Mitch McConnell on Government Reform Republican Sr Senator (KY)

Would absolutely vote for Trump if renominated in 2024

The Kentucky Republican's comments come just weeks after he delivered a pointed rebuke of Trump on the Senate floor for fomenting the deadly US Capitol insurrection. Though McConnell voted to acquit Trump anyway, he called the former President's actions that preceded the riot "a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty."

In response,˙Trump ripped McConnell˙in a lengthy statement, calling him "a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack."

"He will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country. Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful, and compassionate leadership," Trump said.

Trump practically, morally responsible for riots

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said shortly after the 57-43 Senate vote that ended in the former president's acquittal. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," he said, "and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories & reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting."

But McConnell said impeachment is a "limited tool" and that Trump is not "constitutionally eligible for conviction." "The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal," he said.

Soft money allows conservatives to respond to liberal media

Federal shutdown was just a 2-week paid vacation: bad policy

McCONNELL: You know, one of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is there's no education in the second kick of a mule. The first kick of the mule occurred back in 1995 when the Republican House shut down the government. Shutting down the government, in my view, is not conservative policy. I don't think a two-week paid vacation for federal employees is conservative policy. A number of us were saying back in July that this strategy could not and would not work, and of course it didn't. So there will not be another government shutdown. You can count on that.

Q: Well, how badly do you think the country was hurt by all of this?

McCONNELL: It certainly didn't do the country any good to have both a government shutdown and a pending fiscal crisis right on top of it. I think it was important to do the right thing for the country [by ending the shutdown]. And we did it.

2010: Moratorium on earmarks in the 112th congress

"The 2010 midterm election was a 'change' election, and the change that people want, above all, is right here in Washington. If the voters express themselves clearly and unequivocally on an issue, it's not enough to persist in doing the opposite on the grounds that 'that's the way we've always done it.'

"I have said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won't be guilty of the same thing. Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don't apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of waste and the out-of-control spending. That's why today I am announcing that I will support a moratorium on earmarks in the 112th Congress."

Cut virtual incompetence in the federal government

Our sustainable debt is the real wake up. It should prompt us to stop spending money we don't have on things we don't need. We can start by clearing away duplicative programs instead of creating new ones.

When the GAO report was initially released, both sides of the aisle viewed it was an unbiased & authoritative call to action. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the report represented the "virtual incompetence" in the federal government and said it underscored the need to cut spending

Clear message against earmarks, but they're still useful

And then a funny thing happened. Sen. McConnell went on TV and admitted that he'd been wrong. That regardless of what he thought, the American people had sent a clear message that they didn't want earmarks. McConnell explained that he didn't want to be a hypocrite, and after criticizing the Democrats for ignoring the will of the people, he was equally wrong to do so himself.

So he stopped. We won. Perhaps the 100s of 1000s of phone calls from Tea Partiers around the country had something to do with the senator's epiphany. (Perhaps not; he still spent 75% of his "concession" speech on earmarks saying how wonderful he thought they were and citing all of the lovely things he'd been able to do with them over his years in the Senate.

Leading opponent of campaign finance reform

In this session's incarnation, the McCain-Feingold bill would limit soft-money contributions to parties, crack down on PAC contributions to candidates, and encourage overall campaign spending limits. McConnell was not opposed to all reform. He backed better disclosure of campaign contributions, a ban on foreign contribution, limits on the ability of labor unions to use mandatory dues for political purposes, and raising individual contribution limits. But he believed McCain-Feingold was an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech that would also hurt the political parties.

1990: Opposed Motor Voter: just registers uninformed voters

2001: Electoral College is the linchpin of American politics

In his introduction to "Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College," McConnell argued that despite its "complexities and inefficiencies," the Electoral College is "the linchpin of American political prosperity [that] has formed our political parties, moderated our more extreme elements, and forged the presidential campaigns that have given direction to our ship of state." To the surprise of many conservatives, however, there was no real groundswell of support for any such reform, and McConnell doubts that states with relatively small populations would ever let it happen anyway.

