OnTheIssuesLogo

Joe Donnelly on Technology

Senate Challenger; Democratic Represenative (IN-2)

 


Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes.

Congressional Summary: The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 authorizes each state to require all sellers with sales exceeding $1 million in the preceding calendar year to collect and remit sales and use taxes, but only if complying with the minimum simplification requirements relating to the administration of such taxes & audits.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (Cnet.com): Online retailers are objecting to S.743, saying it's unreasonable to expect small businesses to comply with the detailed--and sometimes conflicting--regulations of nearly 10,000 government tax collectors. S.743 caps years of lobbying by the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represent big box stores. President Obama also supports the bill.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. COLLINS. This bill rectifies a fundamental unfairness in our current system. Right now, Main Street businesses have to collect sales taxes on every transaction, but outbecause -of-state Internet sellers don't have to charge this tax, they enjoy a price advantage over the mom-and-pop businesses. This bill would allow States to collect sales taxes on Internet sales, thereby leveling the playing field with Main Street businesses. This bill does not authorize any new or higher tax, nor does it impose an Internet tax. It simply helps ensure that taxes already owed are paid.

Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. WYDEN: This bill takes a function that is now vested in government--State tax collection--and outsources that function to small online retailers. The proponents say it is not going to be hard for small businesses to handle this--via a lot of new computer software and the like. It is, in fact, not so simple. There are more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country. Some of them give very different treatment for products and services that are almost identical.

Reference: Marketplace Fairness Act; Bill S.743 ; vote number 13-SV113 on May 6, 2013

Voted NO on terminating funding for National Public Radio.

    Congressional Summary: To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, including:
  1. broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967. Today, we have multiple listening choices; NPR [has become an] absurd anachronism. It is time to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and support itself.

    Opponent's Argument for voting No:
    [Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill will cripple National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the public access to one of our Nation's most credible sources of news coverage. This bill does not save a penny. This legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose, but it does serve an ugly ideological one. This legislation is not about reforming NPR. It is about punishing NPR. It is vindictive, it is mean-spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.

    Reference: Prohibit Federal Funds for NPR; Bill H.1076 ; vote number 11-HV192 on Mar 17, 2011

    Voted YES on delaying digital TV conversion by four months.

    Congressional Summary:Amends the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act to delay the transition of television broadcasting from analog to digital to June 13, 2009. Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to extend for a 116-day period the licenses for recovered spectrum, including the construction requirements associated with those licenses.

    Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. RICK BOUCHER (D, VA-9): Fully 6.5 million households are totally unprepared for the transition on February 17; these 6.5 million households will lose all of their television service, and that number represents about 5.7% of the total American television viewing public. If almost 6%of the nation's households lose all of their television service, I think that most people would declare that the digital television transition has been a failure. In recognition of that reality, this legislation would delay the transition until June 12.

    Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JOE LINUS BARTON (R, TX-6): The majority is trying to fix a problem that I do not think really exists. We have sent out 33 million coupons: 22 million of those coupons have been redeemed, and 11 million coupons are outstanding. The outstanding coupons are being redeemed, I think, by about 500,000 a week, something like that. In my opinion, you could keep the hard date and not have a problem, but if you think there is a problem, it is not from lack of money. We have appropriated $1.3 billion. About half of that is still in the Treasury, so the redemption rate is only about 52%. Even though we are delaying this until June 12 if this bill becomes law, according to the acting chairman of the FCC, 61% of the television stations in America are going to go ahead and convert to digital. 143 television stations already have converted, and in those areas where they have converted, I am not aware that there has been a huge problem.

    Reference: DTV Delay Act; Bill S.352 ; vote number 2009-H052 on Mar 4, 2009

    Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.

    Proponents argument for voting YEA: Rep. ETHERIDGE. This bipartisan bill provides the critical tools that our intelligence community needs to ensure the safety of our Nation--to authorize surveillance in the case of an emergency situation, provided that they return to the FISA court within 7 days to apply for a warrant.

