Congressional Directory FLORIDA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Official List of Members
OFFICIAL LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES AND THEIR PLACES OF RESIDENCE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS • DECEMBER 15, 2020 Compiled by CHERYL L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the House of Representatives http://clerk.house.gov Democrats in roman (233); Republicans in italic (195); Independents and Libertarians underlined (2); vacancies (5) CA08, CA50, GA14, NC11, TX04; total 435. The number preceding the name is the Member's district. ALABAMA 1 Bradley Byrne .............................................. Fairhope 2 Martha Roby ................................................ Montgomery 3 Mike Rogers ................................................. Anniston 4 Robert B. Aderholt ....................................... Haleyville 5 Mo Brooks .................................................... Huntsville 6 Gary J. Palmer ............................................ Hoover 7 Terri A. Sewell ............................................. Birmingham ALASKA AT LARGE Don Young .................................................... Fort Yukon ARIZONA 1 Tom O'Halleran ........................................... Sedona 2 Ann Kirkpatrick .......................................... Tucson 3 Raúl M. Grijalva .......................................... Tucson 4 Paul A. Gosar ............................................... Prescott 5 Andy Biggs ................................................... Gilbert 6 David Schweikert ........................................ Fountain Hills 7 Ruben Gallego ............................................ -
Who Are President Trump's Allies in the House of Representatives?
The Forum 2017; 15(3): 415–429 Andrew J. Clarke* and Jeffery A. Jenkins* Who are President Trump’s Allies in the House of Representatives? https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2017-0029 Abstract: We conduct a preliminary analysis of the first 200 days of the Donald Trump presidency, to determine who his principal allies in the US House have been. We build our analysis around three groups of Republicans, based on caucus affiliations: members of the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP), the Republican Study Committee (RSC), and the House Freedom Caucus (HFC). We find that House Republicans, regardless off caucus membership, broadly support President Trump and largely shared in the his electoral success. Yet, we also uncover suggestive evidence that the HFC is maneuvering into a position of influ- ence with President Trump. Freedom Caucus members are more closely tied to his electoral performance than members of other conservative groups, and they appear to receive more time with the President relative to a comparable group of House Republicans. While these results are interesting, they are also initial and more time is needed to assess how President Trump builds a winning coalition with Republican House members. Introduction We are now over 200 days into the Donald Trump presidency, and Republicans are struggling to make good on their most salient campaign promises. Despite unified control of the federal government, the GOP has not been able to pass any pieces of legislation from the President’s “Contract with the American Voter.”1 Why? Political observers frequently offer a pair of related explanations. -
April 24, 2020 (Florida Federal Qualifying) Report
2020 Florida Federal Candidate Qualifying Report / Finance Reports Cumulative Totals through March 31, 2020 Office Currently Elected Challenger Party Contributions Expenditures Total COH CD01 Matt Gaetz REP $ 1,638,555.81 $ 1,284,221.76 $ 496,295.82 CD01 Phil Ehr DEM $ 342,943.79 $ 188,474.53 $ 154,469.26 CD01 Greg Merk REP $ - $ - $ - CD01 John Mills REP $ 5,000.00 $ 5,132.61 $ 145.02 CD01 Albert Oram* NPA CD02 Neal Dunn REP $ 297,532.04 $ 264,484.41 $ 419,201.78 CD02 Kim O'Connor* WRI CD02 Kristy Thripp* WRI CD03 OPEN - Ted Yoho REP CD03 Kat Cammack REP $ 207,007.59 $ 41,054.05 $ 165,953.54 CD03 Ryan Chamberlin REP $ 101,333.00 $ 4,025.39 $ 97,307.61 CD03 Todd Chase REP $ 163,621.68 $ 27,032.07 $ 136,589.61 CD03 Adam Christensen DEM $ - $ - $ - CD03 Philip Dodds DEM $ 6,301.17 $ 4,035.13 $ 2,266.04 CD03 Bill Engelbrecht REP $ 27,050.00 $ 4,955.94 $ 22,094.06 CD03 Joe Dallas Millado* REP CD03 Gavin Rollins REP $ 106,370.00 $ 9,730.33 $ 96,639.67 CD03 Judson Sapp REP $ 430,233.01 $ 120,453.99 $ 310,011.88 CD03 Ed Silva* WRI CD03 James St. George REP $ 400,499.60 $ 64,207.88 $ 336,291.72 CD03 David Theus REP $ 6,392.11 $ 473.58 $ 5,918.53 CD03 Amy Pope Wells REP $ 56,982.45 $ 46,896.17 $ 10,086.28 CD03 Tom Wells DEM $ 1,559.31 $ 1,289.68 $ 295.58 CD04 John Rutherford REP $ 513,068.32 $ 281,060.16 $ 597,734.31 CD04 Erick Aguilar REP $ 11,342.00 $ 6,220.00 $ 5,122.00 CD04 Donna Deegan DEM $ 425,901.36 $ 165,436.85 $ 260,464.51 CD04 Gary Koniz* WRI CD05 Al Lawson DEM $ 355,730.10 $ 168,874.69 $ 201,527.67 CD05 Gary Adler REP $ 40,325.00 $ 920.08 $ 39,404.92 CD05 Albert Chester DEM $ 43,230.65 $ 28,044.61 $ 15,186.04 CD05 Roger Wagoner REP $ - $ - $ - CD06 Michael Waltz REP $ 1,308,541.18 $ 626,699.95 $ 733,402.64 CD06 Clint Curtis DEM $ 13,503.79 $ 1,152.12 $ 12,351.67 CD06 Alan Grayson WRI $ 69,913.27 $ 56,052.54 $ 716,034.49 CD06 John. -
Florida Uus! Want to Send a Message to Your U.S
