John McCain on Government Reform Republican Sr Senator (AZ)

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Government Reform

No litmus test for Supreme Court nominees on McCain-Feingold

A: I was very aware of the opinion of Justices Roberts and Alito, and I was one who fought hard for the confirmation of both of them. First of all, I wouldn't impose any litmus test. That would be totally inappropriate. But second of all, I will appoint justices such as the ones I've strongly supported and gotten through the Senate, with the help of many others or help along with others, only those who strictly interpret the Constitution and do not legislate from the bench.

Q: Even if they might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and also McCain-Feingold?

A: Look, you cannot impose litmus tests. If you have justices that have a clear conservative, then you don't have to worry about what their decisions will be, because it's pretty obvious that people who strictly interpret the Constitution are worthy of our confidence.

Eliminate broken government programs--20% of all program

Wasteful spending in Washington has gone from irresponsible to indefensible. Right now, even the government reports that one-fifth of programs are receiving failing marks. McCain will restore the trust that Americans have lost in their government spending their hard earned money wisely.
• Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: Veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. Seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption.
• Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that 1 in 5 programs do not perform.
• Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.
• Eliminate earmarks, wasteful subsidies, and pork-barrel spending.
• Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.

FactCheck: $35B in pork meant $484 per child, not $1000

It's not clear where McCain is getting the $35 billion figure. But that's more pork than the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste has diagnosed in the budget for any one year of the Bush presidency: The highest amount the group has calculated is $29 billion in 2006. Perhaps McCain meant $35 billion in two years: the smallest two-year sum was $38.6 billion in 2001 and 2002.

Even if we assume $35 billion in pork, however, McCain mus be defining "child" rather narrowly. According to the 2000 Census, there are about 72 million people under the age of 18, which would come to about $484 each. To apportion $35 billion in $1000 chunks, you'd have to leave out some elementary-schoolers.

More sunshine on the Working Group on Financial Markets

A: Obviously we'd like to see more sunshine. But I as president, rely primarily on my secretary of the Treasury, on my Council of Economic Advisers, on the head of that. I would rely on the circle that I have developed over many years. I have a process of leadership that is sort of an inclusive one that I have developed.

I'm "the sheriff", not Miss Congeniality, about pork bills

FactCheck: Claim of "24 years with no earmarks" mostly true

McCain has certainly made a crusade out of attacking "earmarks," and watchdog groups don't know of any instance in which McCain has asked for an earmark. But here's what rivals point to:

• In a 1992 letter to the EPA, McCain asked for $5 million for a wastewater project in Nogales AZ, either out of existing funds or "earmark the amount from an appropriate account." But McCain's letter was a request, not a legislative earmark carrying the force of law.
• In 2006, McCain proposed $10 million to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. It wasn't slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation.

No signing statements: either sign or veto bills

A: As President, I won't have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk.

Focus on homeland safety, restoring trust, and fiscal policy

A: We must make the country safe. This is a military, diplomatic, intelligence and cyberspace challenge. If we're going to complete that laundry list, is restoring trust and confidence in government. There is none today. We have to fix Medicare. We have to stop this wasteful pork-barrel spending that has led to corruption in Washington. Of course we have to fix our borders. We have to sit down together and fix Medicare and Social Security.

Authored line-item veto law; struck down by Supreme Court

Keating Five mea culpa established openness to press

Though there would be plenty of exceptions to this rule --various members of the Arizona press, and myself [Matt Welch], for example--the general strategy took root and was central to McCain's christening by the national press as "Washington's last honest man."

OpEd: McCain-Feingold chilled grassroots political speech

In choosing a side, journalists missed not only the story of McCain-Feingold's chilling effects on grassroots political activities, but also of McCain's flippant attitude toward the Constitution. McCain no longer held the Bill of Rights as such an immovable object. "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt," he told syndicated radio host Don Imus. "If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

There's only one president; V.P. sticks to official duties

A: Having been considered for that post several times, I've thought a lot about that. The vice president really only has two duties. One is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the case of a tied vote in the Senate. And the other is to inquire daily as to the health of the president. I really would do what some presidents have done in the past. A vice president brings a certain area of expertise and talent. I would probably assign some of those areas, like telecommunications or some other important issues.