    Rep. LANGEVIN. One issue that has been repeatedly addressed is whether telecommunications companies should be granted immunity against pending lawsuits for their involvement in the earlier surveillance program. This legislation preserves a role for the U.S. court system to decide independently whether the telecommunications companies acted in good faith. Only after that review would the courts decide whether the telecommunications companies deserve any form of liability protection.

    Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. LEVIN. I oppose this bill because of the provisions that would confer retroactive immunity on the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. It sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to approve a law that dismisses ongoing court cases simply on the basis that the companies can show that the administration told them that its warrantless surveillance program was legal. A program is not legal just because the administration claims that it is.

    Rep. NADLER. The House must decide today whether to uphold the rule of law & the supremacy of the Constitution or whether to protect & reward the lawless behavior of the administration and of the telecommunications companies that participated in its clearly illegal program of spying on innocent Americans. The bill is a fig-leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for illegal acts. It denies people whose rights were violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people their right to have the actions of the administration subjected to fair & independent scrutiny.

    Reference: FISA Amendments Act; Bill HR6304 ; vote number 2008-437 on Jun 20, 2008

    Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure.

    Vote on overriding Pres. Bush's veto. The bill reauthorizes the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States. The bill authorizes flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also authorizes projects for navigation, ecosystem or environmental restoration, and hurricane, flood, or storm damage reduction in 23 states including Louisiana.

    Veto message from President Bush:

    This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns. Each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' main missions. However, this authorization bill costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete. This bill does not set priorities. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.

    Reference: Veto override on Water Resources Development Act; Bill Veto override on H.R. 1495 ; vote number 2007-1040 on Nov 6, 2007

    Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services.

    Donnelly co-sponsored facilitating nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services

    A bill to facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone service for information and referral on human services & volunteer services. Congress makes the following findings:

    1. The FCC has assigned 2-1-1 as the national telephone number for information and referral on human services.
    2. 2-1-1 facilitates critical connections between families seeking services, including community-based and faith-based organizations.
    3. There are approximately 1,500,000 nonprofit organizations in the US [which would be listed in the 2-1-1 service].
    4. Government funding supports well-intentioned programs that are not fully utilized because of a lack of access to such programs.
    5. A national cost-benefit analysis estimates a net value to society of a national 2-1-1 system approaching $130,000,000 in the first year alone.
    6. While 69% of the population has access to 2-1-1 telephone service from a land line in 41 States, inadequate funding prevents access to that telephone service throughout each of the States.
    7. 2-1-1 telephone service facilitates the availability of a single repository where comprehensive data on all community services is collected & maintained.

    Introductory statement by Sponsor:

    Sen. CLINTON: In the immediate aftermath of the devastation of September 11, most people did not know where to turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with victims.

    Every single American should have a number they can call to cut through the chaos of an emergency. That number is 2-1-1. It's time to make our citizens and our country safer by making this resource available nationwide.

    Source: Calling for 2-1-1 Act (S.211 and H.R.211) 07-HR211 on Jan 9, 2007

    Permanent ban on state & local taxation of Internet access.

    Donnelly co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access

    Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 - Amends the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.

    Related bills: H.R.743, H.R.1077, H.R.3678, S.156.

    Source: Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (S.2128) 07-S2128 on Oct 2, 2007

    No performance royalties for radio music.

    Donnelly signed Local Radio Freedom Act

    Source: SCR.14&HCR.49 2009-SCR14 on Mar 30, 2009

    Other candidates on Technology: Joe Donnelly on other issues:
    IN Gubernatorial:
    Dan Coats
    Eric Holcomb
    Mike Pence
    IN Senatorial:
    Andrew Straw
    Baron Hill
    Brian Bosma
    Eric Holcomb
    Evan Bayh
    Luke Messer
    Mark Hurt
    Marlin Stutzman
    Todd Rokita
    Todd Young

