2019: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing Corporate Campaign Expenditures Except If The Corporation Has A Method To Learn The Political Views Of Its Shareholders. If March 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prevent[ed] corporate campaign expenditures unless the corporation in question has established a system by which the the [sic] political views of its shareholders could be assessed." The underlying bill was H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, which would reformed the electoral system and instituted new ethical rules for government officials. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 219 to 215. The House later passed the underlying bill. [House Vote 109, 3/7/19; Congressional Quarterly, 3/7/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 56; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2019: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit The SEC From Requiring Companies To Disclose Contributions To Tax-Exempt Groups. If March 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively maintain existing law that prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission from using agency funds to require certain financial disclosures, including political contributions; the amendment would strike language in the bill that would repeal this prohibition." The underlying bill was H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, which would reformed the electoral system and instituted new ethical rules for government officials. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 195 to 237. [House Vote 114, 3/7/19; Congressional Quarterly, 3/7/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Prohibited The SEC From Requiring Companies To Disclose Contributions To Tax-Exempt Groups. In July 2016, Schweikert voted to appropriate $21.7 billion for financial services and general government for FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $21.7 billion in discretionary funding for financial services and general government appropriations in fiscal 2017." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "prohibit[ed] the SEC from requiring that companies, as part of their required filings with the SEC, disclose political contributions, contributions to tax-exempt organizations or dues paid to trade associations." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 239 to 185, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 398, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2016: Schweikert Voted To End The Requirement That Tax-Exempt Groups List Large Donors On Their Tax Return. In June 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the Treasury Department from requiring 501(c) tax-exempt organizations to submit names, addresses, or other identifying information of contributors as part of their annual returns. The measure would [have] retain[ed] disclosure requirements for contributions made by an officer or director of the tax-exempt group and employees who are among the five highest paid in the organization." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 240 to 182. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 303, 6/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5053]
Current Rules Require Tax-Exempt Organizations To Report The Names Of Donors Of $5,000 Or More As Part Of The Group's Tax Return; 501(c)(3) Groups Must Make The Information Publicly Available. According to a Statement of Administration Policy "Current IRS rules generally require tax-exempt organizations, including section 501(c) organizations, to report the names and addresses of substantial donors (generally, donors of $5,000 or more) as part of their tax returns. In addition, section 501(c)(3) private foundations and section 527 political organizations are required to make this contributor information publicly available." [Statement of Administration Policy, 6/13/16]
Legislation Was In Part A Response To The 2013 Scandal Where The IRS Closely Examined Conservative Groups That Applied For Tax Exempt Status. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Roskam bill represents the latest step in a GOP campaign to limit the scope of IRS authority since the agency revealed in 2013 that it closely examined some conservative and tea party-aligned groups that applied for tax-exempt status. Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, plans to mark up on Wednesday his resolution (H Res 737) to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen for false and misleading statements tied to a probe of the agency's handling of tax-exempt applications." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/16]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The DISCLOSE Act. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for a motion to order the previous question that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "end[ed] debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 744) that would provide for House floor consideration of an energy policy measure (S 2012) and a bill (HR 5233) that would repeal the District of Columbia law that modified the district's home rule charter to allow locally generated funds to be spent without congressional approval." According to the House Democratic Leader, "Democrats' PQ would force a vote on: The Opioid Abuse Crisis Act, which provides $600 million in fully paid-for vital new resources to address the opioid epidemic that kills 78 Americans every day; and The DISCLOSE Act, which would bring desperately needed transparency to the enormous amounts of special interest secret money unleashed by the Supreme Court's wildly destructive Citizens United decision." The vote was on the motion to order the previous question. The House adopted the motion, thereby defeating the Democratic alternative, by a vote of 239 to 176. [House Vote 239, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Democratic Leader, Accessed 8/25/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5233; Congressional Actions, S. 2012; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 744]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The DISCLOSE Act. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for a motion to order the previous question that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "end[ed] debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 732) that would provide for House floor consideration of the bill (HR 4909) that would authorize defense programs for fiscal 2017." According to the House Democratic Leader, "The Democratic Previous Question requires Congress to vote on H.R. 430, the DISCLOSE Act, which would bring desperately needed transparency to the tidal wave of secret money unleashed by the Supreme Court's wildly destructive Citizen's United decision, requiring corporate CEOs to stand by their ads in the same way candidates do; and compelling corporations and outside groups to disclose their campaign spending to shareholders, members, and the public." The vote was on the motion to order the previous question. The House adopted the motion, thereby defeating the Democratic alternative, by a vote of 239 to 177. [House Vote 196, 5/17/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/16; Democratic Leader, Accessed 8/25/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4909; Congressional Actions, H.R. 430; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 732]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Presidential Election Campaign Fund. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "This budget eliminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, saving taxpayers $295 million over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against Removing Language That Continued A Current Policy Blocking An SEC Rule On Political Spending Disclosure. In July 2018, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] the bill's ban on the use of funds by the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules on the disclosure of political contributions." The underlying bill was an FY 2019 Interior, Environment and Financial Services appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 224. [House Vote 358, 7/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 944; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6174]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against A Continuing Resolution Funding The Government Through December 9, 2016, That Also Continued A Current Policy Blocking An SEC Rule On Political Spending Disclosure By Corporations, But Did Not Include Aid For Flint, Michigan. In September 2016, Schweikert voted against a ten week continuing resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation was a "continuing resolution [...] that keeps the government running through Dec. 9." In addition, according to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation "continues a provision in current law blocking a Securities and Exchange Commission rule related to the disclosure of political spending by corporations." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion, effectively passing the bill by a vote of 342 to 85. The Senate had already passed the legislation. The president then signed the bill into law. [House Vote 573, 9/28/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/23/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/16; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 5082; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5325]