Q: So not as wide-ranging as Vice President Cheney had?

A: Look, I would be very careful that everybody understood that there's only one president.

Reform election system, and get rid of electors

A: I do believe so. I think we’re going to have hearings. I don’t think we’re going to change the fundamental electoral system that requires three-fourths of the states and small states are not going to agree to being excluded from the process. But I do believe that we would eliminate this elector business. When I was elected to the Senate, the secretary of state certified the votes and sent it on. I think we could eliminate that “electoral portion” of it. But I would not change the system because I think small states need to have representation.

Q: How about standard kind of ballots?

A: [Congress should] give funds to the poorer counties that can’t afford or have a very low priority on their machines. Out in California they had a touch screen technology, which they say works very well. So I think we in Congress can help these less wealthy areas of the country update and modernize their technology. I think we could do that and should.

Close corporate loopholes; veto pork-barrel spending

BUSH: If I’m the president and you’re a Senator, you can come in my office and you can outline all the different corporate loopholes you think are wrong. And we can pick and choose. But what I’m doing, John, is I’m selling my tax cut plan without claiming I’m going to close some kind of corporate loophole. Your plan uses so-called corporate loopholes to pay for it. I used cash to pay for it. And if the money stays in Washington -- my problem with your plan is that it’s going to be spent on bigger government.

No term limits; they throw away the good with the bad

Drain the big money swamp to kill lobbyist mosquitoes

McCAIN: The fact is if you want to drain the swamp, you take the big money away from the big-time K Street lobbyists and that way they lose their power and their influence. Look, anybody who wants the status quo in Washington, they don’t want John McCain. Because there ain’t going to be the status quo when I’m president of the United States. You take away the big money, you’re going to take away their power and you’re going to break that iron triangle of lobbyists, big money and influence over the legislative process which has so badly embarrassed so many of us and it is the gateway to draining the swamp.

Influence peddling helps the Chinese Army

End sugar subsidy; corporate welfare at its worst

Politicans poll, posture, & influence-peddle

Supports Line-Item Veto and Balanced Budget

Supports term limits on Congress

The 527s need to be eliminated

A: Well, I'm grateful for Fred's support on that. It was McCain-Feingold-Thompson and we couldn't have done it without him, so I'm very appreciative of his support.

Q: Yes, that was five years ago. He's not saying that now.

A: Look, there's millions of more small donors. The 527s need to be eliminated. But soft money was corrupting. If anybody thinks that we need more special interest money in Washington, I'd like to meet them.

Q: So, bottom line, if you had it all to do over again, would you still go for McCain-Feingold?

A: Absolutely. You've seen the corruption in Washington.

527s are clearly illegal; reform intended for small donors

A: We've strengthened the parties. There's millions more small donors. We have taken soft money, which was rampant in Washington, out of the game. The 527s are a violation of the 1974 law. The 527s are clearly illegal. It's not a problem with law. It's a problem with the FEC who will not enforce the law. So, yeah, we made significant progress, absolutely, and I'm proud of a lot of the results of this. I lived in the environment where a powerful committee chairman would call and say, "I need a check for seven figures from you, and by the way, your bill is up before my committee next week." That was routine operation in Washington, and we're still seeing manifestations of this kind of corruption.

Supported then opposed transparency in grassroots reporting

A: Over a year ago, I had changed my position on this issue because I believe that it was too big a bite to take. I believe that there's ambiguities concerning it, and so I believe that it was better to move forward with the reforms that we can make.

Q: But it also helps you politically.

A: I don't know how it helps me politically.