Term limits are an idiotic notion

Disparaged campaign finance reform as Beltway issue

With that comment, the inversion of the campaign-finance debate was nearly complete. Back when McCain's raison d'etre for seeking the presidency was to drive the "corrupting influence" of money out of politics, the "Beltway" slur was the term of derision for OPPONENTS of McCain's decade-long quest to pass new campaign finance rules.

"It has no impact whatsoever on the average American. It's an inside-the-Beltway issue," antireform leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said in April 2001, in a typical comment. "The interest groups that are lobbying here--which they have a right to do under the First Amendment--will simply spend their money trying to influence elections in a different way than they do now." McConnell's predictions came true, and six years later McCain was reduced to disparaging the place he'd lived for two-thirds of his life.

Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. 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.

Voted NO on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• 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.

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.

Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

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.

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
• The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
• The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted YES on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups.

Congressional summary:: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act: Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, for determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status as an organization operated exclusively for social welfare to apply to such determinations after enactment of this Act. Prohibits any regulation, or other ruling, not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to such standards and definitions.

Proponent's argument in favor (Heritage Action, Feb. 26, 2014): H.R. 3865 comes in the wake of an attack on the Tea Party and other conservative organizations. The current IRS regulation is so broad and ill-defined that the IRS applies a "facts and circumstances" test to determine what constitutes "political activity" by an organization. This test can vary greatly depending on the subjective views of the particular IRS bureaucrat applying the test. IRS employees took advantage of this vague and subjective standard to unfairly delay granting tax-exempt status to Tea Party organizations and subject them to unreasonable scrutiny.

Text of sample IRS letter to Tea Party organizations:We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for exemption. Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or officer whose name is listed on your application.

• Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums or other events at which candidates running for public offices are invited to speak?
• Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation?
• Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies?
• Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party?

Signed term limit pledge: 6 years House; 12 years Senate.

Organizational Self-Description: U.S. Term Limits, the nation's oldest and largest term limits advocacy group, announced that 14 new signers of its congressional term limits amendment pledge have been elected to the 114th Congress. The group includes five new senators, eight new House members and one House incumbent who signed the pledge for the first time this cycle. The pledge calls for members to co-sponsor and vote for a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms (six years) and Senators to two terms (12 years). The USTL President said, "The American people are fed up with career politicians in Washington and strongly embracing term limits as a remedy. Gallup polling shows that 75% of Americans support term limits."

Opposing legal argument: [ACLU, Nov. 7, 2014]: In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (May 22, 1995), the Court ended the movement to enact term limits for Congress on a state-by-state basis. The Court held that the qualifications for Congress established in the Constitution itself could not be amended by the states without a constitutional amendment, and that the notion of congressional term limits violates the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy 'that the people should chose whom they please to govern them.'"

Opposing political argument: [Cato Institute Briefing Paper No. 14, Feb. 18, 1992]: Several considerations may explain political scientists' open hostility to term limitation:

• Political scientists were instrumental in promoting the professionalization of legislators.
• They are cynical about the attentiveness, general knowledge, and judgmental capacity of the average voter.
• They are committed to the conservation of leadership.
• They perceive attacks on professional politicians as a threat to their own self-proclaimed professionalism.
• And political partisanship may encourage them to oppose term limits.

Ban paid voter registration.

A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the distribution of voter registration application forms and to require organizations to register with the State prior to the distribution of such forms.

Prohibits any individual from distributing, for compensation, a voter registration application form for federal elections in a state if the individual:
1. has been convicted of a felony under any state or federal law;
2. does not sign and print legibly the individual's name on the form;
3. does not provide identifying information to the proper election official; or
4. does not certify, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has not received financial compensation based on the number of voter registration application forms submitted by the individual to an election official upon completion by the applicant, and that the information provided by the individual is accurate to the best of the individual's knowledge.

Establishes criminal penalties for: (1) individuals not meeting such standards; and (2) anyone who employs such an individual knowingly, or who should reasonably be expected to know the individual is ineligible.

Require all laws to cite Constitutional authorization.

A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.

Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.

Constitutional Authority for This Act: This Act proposes to establish new procedures by which legislation shall be considered by Congress and is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution establishing that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

Strict Constitutionalist, according to CC survey.

The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution?' Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.

President Trump not guilty of 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.

Legislative Outcome:

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)

Voted NO on two articles of impeachment against 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:
1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.