Current disclosure requirements are frighteningly inefficient and help lobbyists to shroud their activity in secrecy. Lobbyists must now only file disclosure reports twice a year. Thus lobbyists can file reports many months after they have influenced
already-passed and defeated legislation. Casey's plan requires lobbyists' reports to be placed on a user-friendly Internet web site. It also demands more timely release of information by requiring lobbying disclosures to be filed quarterly.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcasey.com, "Issues"
Aug 15, 2006
Attack the source of corrupt "pay-to-play" culture
The rise and fall of Representatives Tom DeLay and Randy "Duke" Cunningham demonstrates what happens when partisan power goes unchecked and legislative actions are shrouded in secrecy. Even in the wake of these scandals, the Republican congressional
leadership has proven unwilling to clean up its act. Congress's weak attempts at ethics reform legislation have failed to attack the source of the problems that have led to the corrupt "pay-to-play" culture engulfing Washington.
Source: Campaign website, www.bobcasey.com, "Issues"
Aug 15, 2006
Lobbyist money ok if it has no impact on your vote
Q: Would you turn down money from lobbyists? And what about earmarks?
A: I've accepted money from lobbyists. The question is what impact does that money have on your vote.
Everyone who knows me knows that I'm very independent. I'll be focused on needs of Pennsylvanians not the special interests in D.C.
Source: Second 2006 Pennsylvania Senate Debate
Apr 19, 2006
Restrictions & disclosure requirements on lobbyists
Casey's plan would require lobbyists to disclose on the Internet details about conversations with members of Congress on the same day they occur. It also would require former members to wait two years to lobby on Capitol Hill, and require politicians to
reimburse corporations who fly them on private jets for the price of a private jet flight - not just for the price of a first-class ticket. Casey said his plan would help abolish the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Source: Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press, in phillyBurbs.com
Nov 14, 2005
Political fundraising cheats people from time with candidate
Q: Has money corrupted the process? Are voters cheated because guys like you have to spend so much time raising money?
A: I don't think there is any question that it cheats people out of more time with the candidate.
Source: Interview with Philadelphia City paper
May 15, 2002
Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.
Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:
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.
[Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].
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.
Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act;
Bill S. 1257
; vote number 2007-339
on Sep 18, 2007
Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.
Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
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.
