| David Loebsack 2nd District, Iowa Committees: Armed Services Subcommittees: Military Personnel Readiness Education and the Workforce Subcommittees: Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Higher Education and Workforce Training |
|
Washington Office: 1527 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6576 District Offices: 125 South Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 351-0789 209 West 4th Street, #104 Davenport, IA 52801 (563) 323-5988 |
||||||||||||
| May 17, 2013 | ||||||||||||||
| May 17, 2013
Mr. Steve Greenleaf 345 Magowan Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246-3515 Dear Mr. Greenleaf, Thank you for contacting me about the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. I'm honored to represent you. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible. On January 21, 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that corporate funding in elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. In this decision, the Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that prevented corporations, both for profit and not for profit, from directly funding political communication. I share your concerns about the potential influence of large corporate campaign contributions, and I strongly believe that we must ensure that the only voices that determine the outcome of elections are those of the American people. As someone who grew up in poverty struggling to make ends meet, I never thought I would see the day when the Supreme Court would rule in favor of special interests over the interests of hard working Iowans who want and deserve to have their voices heard in Washington. As your Representative in Congress, I will do all I can to ensure that power is put back in the hands of Iowans, not corporate interests, and that your concerns are heard in our nation's capital. In response to the Supreme Court's decision, The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE), H.R. 148, was introduced on January 3, 2013. The DISCLOSE Act would increase disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending by corporations, unions, and tax-exempt organizations. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, which has been referred to the House Committees on Administration, the Judiciary and Ways and Means. In addition, I am a proud cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, H.R. 269, which was introduced by Representative John Yarmuth on January 15, 2013. This bill would establish the option of publicly funded campaigns and would reduce the influence of special interest groups on elections. H.R. 269 has been referred to the House Committee on Administration for further consideration. Please be assured that I will continue to keep your views regarding campaign finance reform in mind and will continue to work diligently to ensure that the American people, not monied interests, are the ones who decide the outcome of our elections. Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. My office is here to assist you with any and all concerns you have, so please do not hesitate to contact me whenever you feel that I can be of assistance. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing for you. I am proud to serve the Second District, and I am committed to working hard for Iowans. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| DL/AK | ||||||||||||||
Showing posts with label Loebsak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loebsak. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Rep. Loebsack Response re Campaign Finance Reform
Friday, December 16, 2011
Some Good Guys & Some Real Disappointments on Protecting Our Security
From Truthdig (an excellent site), I learn that my Senator Tom Harkin and neighboring congressman Bruce Braley voted against the Defense Authorization Act that allows the government to hold citizens without trial. My compliments to them (and I've sent them emails saying so) for their courage & wisdom in so voting.
I'm deeply disappointed that my Representative Dave Loebsack (D) voted in favor of the act. I wrote him so, too. My disappointment, not quite so sharp, that Senator Grassley voted in favor of this. Actually, I used to have a grudging admiration for Grassley, who showed some independence, but now he simply goes with the crowd, even though he's safe for another 5 years. Sad, but true.
Truthdig links to sites that can tell you how your representatives voted, and I suggest you let them hear from you.
P.S. My earlier post expressed my disappointment with Obama.
I'm deeply disappointed that my Representative Dave Loebsack (D) voted in favor of the act. I wrote him so, too. My disappointment, not quite so sharp, that Senator Grassley voted in favor of this. Actually, I used to have a grudging admiration for Grassley, who showed some independence, but now he simply goes with the crowd, even though he's safe for another 5 years. Sad, but true.
Truthdig links to sites that can tell you how your representatives voted, and I suggest you let them hear from you.
P.S. My earlier post expressed my disappointment with Obama.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
A Draft Letter to the President & My Congressional Respresentatives
Readers,
Below is a letter that I've drafted & intend to send unless I change my mind, and I invite you to tell me to change my mind if you think it justified. I will mail it on Monday. I'm I nuts? Overblown? I hope so, but I doubt it. Read & consider, and advise:
Stephen N. Greenleaf
345 Magowan Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Email: greenleaf.stephen@gmail.com
December 8, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20202
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1501
Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Rep. Dave Loebsak
1221 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. President, Senators, and Congressman:
I watched the opening segment of The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-december-7-2011-ralph-fiennes) on December 7 of this year. I am always cautious when I watch a "fake news show". I try to be very careful to distinguish the actual from the imagined. However, I believe this segment was real—almost surreal—and I am appalled by what I learned. I am referring to the defense appropriations bill (S. 1867), which provides for indefinite detainment of US citizens. Host Jon Stewart attempted to address this topic with his usual humor. However, his dismay was apparent, and I want to let you know that I share his dismay.
War and the threat of war acts as a corrosive acid that eats to the very heart of democracy and liberty. This issue goes to the essence of our jurisprudence and our constitutional system of government. To allow the indefinite detainment of suspects without trial or hearing would undo the trend of hundreds of years of Anglo-American law that has sought to limit the arbitrary powers of the state and to protect the rights of the individual. I agree with Mr. Stewart that this proposal contradicts the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which intends to protect the individual from unwarranted intrusions by the state.
