Kelly Ayotte on Government Reform

Voted to require photo ID to vote in federal elections

Praised Sen. Gregg for earmarks; but pledges against them

"Congressman Hodes is having an election-year conversion on earmarks. He requested over 60 earmarks last year. He's voted for 9,000 earmarks just in 2009 alone," Ayotte said. Asked what she would say to the defense contractors and other businesses benefiting from Gregg's effort, Ayotte said: "What's happened with earmarks in this country is they've been used to buy and sell votes. We saw it so much with the health care bill, the buying and selling of votes and other examples in Washington. That type of corruption has to end. With respect to our businesses we should reform the process in Washington."

Ban earmarks; Hodes voted for 9,000 of them

Ayotte said the stimulus only created "temporary or government" jobs and more taxpayer-paid spending hurt the economy as national unemployment increased by 2.5 million jobs. "It was a big government program, but it didn't allow the growth in the private sector," Ayotte said.

During the four years Hodes was in Congress, Ayotte said the federal deficit went up 525%, the debt increased $5 trillion to $13 trillion and Hodes voted for 9,000 earmarks last year. "Congressman Hodes is wanting to portray himself as a fiscal conservative," Ayotte said.

In this campaign, both candidates call for a ban on earmarks. Ayotte said Hodes had an election year conversion on earmarks. Hodes noted Ayotte earlier in this campaign had defended earmarks as long as they were transparent until after Hodes had endorsed the ban.

Make Congressional pay "performance-based"

Ayotte said congressional pay should be "performance-based" and predicted Hodes would not fare well under such a system given his votes on taxes and spending. "I think that he owes the taxpayers of New Hampshire a refund," Ayotte concluded.

End earmarks; post donations online

Kelly Ayotte believes we need to clean up Washington. To ensure a more responsible, transparent government:
• Post all legislation online for at least 72 hours, allowing legislators and the public, the opportunity to read each bill before they are voted on
• End the corrupt earmark process
• Freeze congressional office budgets (5.7% increase this year)
• Senate campaigns should file their returns electronically and post donations online immediately
• Pass term limits legislation.

No Pork Pledge: decrease earmarking; increase transparency.

Despite congressional reforms over the past several years to reduce pork barreling and increase earmark accountability and transparency, earmarks continue to figure prominently as the `currency of corruption` on Capitol Hill, undermining the federal budgetary process and our democratic system of government. In an effort to encourage more members of Congress and candidates for office to kick the earmarking habit, CCAGW has launched a new no-gimmicks, anti-pork pledge.

By signing CCAGW’s No Pork Pledge, incumbents and candidates vow not to request any pork-barrel earmark, which is defined as meeting one of the following criteria:
• Requested by only one chamber of Congress
• Not specifically authorized
• Not competitively awarded
• Not requested by the President
• Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
• Not the subject of congressional hearings
• Serves only a local or special interest

Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.

The Contract from America, clause 1. Protect the Constitution:

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.

The Contract from America, clause 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington:

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality,

Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.

The Contract from America, clause 9. Stop the Pork:

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

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.

Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

Congressional Summary:<

• 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:

1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
3. 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.

Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Kelly Ayotte. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Kelly Ayotte. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Kelly Ayotte. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Kelly Ayotte. Click here for issue positions of other NH politicians. Click here for NH primary archives. Click here for NH secondary archives.
Other governors on Government Reform:			Kelly Ayotte on other issues:
[Title7]	Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R) vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Jeff Landry(R) vs.Shawn Wilson(D) vs.John Schroder(R) vs.Sharon Hewitt(R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew) vs.Brandon Presley(D) Gubernatorial Debates 2024: DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited); Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D) vs. Matt Meyer (D) IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited); Sen. Mike Braun (R) vs. Suzanne Crouch (R) vs. Jennifer McCormick (D) MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited): Jay Ashcroft (R) vs. Bill Eigel (R) vs. Mike Kehoe (R) vs. Crystal Quade (D) MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Tanner Smith (R) vs. Ryan Busse (D)	Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued): NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited); Dale Folwell (R) vs. Michael Morgan (D) vs. Mark Robinson (R) vs. Josh Stein (D) vs. Andy Wells (R) ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R) vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R) NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring) vs. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) vs. Joyce Craig (D) vs. Chuck Morse (R) vs. Cinde Warmington (D) UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R) VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R) unopposed WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring); Hilary Franz (D, withdrew) vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D) vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R) vs. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited); vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew) vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R) vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]