    IN politicians
    IN Archives
    Senate races 2017-8:
    AL: Strange(R) vs.Jones(D) vs.Moore<(R)
    AZ: Flake(R) vs. Ward(R) vs.Sinema(D) vs.Abboud(D) vs.McSally(R) vs.Arpaio(R) vs.Marks(L)
    CA: Feinstein(D) vs. Eisen(I) vs. Sanchez?(D) vs.de_Leon(D)
    CT: Murphy(D) vs.Adams(D) vs.Corey(R)
    DE: Carper(D) vs.Boyce(R) vs.Truono(R) vs. Markell?(D)
    FL: Nelson(D) vs. DeSantis(R) vs. Jolly(R) vs. Rick Scott(R) vs.Invictus(R) vs.Janowski(I)
    HI: Hirono(D) vs.McDermott(R)
    IN: Donnelly(D) vs. Hurt(R) vs.Messer(R) vs.Rokita(R) vs.Braun(R) vs.Straw(P)
    MA: Warren(D) vs. Ayyadurai(I) vs.Waters(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Diehl(R) vs.Wellman(R) vs.Kingston(R)
    MD: Cardin(D) vs.Vohra(L) vs.Manning(D) vs.Faddis(R)
    ME: King(I) vs.Brakey(R) vs.Lyons(L)
    MI: Stabenow(D) vs. Bouchard(R) vs.Young(R) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
    MN-2: Franken(R) vs.Smith(D) vs.Housley(R)
    MN-6: Klobuchar(D) vs.Newberger(R) vs.Overby(G)
    MO: McCaskill(D) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Monetti(R) vs.Hawley(R)
    MS-2: vs.Hyde-Smith(R) vs. McDaniel(R) vs.Espy(D) vs.Reeves(R)
    MS-6: Wicker(R) vs.Bohren(D)
    MT: Tester(D) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Rosendale(R)

    ND: Heitkamp(D) vs.Peyer(D) vs.Cramer(R) vs.Campbell(R)
    NE: Fischer(R) vs.Raybould(D)
    NJ: Menendez(D) vs. Chiesa(R) vs.Pezzullo(R) vs.Hugin(R)
    NM: Heinrich(D) vs.Rich(R)
    NV: Heller(R) vs.Tarkanian(R) vs.Rosen(D)
    NY: Gillibrand(D) vs. Kennedy(D) vs.Webber(R) vs.Farley(R) vs.Noren(D)
    OH: Brown(D) vs. Mandel(R) vs.Gibbons(R) vs.Renacci(R)
    PA: Casey(D) vs. Saccone(R) vs.Barletta(R) vs.Christiana(R)
    RI: Whitehouse(D) vs.Nardolillo(R)
    TN: Corker(R) vs.Bredesen(D) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(D) vs.Fincher(R) vs.Blackburn(R)
    TX: Cruz(R) vs. Bush(R) vs.O`Rourke(D)
    UT: Hatch(R) vs. McMullin(R) vs.Wilson(D) vs.Romney(R) vs.Bowden(L)
    VA: Kaine(D) vs. Fiorina(R) vs.Stewart(R) vs.Freitas(R)
    VT: Sanders(I) vs.Milne(D) vs.MacGovern(D)
    WA: Cantwell(D) vs.Ferguson(D) vs.Luke(L) vs.Strider(L)
    WI: Baldwin(D) vs.Vukmir(R)
    WV: Manchin(D) vs. Raese(R) vs.Morrisey(R) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Jenkins(R) vs.Blankenship(I)
    WY: Barrasso(R) vs.Trauner(D)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Jobs
    Principles
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    Technology
    War/Peace
    Welfare

    Other Senators
    Senate Votes (analysis)
    Bill Sponsorships
    Affiliations
    Policy Reports
    Group Ratings

    Contact info:
    Campaign website:
    www.joeforindiana.com
    Email Contact Form
    Mailing Address:
    P.O. Box 891, Indianapolis, IN 46206
    Official Website
    Web contact in lieu of EMail





    Page last updated: Jun 08, 2018