I am a realist, not a Pollyanna. I understand the threats posed by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamist organizations. I also understand the threat posed by homegrown terrorists, such as a Timothy McVeigh. In fact, over the course of our nation's history, we have faced all manner of threats to the security of our people and our government. Nevertheless, we have managed—sometimes despite ourselves—to preserve our liberties. Administrations of great American presidents, such those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have been sullied by their actions that unduly and wrongly curtailed the rights of individuals. The Obama administration, along with this Congress, appears to be ready to take the same unwarranted and frightening steps.
In addition to threats posed by terrorists or foreign powers is threat that we face from the arbitrary use of government power against individuals. Over the course of hundreds of years, our legal system has carved out limitations on the sovereign that have become fundamental to our system of laws and government. By this measure you would further erode fundamental protections that our system provides to its citizens.
The erosion of constitutional protections of the individual against the arbitrary decisions of those in power has increased over the last ten years. I have too often remained silent. However, I can no longer remain silent in the face of this of assault on our liberties. I understand that Congress responds to public opinion and rarely leads it. I understand the presidency almost inevitably seeks to expand its powers. However, there are some occasions when new profiles in courage are required, and now is such a time. Please do not send me some pabulum in response to this letter. Please address directly whether you agree with this fundamental alteration in our legal system and its protections for the individual. Please justify why (if you do) believe that American citizens should be held without trial. Please tell me how you reconcile this provision with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Please do not attempt to tell me that the need for Pentagon appropriations requires your support for this action since a failure to fund the Pentagon is not a realistic possibility.
Please know that I will continue to speak out against this assault. I urge each of you to take immediate steps to prevent the adoption of this provision. I urge you to uphold your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, an oath that each of you and I have sworn to do.
Thank you very much for your attention this. I eagerly await your response.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen N. Greenleaf
Below is a letter that I've drafted & intend to send unless I change my mind, and I invite you to tell me to change my mind if you think it justified. I will mail it on Monday. I'm I nuts? Overblown? I hope so, but I doubt it. Read & consider, and advise:
Stephen N. Greenleaf
345 Magowan Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Email: greenleaf.stephen@gmail.com
December 8, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20202
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1501
Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Rep. Dave Loebsak
1221 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. President, Senators, and Congressman:
I watched the opening segment of The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-december-7-2011-ralph-fiennes) on December 7 of this year. I am always cautious when I watch a "fake news show". I try to be very careful to distinguish the actual from the imagined. However, I believe this segment was real—almost surreal—and I am appalled by what I learned. I am referring to the defense appropriations bill (S. 1867), which provides for indefinite detainment of US citizens. Host Jon Stewart attempted to address this topic with his usual humor. However, his dismay was apparent, and I want to let you know that I share his dismay.
War and the threat of war acts as a corrosive acid that eats to the very heart of democracy and liberty. This issue goes to the essence of our jurisprudence and our constitutional system of government. To allow the indefinite detainment of suspects without trial or hearing would undo the trend of hundreds of years of Anglo-American law that has sought to limit the arbitrary powers of the state and to protect the rights of the individual. I agree with Mr. Stewart that this proposal contradicts the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which intends to protect the individual from unwarranted intrusions by the state.
I am a realist, not a Pollyanna. I understand the threats posed by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamist organizations. I also understand the threat posed by homegrown terrorists, such as a Timothy McVeigh. In fact, over the course of our nation's history, we have faced all manner of threats to the security of our people and our government. Nevertheless, we have managed—sometimes despite ourselves—to preserve our liberties. Administrations of great American presidents, such those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have been sullied by their actions that unduly and wrongly curtailed the rights of individuals. The Obama administration, along with this Congress, appears to be ready to take the same unwarranted and frightening steps.
In addition to threats posed by terrorists or foreign powers is threat that we face from the arbitrary use of government power against individuals. Over the course of hundreds of years, our legal system has carved out limitations on the sovereign that have become fundamental to our system of laws and government. By this measure you would further erode fundamental protections that our system provides to its citizens.
The erosion of constitutional protections of the individual against the arbitrary decisions of those in power has increased over the last ten years. I have too often remained silent. However, I can no longer remain silent in the face of this of assault on our liberties. I understand that Congress responds to public opinion and rarely leads it. I understand the presidency almost inevitably seeks to expand its powers. However, there are some occasions when new profiles in courage are required, and now is such a time. Please do not send me some pabulum in response to this letter. Please address directly whether you agree with this fundamental alteration in our legal system and its protections for the individual. Please justify why (if you do) believe that American citizens should be held without trial. Please tell me how you reconcile this provision with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Please do not attempt to tell me that the need for Pentagon appropriations requires your support for this action since a failure to fund the Pentagon is not a realistic possibility.
Please know that I will continue to speak out against this assault. I urge each of you to take immediate steps to prevent the adoption of this provision. I urge you to uphold your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, an oath that each of you and I have sworn to do.
Thank you very much for your attention this. I eagerly await your response.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen N. Greenleaf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)