Career Politician Randy Hultgren has spent the last 22 years enriching himself at taxpayer’s expense. He has collected over $2 million in-taxpayer funded salaries. He voted to give himself health care for life, but to impose what AARP calls an “age tax” by increasing premiums for older Americans by more than $3,000 per year. Hultgren has voted to protect the Washington DC culture of corruption at every turn, including voting to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics and relax oversight over members of Congress.

Hultgren Was A Career Politician:

Political Career Summary  2011 – Present: U.S. House of Representatives, 14th Congressional District  2007 – 2010: Illinois State Senate, 48th District  2003 – 2007: Illinois House of Representatives, 95th District  1999 – 2003: Illinois House of Representatives, 40th District  1994 – 1998: DuPage County Board, 4th District  1988 – 1990: Intern/Staff Member, U.S. Representative J.

1995 – 2017: Hultgren Collected $2,075,607.66 In Salary As An Elected Official. [Congressional Research Service, 4/11/18; Office of the Clerk, Illinois House of Representatives, 4/1/10; DuPage County, 5/13/10]

Year Salary DuPage County Board 1995 $26,910 1996 $27,717 1997 $27,717 1998 $27,717 Illinois State Legislature 1999 $60,137.46 2000 $63,003.42 2001 $65,329.38 2002 $66,389.88 2003 $66,389.88 2004 $66,389.88 2005 $66,389.88 2006 $66,389.88 2007 $74,027.96 2008 $76,731.96 2009 $76,366.08 2010 Unknown* U.S. House of Representatives 2011 $174,000 2012 $174,000 2013 $174,000 2014 $174,000 2015 $174,000 2016 $174,000 2017 $174,000 TOTAL $2,075,607.66 [Congressional Research Service, 4/11/18; Office of the Clerk, Illinois House of Representatives, 4/1/10; DuPage County, 5/13/10]

Hultgren Voted To Repeal The . In January 2011, Hultgren voted for “Passage of the bill that would repeal the 2010 health care overhaul law, which requires most individuals to buy health insurance by 2014, makes changes to government health care programs and sets new requirements for health insurers. The bill would restore the provisions of law amended or repealed by the health care overhaul, and repeal certain provisions of the health care reconciliation law.” The bill passed by a vote of 245-189. [HR 2, Vote #14, 1/19/11; CQ Floor Votes, 1/19/11]

The Hill: Repealing The Affordable Care Act Would Allow Members To Keep Their Health Care Coverage After They Retired. “Repealing President Obama’s healthcare law would let members of Congress keep their government-subsidized insurance coverage after they retire — a benefit they lost under the health law.” [The Hill, 7/09/12]

2017: Hultgren Voted For The American Health Care Act – The Republican Health Care Repeal Bill. In May 2017, Hultgren voted for “Passage of the bill that would make extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would, in 2020, convert Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide fixed federal payments to states and end additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. As amended, it would give states the option of receiving federal Medicaid funding as a block grant with greater state flexibility in how the funds are used, and would require states to establish their own essential health benefits standards. It would allow states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits, would provide $8 billion over five years for individuals with pre- existing conditions whose insurance premiums increased because the state was granted a waiver to raise premiums based on an individual's health status, and would create a $15 billion federal risk sharing program to cover some of the costs of high medical claims.’ The bill was passed by a vote of 217-213. [HR 1628, Vote #256, 5/4/17; CQ, 5/4/17]

American Health Care Act Allows Insurers To Charge Older Customers Five Times More Than Younger Adults. “Raises premiums for older people. The Affordable Care Act limited insurers from charging older customers more than three times what they charge younger adults. The House bill would raise that to five times. This may enable younger consumers to find cheaper coverage, but older policyholders would face higher rates.” [Huffington Post, 3/6/17] AARP Said The Republican Health Care Bill Included An “Age Tax.” “Older Americans are being unfairly targeted in the Republicans' health-care bill, AARP told CNBC on Monday. Under the new legislation, insurers would be allowed to charge older adults up to five times more than younger people. Under Obamacare, rates were capped at three times more. ‘Right now, health care is barely affordable for those people who are over age 50. Raising it any more is just what we call an 'age tax' and would just make it unaffordable for them,’ David Certner, legislative counsel and legislative policy director for government affairs at AARP, said in an interview with ‘Power Lunch.’” [CNBC, 6/26/17]

AARP Said The Republican Health Care Bill Included An “Age Tax.” “Older Americans are being unfairly targeted in the Republicans' health-care bill, AARP told CNBC on Monday. Under the new legislation, insurers would be allowed to charge older adults up to five times more than younger people. Under Obamacare, rates were capped at three times more. ‘Right now, health care is barely affordable for those people who are over age 50. Raising it any more is just what we call an 'age tax' and would just make it unaffordable for them,’ David Certner, legislative counsel and legislative policy director for government affairs at AARP, said in an interview with ‘Power Lunch.’” [CNBC, 6/26/17]

AARP: “The American Health Care Act (AHCA) Would…Raise Premiums For Consumers Over 60 By More Than $3,000.” “The health care bill being debated in Congress would hit older Americans with a twopart ‘age tax’ that would dramatically increase what they pay for coverage, according to a new report from AARP’s Public Policy Institute (PPI). The age tax would hit in two ways: First, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would allow health insurance companies to charge older Americans five times what they charge others for the same coverage. Current law prevents insurance companies from charging more than three times more. Allowing insurance companies to charge people 50 and over five times more than they charge other people would raise premiums for consumers over 60 by more than $3,000.” [AARP.org, 3/20/17]

2016: Hultgren Voted To Cut More Than $190,000 From The Office Of Congressional Ethics. In June 2016, Hultgren voted for an amendment to the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act (HR 5325) that would ‘reduce funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by $190,970, to the fiscal 2016 level, and transfer the same amount to the spending reduction account.’ The amendment failed 137-270. [HR 5325, Vote #292, 6/10/16; CQ Floor Votes, 6/10/16]

2015: Hultgren Voted To Limit Power Of OCE And House Ethics In Investigating Members. In January 2015, Hultgren voted for a House Rules package that contained a rules change that would help members under ethics investigations by the Office of Congressional Ethics and House Ethics Committee. ‘In one of its first actions of the new year, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved rules changes that could give lawmakers a new defense against ethics investigations. The new language, added Monday night to the sections that establish the House Ethics Committee and the independent Office of Congressional Ethics, says the two bodies ‘may not take any action that would deny any person any right or protection provided under the Constitution of the .’ The language also states that a person subject to a review by the Office of Congressional Ethics ‘shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that right should not be held negatively against them.’ … ‘Clearly (the new language) was put in there to allow members of Congress to restrain certain activities of the ethics committees based on their own interpretation of what the Constitution means,’ said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen.’ The resolution passed, 234-172. [H Res 5, Vote #6, 1/6/15; USA Today, 1/6/15]