Q: In currying favor with conservative groups that were opposed to your original legislation.

A: There are as many liberal groups who were opposed to the legislation as well. Some of these grassroots organizations are very legitimate organizations. As we found out during the Abramoff investigations, some are not. We should be able to find out and discriminate between the two.

Campaign finance reform needed to restore faith in politics

Now, as he undertook his seventh year of leading the effort to reform the campaign finance system, there were reasons for optimism. The Democrats had picked up four Senate seats in the previous election, the new Democratic senators providing a presumed four more votes for reform, and the Senate was now divided 50-50. McCain's effort to enact reform of the campaign finance system had met with defeat in the Senate five times in the past six years.

Finance reform will prevail if we have the votes & the guts

McCain's 2000 presidential campaign struck a chord when he told people he would "shake things up in Washington." Public disgust with the role of money in our political system was rising, and he gave it voice.

The amount of money spent in a presidentia election had grown to $2.75 billion in the 2000 election. The amounts in themselves, though quite large, were less significant than what they reflected: the ever-increasing time that the politicians had to spend raising the money, the access that came with accepting that money, especially the six- or seven-figure amounts in "soft money". Senators also were becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of ads by outside groups, some of mysterious origin, that could come at them from any direction.

Supported non-severability as key component of CFR

The non-severability amendment has been confined to the two main sections of the bill--the soft-money ban and the limits on electioneering ads would be severable--in the hope of attracting more votes. Now, not any little thing could bring down the whole law. Members of both parties are worried about ads, especially if the soft-money ban stands and the restrictions on ads don't.

Then McCain speaks: "We're now facing perhaps the last major hurdle," he says. "If you vote for this amendment you are voting for soft money. That's really what this debate is about."

In the end, the vote isn't even close. The Senate voted 57-43 against non-severability, with twelve Republicans voting with McCain.

CFR passes Senate; focus on House, not court challenges

In addition to banning soft money, it would raise the amount of direct contributions for candidates from $1,000 to $2,000, beef up disclosure requirements and restrict advertising by independent groups. McCain said he would worry about a court challenge when it comes. First, he said, he will focus on getting the bill through the House of Representatives.

Republicans left open the possibility that McCain would not even be named to the conference committee [which will work on the bill after House approval]. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE, said McCain’s views on campaign finance reform did not square with those of most of his GOP colleagues.

Differentiate “electioneering” from real issue ads

So the bill creates a new category, “electioneering communications,” defined as broadcast ads that refer to specific candidates, within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Interest groups would be allowed to air issue ads, if paid for with individual contributions. “There will be questions about issue ads,” McCain said, “but Supreme Court justices do read newspapers & watch TV. It would be hard to argue from a logical standpoint that the sham ads are not intended to affect the election of candidates.

Clearer rules about campaign finance; no soft money

McCain says, “The American people are unanimous that they want their government back. We can do that by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions that give special interests a seat at the table while average Americans are stuck in the back of the room.” The new version of the campaign-finance bill will include the following provisions:
• A ban on soft money, the unlimited contributions to the political parties, from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals.
• Prohibiting corporate and union spending on ads that mention federal candidates within 60 days of an election; [a ban on] phony issue ads.
• A provision outlining the circumstances under which spending by outside groups or parties will be considered to be coordinated with candidates.
• A clear prohibition on political fundraising of federal property.
• A clear prohibition on contributions of any sort by foreign nationals.
• A prohibition on candidate using campaign funds for their personal benefit.

Replace battle of bucks with battle of ideas

Fight iron triangle: special interests, money, & legislation

Campaign reform that’s best for country, not for GOP

HATCH: [The] bill is unconstitutional. [It] leaves all the first amendment rights for the public interest groups to speak and do whatever they want to and raise any kind of moneys they want to and takes away the first amendment rights from the two political parties. Have you ever wondered why all the Democrats love McCain-Feingold and hardly any Republicans do?