Florida UUs! Want to send a message to your U.S. Representative about issues that are important to you? Host a Write Here! Write Now! letter-writing table and tell your U.S. Representative what’s on your mind Floridians -- it’s a New Congress with New Opportunities to tell returning and five new U.S. Representatives in Washington - that’s nearly 20% of the state’s delegation - what’s on your mind. These new and returning U.S. Representatives need to hear from us. The new Congress represents a “fresh start” for our advocacy efforts. New U.S. House of Representative Florida Members: Michael Waltz (R FL-6); Ross Spano (R FL-15); Greg Steube (R FL-17); Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D FL-26); Donna Shalala (D FL-27). Americans are tired of partisan strife and dysfunctional government. The nation needs a Congress that takes bipartisan action and uses the democratic process to address the challenges that confront us as a people and as a nation. Tell members to seek bipartisan solutions to pressing issues UUs care about. Write letter to your Representatives and the UUs for Social Justice (UUSJ) Capitol Hill Advocacy Corps, in Washington, D.C. will deliver them directly to offices on February 12. The Advocacy Corps will visit new and returning members and new committee and subcommittee leadership. That’s why it’s the perfect time for us to take our UU values and UU wishes for the nation to Capitol Hill. UUSJ invites you and your congregation’s participation in its monthly nationwide Write Here! Write Now! letter-writing campaign to raise UU voices on Capitol Hill on important social justice issues. -
The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change
Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2021 The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Williamson Grassle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the American Politics Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Grassle, Williamson, "The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change" (2021). CMC Senior Theses. 2663. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2663 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Submitted to Professor John J. Pitney, Jr. By Williamson Grassle For Senior Thesis Spring 2021 May 3rd 1 Table of Contents TITLE……………………………………………………………………………………..1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….3 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………4 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...5 CHAPTER 1 – LATE 20TH, EARLY 21ST CENTURY………………………………....12 CHAPTER 2 – RECENT………………………………………………………………...24 CHAPTER 3 – FUTURE………………………………………………………………...39 WORK CITED…………………………………………………………………………...52 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John J. Pitney for his guidance and support on this thesis. Throughout my time at Claremont McKenna, you have helped foster my passion for politics and define my interest in environmental policy. Without your guidance and expertise, I would not have been able to complete this project. 3 Abstract In the mid to late 20th-century, climate change and other environmental issues were addressed on a bipartisan basis, with Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush supporting and advancing measures to combat climate change. However, since the 1990s, climate change has become increasingly polarized, with significant polarization in the last decade. -
Speaking of Liberty
Speaking of Liberty Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Patrons The Mises Institute dedicates this volume to all of its generous donors, and in particular wishes to thank these Patrons: Anthony Deden, Christopher P. Condon, Hugh E. Ledbetter, Mr. and Mrs. William W. Massey, Jr., Roger Milliken, Mr. and Mrs. R. Nelson Nash, Stephenson Family Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. Willard Fischer / Fisher Printing, Inc., Douglas E. French, Don Printz, M.D., Frederick L. Maier, James Bailey / James Bailey Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Bost, James W. Frevert, Jule R. Herbert, Jr., Julie Lauer-Leonardi, Mr. and Mrs. William Lowndes, III, William S. Morris, III / Morris Communications Corp., Donald Mosby Rembert, top dog™, James M. Rodney, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph P. Schirrick in memory of Jeannette Zummo, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Shaw, Joe Vierra, Robert H. Walker / Walker Die Casting Company ^ Andreas Acavalos, Robert B. Allan, Anonymous, Richard Bleiberg, Dr. V.S. Boddicker, John Hamilton Bolstad, Ronald Bridges, Paul H. Casey, Mr. and Mrs. John C. Cooke, Kerry E. Cutter, Carl A. Davis / Davis-Lynch, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. de Ganahl, Eric Englund, Dr. Larry J. Eshelman, Charles Groff, Charley Hardman, Horace H. Harned, Frank W. Heemstra, Jeremy Horpedahl, Dr. and Mrs. Robert D. Hurt, Martin Jungbluth, W. Thomas Kelly, Lucille Lane, Joe R. Lee, John M. Leger, Dr. Floy Lilley, Arnold Lisio, M.D., Arthur L. Loeb, Björn Lundahl, Samuel Medrano, M.D., in honor of Lupe C. Medrano, Joseph Edward Paul Melville, Robert Mish, Brantley I. Newsom, James O’Neill, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald L. Peterson, Robert M. -
2017 Congressional Landscape