Democrats Objected To The CR Because It Did Not Include Aid For Flint, Michigan. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats and Republicans appear to be locked in a staring contest over the lack of government assistance for Flint, Mich., in a stopgap spending bill, with aides on both sides suggesting they're waiting for the other side to blink. Democrats roundly criticized a GOP written continuing resolution filed Thursday by Senate Republicans, but the measure actually met many of the spending and policy demands Democrats had made throughout weeks of negotiations --- except for a Flint response. Their central objection to the stopgap is the inclusion of flood relief for Louisiana and likely other states without also providing aid for Flint to address major problems caused by lead contamination in the city water supply." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16]
Legislation Was Originally Blocked, Primarily By Senate Democrats Due, To Flint Aid Omission; Deal With Minority Leader Pelosi And Speaker Ryan Over Flint Aid In A Water Bill Sealed The CR's Passage. According to the Washington Post, "The Senate cemented an agreement Wednesday to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown after House Republicans allowed a vote on federal aid to address the water crisis in Flint, Mich., removing a major obstacle in negotiations. [...] Democrats made clear earlier this week they would not support the spending bill unless Republicans moved to guarantee Flint aid, while GOP leaders countered the Senate had approved Flint aid earlier this month in a separate water projects bill. The impasse was broken late Tuesday after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) struck a deal allowing a vote to attach $170 million in Flint relief to the House version of the water bill. That bill is expected to pass late Wednesday; the stopgap spending measure is expected to pass shortly afterward." [Washington Post, 9/28/16]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against A Potential SEC Rule Requiring The Disclosure Of Political Contributions To Tax Exempt Groups. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have stricken a section in the underlying bill that would have effectively blocked the SEC's ability to create a rule on disclosure to tax exempt organizations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "strike[n] a section of the bill that would [have] prohibit[ed] the Securities and Exchange Commission from developing or finalizing a rule requiring the disclosure of political contributions to tax exempt organizations." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186 to 236. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 365, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1234; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Prohibited The IRS Issuing Guidance On Political Activity For Social Welfare Organizations. In July 2016, Schweikert voted to appropriate $21.7 billion for financial services and general government for FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $21.7 billion in discretionary funding for financial services and general government appropriations in fiscal 2017." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "include[d] numerous restrictions on IRS activities in response to the 2013 controversy involving the IRS's targeting of certain nonprofit groups, including prohibiting the use of funds for further work on proposed revisions to rules regarding the allowable political activities of tax-exempt 'social welfare' groups and prohibiting the targeting of groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs, or of individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 239 to 185, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 398, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prevent The IRS From Issuing Any Guidance Defining Political Activity For 501(c)4 Organizations. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] a provision that would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from issuing guidance to define political activity for 501(c)(4) ('social welfare') organizations." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 236. [House Vote 359, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1228; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Prohibiting The IRS Issuing Guidance On Political Activity For Social Welfare Organizations. In February 2014, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] for one year any changes to IRS regulations addressing the allowable political activities of social welfare organizations receiving tax-exempt status. It also would [have] direct[ed] the IRS to use its existing criteria when determining tax-exempt status for groups covered under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 243 to 176. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 69, 2/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/26/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3865]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Continue An FEC Rule Prohibiting Trade Associations PACs From Soliciting Contributions From Their Members Stockholders Or Personnel Without Prior Authorization. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds from being used to enforce the requirement of the Federal Election Campaign Act that solicitation of contribution from member corporation's stockholders or personnel from a trade association be separately and specifically approved by the member corporation involved prior to the solicitation and that such member corporation does not approve any such solicitation by more than one trade association in any calendar year." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 235 185. The House later adopted the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 371, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1240; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV): Current Rules Have Unique Rules For Trade Association PACs; They Must Get Prior Approval From Member Corporations To Solicit Donations And Stockholders And Member Companies Can Only Donate To One Trade Association. In a floor speech, Rep. Amodei said, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds being used by the FEC to enforce the prior approval requirement for trade associations. The prior approval requirement is the requirement that trade associations must acquire written approval for Member corporations to solicit PAC donations. They must further require stockholders and member companies to only contribute to one trade association. It is a requirement in the FEC laws that is unique amongst all PACs only to those that are trade association-related PACs." [Congressional Record, 7/6/16]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw: Amendment Would Only Give More Power To Groups Like The Chamber OF Commerce Or Rich Corporations And Billionaires. In a floor speech, Rep. Crenshaw said, "Current law limits trade association PACs from soliciting member corporations, their stockholders, and their executives without permission from the corporation and limits these solicitations to a single trade association PAC each year. This amendment would remove these solicitation restrictions and expand the number of solicitations a stockholder or corporate executive could get. [...] This is just another way to empower groups, like the Chamber of Commerce, over the needs of ordinary Americans. That is not right. Last I heard, most trade association PACs were not lacking for money, and most corporations, millionaires, and billionaires had plenty of loopholes in our campaign finance system." [Congressional Record, 7/6/16]
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV): Amendment Would Level The PAC Playing Field. In a floor speech, Rep. Amodei said, "So, therefore, the objective of the amendment is to say, out of all of the PACs out there, we do not need to treat trade associations specially. We should treat everybody the same, all PACs, including trade associations." [Congressional Record, 7/6/16]