MCCAIN: I’ve always thought that what’s best for the country is best for the party. You are defending an illegal system. You are defending a system that has caused the debasement of every institution of government and it’s got to be stopped. It is now legal for a Chinese-army-owned corporation to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign. We’re awash in it.

Take away soft money & “hurt the unions bad”

McCAIN: The unions carry millions of dollars in checks and soft money down to the Democratic National Committee. Trial lawyers do the same thing. We’ll hurt the unions bad if we take away their soft money. But what you’re saying is that we should continue what happened in 1996. That’s disgraceful. Chinese & Indonesian money came in to the campaign. We’ll never know about the breaches of security.

Money corrupts politics, and soft money corrupts absolutely

A: I don’t believe in public financing because I don’t think my tax dollars should be used to fund a person’s campaign that I philosophically disagree with... I think soft money is the primary evil. I believe that there’s going to come a time when people will say ‘this system is broken.’... It’s now legal in America for a Chinese Army-owned corporation with a subsidiary in the U.S. to give unlimited amounts of money to an American campaign.

Campaign Finance: ban both labor union & corporate donations

Gets legislation passed despite lack of congeniality

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 YES 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 YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

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

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Supports Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform.

In a press conference today the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 32 moderate to conservative Democrats, announced their continued support for the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill (H.R. 2356), which is being debated on the House floor today. The Coalition was joined by the lead sponsors of the Senate Campaign Finance Reform bill. “I believe that we need to end the influence of ‘soft money’ generated from undisclosed sources. And I believe that we need to rein in illegal foreign contributions,” said Rep. Ken Lucas (KY), Blue Dog Campaign Finance Reform Task Force Co-Chairman. “True campaign finance reform will restore to the American people their voice in the legislative process--a voice that has been drowned out in recent years by big-money donors.”

The Blue Dog Coalition endorsed the Shays-Meehan bill in March of this year. An official Blue Dog endorsement comes with the approval of no less than two-thirds of the Coalition’s 32 members. “My own campaign experience has demonstrated to me the need for strong campaign finance reform measures,” said freshman Blue Dog Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), whose victory last November was the most expensive House race to date – combined, both candidates spent $11 million. “In order to protect the integrity of our democratic electoral process, we must reduce the corrosive influence of unregulated soft money donations.”

“I have been a strong supporter of Shays-Meehan and urge my colleagues to join with us so we can restore the faith of the American people in our elections,” said Rep. Dennis Moore (KS), a member of the Blue Dog Campaign Finance Reform Task Force. “I’ve worked with Sen. McCain on reform legislation before and I know that by working in a bipartisan manner, we can get big money out of politics.”

Sponsored bill subjecting 527s to political committee rules.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: "527 organizations" were inspired by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The "527" refers to the relevant section of the tax code. 527s are independent organizations which raise and spend money on behalf of a candidate, without coordinating with the candidate. An example is the "Swift Boat" group in the 2004 elections. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code must register as political committees.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would end the illegal practice of "527" groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. A number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the FEC has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal elections.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress and the Constitution. We've fought too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill prohibiting non-legislated earmarks.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

Report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management & Government Information; hearings held; never came to a vote.

Sponsored bill disclosing lobbyist info & gifts on Internet.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

• Title I: Enhancing Lobbying Disclosure: Requires...
  1. quarterly instead of semiannual filing of lobbying disclosures reports;
  2. an annual report on registered lobbyists' contributions;
  3. maintenance of lobbying information in an electronic database, available to the public free of charge over the Internet;
  4. disclosure by registered lobbyists of all past executive and congressional employment; and
  5. disclosure of registered lobbyists' payments or reimbursements for travel and related expenses of government officials.
• Title II: Oversight of Ethics and Lobbying: annual report to Congress on lobbying registration and reports for compliance or noncompliance by lobbyists and their clients.
• Title III: Slowing the Revolving Door - Extends from one to two years the ban on lobbying contacts by former Members of Congress, and officers of the legislative branch; and prohibits former Congressional employees, within one year after leaving office, from making lobbying contacts with a Member or employee of Congress.
• Title IV: Ban on Provision of Gifts or Travel by Lobbyists in Violation of the Rules of Congress: Prohibits a registered lobbyist from making a gift or providing travel to a Member or employee of Congress, unless the gift or travel may be accepted under the rules of the House or the Senate.
• Title V: Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2006 - Establishes a Commission to report to Congress on congressional ethics requirements and to recommend improvements to ethical safeguards.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar No. 369; never came to a vote.

