The only way to restore Alaskans trust in their elected leaders is for them to earn it. As Anchorage mayor, Mark Begich brought greater openness to city government, putting more information on the Internet, increasing citizen participation and
oversight, and making his financial statements public. Mark Begich will take to Washington the same high ethical standards he has lived by as mayor. His personal finances, daily schedule, and any family lobbying connections will be an open book.
Senators and senior senatorial staff should disclose all income and assets, down to the dollar for themselves, their spouses and dependent children. Financial disclosures should be promptly posted on the
Internet in a searchable, sortable database, and remain public record permanently. The 30-day grace period should be eliminated and a much higher penalty should be imposed.
Senate lobbying disclosures should include family ties
Lobbyists should have to report on their disclosure form the senators or committees they are lobbying, specific provisions or projects within legislation they are lobbying for, which, if any, senators or senior staff they are related to, and what
provisions or projects they secured. In addition, senators should have to disclose on their website whether any of their family members are registered lobbyists and link to Senate lobbying disclosures for those family members.
Campaign transparency with sortable online database
Although presidential and House candidates are required to file their campaign finance reports electronically, senate candidates are not. The result--Senate filings are posted later and are not in a format that can be easily searched. The solution is to
require electronic filing by Senate candidates and senators, just the same as presidential and House candidates. The FEC should be directed to make this information available in a searchable, sortable online database so the public can easily access it.
No secret meetings; full appointment disclosure for Senators
Alaskans rightly feel detached from the business of the Senate. It’s hard to track who our senators are meeting with and why. There is no requirement that senators disclose who they are meeting with or what they are talking about behind closed doors.
Senators’ office appointment calendars should be posted on the Internet so the public can see exactly who their elected officials are listening to and working with.
Over the last ten years, Senators have received eight pay raises and yet have only increased minimum wage one time. No pay raises for senators unless working Alaskans get a pay raise too. Senators should have to vote on each and every pay raise,
out in the open and on its own. They shouldn’t be hidden in a larger bill. Any Senate pay raise should be brought to the Senate floor as a stand-alone bill, and there must first be a vote to raise the minimum wage.
No revolving door for former senate staff to lobby
Recent reforms restricted former senior staff from lobbying the Senate for one year. This still allows staff to lobby their former senator after a year. Even after this waiting period, former staff can still have an inside track to their former senator
and senator’s staff, often on issues that may not be in line with the best interests of the senator’s constituents. All senate staff, no matter what level of seniority, should be prohibited from lobbying their former employer permanently.
No campaign fundraising through private foundations
Senators have found ways around campaign finance restrictions by establishing private foundations that can accept lobbyist money. The lobbyists still curry favor with senators by making large donations to their foundations. Senators may not have a
controlling interest in any private foundation and may only fundraise for a foundation or non-profit organization if it is first approved by the Senate Ethics Committee and the foundation or non-profit has specified what the money raised will be used for
The Anchorage city ethics board is composed of citizens. The Senate needs a similar independent authority with the power to investigate ethics complaints filed by other Senators & the public. Members of the Office of Public Integrity would be prohibited
from political involvement with members of Congress. The board would have its own independent staff, subpoena power, and decide its own rules of procedure. Issues should come to the Senate only for final action when the board has completed its work.
Congressional Summary:Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
expense allowances;
representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
agency contributions for employee benefits;
inquiries and investigations;
the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
miscellaneous items;
the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
official mail costs.
Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1968 to increase by $50,000 the gross compensation paid all employees in the office of a Senator. Increases by $96,000 per year the aggregate amount authorized for the offices of the Majority and Minority Whip.
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.
Reference: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act;
Bill HR2918&S1294
; vote number 2009-S217
on Jul 6, 2009
Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.
Congressional Summary:
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.
Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act;
Bill S.160
; vote number 2009-S073
on Feb 26, 2009
Repeal automatic Congressional pay raises.
Begich 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.
