of office hours at grocery stores
She's crazy for constituent outreach and has held dozens of "office hours" at grocery stores in her district. During her re-election campaign, even local Republican officials expressed awe at her "visibility."
She's one of a few representatives to disclose her daily schedule online, so reporters and constituents can see who's got access to her. She also posts her earmark requests.
Source: The New Republic magazine, articles on 2020 candidates
, Jan 23, 2009
No lobbyist gifts
Ethics & Lobbying Reform
Pledged to not accept gifts or trips from lobbyists
Supports establishing a non-partisan congressional ethics committee
Discloses all meetings that she has with lobbyists
Gillibrand adopted the Blue Dog Coalition press release:
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.”
Source: Blue Dog Coalition press release 01-BDC4 on Jul 12, 2001
Require Internet disclosure of all earmarks.
Gillibrand 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:
The fiscal year in which the item would be funded.
The number of the bill or joint resolution for which the request is made, if available.
The amount of the initial request made by the Member of Congress.
The amount approved by the committee of jurisdiction.
The amount carried in the bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) as passed.
The name of the department or agency, and the account or program, through which the item will be funded.
The name and the State or district of the Member of Congress who made the request.
The name and address of the intended recipient.
The type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or private for profit entity) of the intended recipient.
The project name, description, and estimated completion date.
A justification of the benefit to taxpayers.
Whether the request is for a continuing project and if so, when funds were first appropriated for such project.
A description, if applicable, of all non-Federal sources of funding.
Its current status in the legislative process
Source: Earmark Transparency Act 10-HR5258 on May 11, 2010
Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.
Gillibrand co-sponsored DISCLOSE Act
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.
Wikipedia & OnTheIssue Summary:
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.
Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.
Gillibrand signed Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act
Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:
500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
a public debate requirement;
establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.
Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission,
the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won`t be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we`ll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we`ll win.
Congressional Summary: Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia.
Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution, and issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia.
Requires the President to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union.
Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (DCist.com, Sept. 2014): The Argument Against: Congress does not have the authority to grant statehood to D.C.; the 23rd amendment, which gave D.C. three electoral votes, would have to be repealed before statehood was granted. Washington is a wholly urban, one-industry town, dependent on the federal government far in excess of any other state.
Moreover, with Congress no longer having authority over New Columbia but dependent on it, New Columbia could exert influence on the federal government far in excess of any other state.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA: [Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC; the District of Columbia has one representative to Congress and no Senators; Rep. Holmes can introduce bills but her vote does not count]: This 51st state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. Those would remain under federal jurisdiction. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced in 1991. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States.
Source: New Columbia Admission Act 15_H317 on Jan 13, 2015
Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.
Gillibrand 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
Automatic voter registration for all citizens.
Gillibrand sponsored H.R.12 & S.1088
Require each state to make available official public websites for online voter registration.
Authorizes automated voter registration and establishes same day registration, and voter registration of individuals under 18 years of age.
Declares that the right to vote shall not be denied because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (BrennanCenter.org): Too many Americans go to vote on Election Day only to find their names are not on the voter rolls--often, wrongly deleted. The US is on the verge of a new paradigm for registering voters: automatic, permanent registration of eligible voters, which would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Gov. Christie`s veto message on the `Democracy Act`, Nov. 2015): Christie called a provision establishing automatic voter registration that requires
New Jerseyan to opt out a `government-knows-best, backwards approach that would inconvenience citizens and waste government resources for no justifiable reason.` Automatic voter registration would have added 1.6 million people to the state`s voter rolls.
TN-8: I have voted in every election federal, state or local that I chose to. If people want to vote there is nothing but laziness preventing them from doing so today! Regarding photo ID`s you have one to drive, buy alcohol, and go to the doctor.
AL-2: This bill is so general that anyone that is alive, has lived, or will live in this century will be able to vote as well as non-Americans, pets, people without voting rights, and some people multiple times.
TN-3: This bill will surely bring about fixed voting in favor of the one who can cheat the most. How about having a voter photo card and a test to see if they are capable of voting and not just voting for whoever promises them more free stuff.
Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-S1088 on Mar 19, 2015
Replace electoral college with direct election of president.
Gillibrand co-sponsored the Joint Resolution on abolishing Electoral College
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President.
Whereas the Founders of the Nation established the electoral college in an era of limited nationwide communication and information sharing;
Whereas the electoral college is premised on an antiquated theory that citizens will have a better chance of knowing about electors from their home States than about Presidential candidates from out of State;
Whereas the development of mass media and the Internet has made information about Presidential candidates easily accessible to citizens across the country and around the world;
Whereas the electoral college has become an anachronism: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States within seven years:
The President and Vice President
shall be elected by the people of the several States;
The pair of candidates having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected
Opponents` viewpoint by Washington Times 3/28/19: The Founding Fathers dreamed up a way to elect a president by overriding the popular will, and some people want to fix something that ain`t broke. The Founders were not at all confident that voters would pay sufficient attention to the job at hand, studying the men and issues to come to a correct evaluation of the candidates. The genius of the Electoral College is that it guarantees that the states` electors elect the president, as instructed by the people. Without this guarantee, a presidential candidate would spend all his time in CA, TX, and FL, with only grudging nods to the states of flyover country. The guarantee of attention to both large and small states enforces federalism, the sharing of powers between the central government and the states.
Source: Resolution H.J.Res.7 for Constitutional Amendment 19-HJR7 on Jan 3, 2019
Sponsored bill for election holiday & easier voting access.
Gillibrand 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
Gillibrand signed Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act
A bill to prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.
For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule.
Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.
Gillibrand co-sponsored For the People Act
S.1 and H.R.1: For the People Act: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government:
The bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting).
It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.
The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.
The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.
Sen. John Thune in OPPOSITION (9/22/21): This radical legislation would provide for a massive federal takeover of our electoral system, chill free speech, and turn the Federal Election Commission--the primary enforcer of election law in this country--into a partisan body. This radical legislation would undermine state voter ID laws and make it easier
for those here illegally to vote.
And, most of all, it would put Washington, not state governments, in charge of elections--for no reason at all. There is no systemic problem with state election laws. And state election officials do not need Washington bureaucrats dictating how many days of early voting they should offer, or how they should manage mail-in ballots.
Biden Administration in SUPPORT (3/1/21): In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-210-2 on March 3, 2021 (rollcall #62); received in the Senate on March 11; no further Senate action during 2021.
Remove President Trump from office for inciting insurrection.
Gillibrand voted YEA removing President Trump from office for inciting insurrection
GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:
The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don`t fight like hell you`re not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.
Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)
Source: Congressional vote 21-HR24S on Jan 11, 2021
Sponsored bill for statehood for Washington D.C.
Gillibrand co-sponsored Washington D.C. Admission Act
Legislative Summary: This bill provides for admission into the United States of the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, composed of most of the territory of the District of Columbia. The commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states. District territory excluded from the commonwealth shall be known as the Capital and shall be the seat of the federal government. The bill maintains the federal government`s authority over military lands and specified other property. The bill provides for expedited consideration of a joint resolution repealing the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution [the current rule for D.C.].
WETM 18-Elmira analysis: The House of Representatives passed a bill that would make Washington D.C. into a state. While Democrats say it`s time to make D.C. a state, Republicans say the motivation is purely political.
D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) introduced this bill and says district residents deserve full representation in Congress. `D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they as American citizens must live,` Norton said.
While Democrats say this is about fairness, Republicans say this isn`t about the people, it`s about the politics. As a state, D.C. would likely add two new Democrats to the Senate.
`This is about a Democrat power grab,` Congressman Fred Keller (R-Penn.) said. Keller and Congressman James Comer (R-Ky.) say Democrats are forcing this issue through for one reason. `HR 51 is not really about voting representation. It`s about Democrats consolidating their power in Washington,` Comer said.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 216-208-6 on 4/22/21 (rollcall #132); introduced in Senate with 45 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.
Voted YES on two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Gillibrand 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 included
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.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump`s previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
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.
These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump`s previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections.
Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019