Rethink flawed Presidential daily intelligence briefings.

Mr. President:

After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong.

Here, we focus on recommendations that we believe only you can effect if you choose to implement them:
• Give the Director of National Intelligence powers--and backing--to match his responsibilities.
• Bring the FBI all the way into the Intelligence Community. Pull all of the FBI's intelligence capabilities into one place and subject them to the coordinating authority of the DNI.
• Demand more of the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed.
• Rethink the President's Daily Brief. The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs. So far, despite some successes, our Intelligence Community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs. Other commissions and observers have said the same. We should not wait for another commission or another Administration to force widespread change in the Intelligence Community. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p. iii-iv 05-WMD-01 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA yielded to conventional wisdom, not political pressure.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Politicization: Conclusion 26

  The Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion, but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD affected the analytic process.

  Conclusion 27

  The CIA took too long to admit error in Iraq, and its Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center actively discouraged analysts from investigating errors.

  ACCOUNTABILITY: Recommendation

  The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.188-194 05-WMD-09 on Mar 31, 2005

  Sponsored bill allowing individual votes on each earmark.

  McCain sponsored allowing individual votes on each earmark

  OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers' dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking.

  SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bipartisan bill changes the Senate rules to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending.

  In 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300%! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23 billion in 1994 to $47 billion in 2005.

  Our bill would establish a new procedure which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be removed from the conference report.

  To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration.

  To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose.

  LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

  Source: Pork-Barrel Reduction Act (S.2265) 06-S2265 on Feb 9, 2006

  Reduce federal government size & scope, including military.

  McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:

  The federal government must reduce its size and scope, and cede certain federally operated policies and services to the states and private sector that are better equipped to handle them. One way to accomplish this would be to limit growth of government spending at or even below the inflation rate. Long-term economic growth is dependent upon sustained federal discipline. We believe this is the time to carefully assess both our domestic discretionary and our military commitments. In both areas, we face a potential fiscal imbalance between our program commitments and our available resources. Perhaps neither the Congress nor the American people fully appreciate the impact of budget decisions in these areas. We owe it to the nation and its future to undertake an honest dialogue regarding the implications of these decisions on the state, local and private sectors.

  Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP4 on Sep 9, 1998

  Click here for 17 older quotations from John McCain on Government Reform. Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for policy papers on Government Reform. Click here for a profile of John McCain. Click here for John McCain on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by John McCain. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Government Reform or about John McCain in The Forum.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:	John McCain on other issues:
  Republican Presidential Nominee: Sen.John McCain Republican Veepstakes: Gov.Haley Barbour(MS) Sen. Sam Brownback(KS) Gov. Jeb Bush(FL) Gov.Charlie Crist(FL) Rep. Newt Gingrich(GA) Mayor Rudy Giuliani(NYC) Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR) Gov. Bobby Jindal(LA) Sen.Joe Lieberman(I,CT) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Secy. Condi Rice(CA) Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Gov. Mark Sanford(SC) Sen. Fred Thompson(TN) Secy. Tommy Thompson(WI) Democratic Presidential Contenders: Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.Barack Obama Democratic Veepstakes: Gen.Wesley Clark(AR) Sen.John Edwards(NC) Gov.Bill Richardson(NM)	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 Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty

  
  Page last updated: Jul 15, 2008