2017 Congressional Update Presented by: Donald R. Cravins, Jr SVP for Policy/ED Washington Bureau [email protected] @dcravins Congressional Leadership of the 115th Congress 2 Senate MajoritySenate LeadershipMajority Leadership 6. Cory Gardner (R-CO) 2. John Cornyn (R-TX) Position: National Republican Position: Senate Majority 1. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Senatorial Committee Whip Position: Senate Majority Leader Chairman 3. John Thune (R-S.D.) 5. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) Position: Senate Republican Position: Senate Republican Conference Chairman 4. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) Conference vice chairman Position: Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman 3 Senate MinoritySenate LeadershipMajority Leadership 3. Patty Murray (D-WA) 4. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Position: Assistant Position: Chair of the 2. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Democratic Leader Democratic Policy and Communications Committee Position: Senate 1. Charles “Chuck” Schumer (D-NY) Democratic Whip Position: Senate Minority Leader 9 Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Position: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman 5. Elizabeth Warren 6. Mark Warner (D-VA) 7. Amy Klobuchar (D- 8. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (D-MA) Position: Vice Chair of the MN) Position: Chair of Position: Vice Chair of the Democratic Conference Position: Chair of Outreach Democratic Conference Steering Committee 4 House MajorityHouse Leadership Majority Leadership 2. Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) 5. Luke Messer (IN-6) Position: House Majority Position: Republican Policy Leader 1. Paul Ryan(WI-1) Committee Chairman Position: Speaker of the House 3. -
Unprecedented Support for the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 (S. 2685) the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 (2
Unprecedented Support for the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 (S. 2685) The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 (2. 2685) has unprecedented bipartisan support from a broad coalition that includes the intelligence community, the technology industry, and dozens of privacy, civil liberties, and other public interest organizations. Intelligence Community In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper concluded that “the Intelligence Community believes that your bill preserves the essential Intelligence Community capabilities … and … that it is a reasonable compromise that enhances privacy and civil liberties and increases transparency.” [Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to Chairman Leahy, 9/2/14] Technology Industry In an open letter to the entire Senate, Reform Government Surveillance, a group of the world’s leading technology companies that includes Aol, Apple, Dropbox, Facebook, Evernote, Google, Linkedin, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo!, voiced strong support for the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014: “The Senate has an opportunity this week to vote on the bipartisan USA Freedom Act. We urge you to pass the bill, which both protects national security and reaffirms America’s commitment to the freedoms we all cherish. The legislation prevents the bulk collection of Internet metadata under various authorities. The bill also allows for transparency about government demands for user information from technology companies and assures that the appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place … Now, the Senate has the opportunity to send a strong message of change to the world and encourage other countries to adopt similar protections… We encourage you to support the USA Freedom Act.” [Reform Government Surveillance, 11/16/14] Conservative Groups A host of leading conservative groups have voiced strong support for the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, including FreedomWorks, Liberty Coalition, Republican Liberty Caucus, and R Street. -
Of Mars and Mammoths July 2006 $4.00
Of Mars and Mammoths July 2006 $4.00 "Liberty is more favored than all things. !I - Justinian How to Subscribe [ Letter's .J The Ego ·and the Idiots the complexities of the case"as well to Re "Winning the Battle for Free as the political circumstances that dom and Prosperity," by John Mackey influenced,the outcome. I stand by my (June): there are no irresistible argu view that Chief Justice Tiuley's opin II LibertY] ments for freedom (or anything else). ion - that no blacks, free or slave, People can be unrelentingly stubborn could become U.S. citizens or have or narrowminded. Also, Rand's "The any rights- was extrajudicial in the Liberty takes individual Virtue of Selfishness" has a vital extreme and a prime example of the freedom seriously ... and subtitle, "A New Concept of Ego "living Constitution" doctrine. the status quo with more ism." And this concept is simply that There was never a racial division than one grain of salt! a sound ethics has to be egoistic - it regarding these matters in theConsti must provide one with action-guidi~g tution. Never. Every issue of Liberty brings principles that promote one's life on I suggest that all interested readers you news you can't miss, earth, and help one flourish. There is pick up a copy of Donald Fehrenbach er's Pulitzer Prize-whining, 600-plus opinions you won't find nothing oxymoronic about this. page classic work "The Dred Scott anywhere else, and the best Tibor R. Machan Case - Its Significance in American libertarian writing in the world. -
Waltz Florida Dems PPP Letter (/Uploadedfiles/Waltzsba FDP PPP)
October 8, 2020 The Honorable Hannibal “Mike” Ware Inspector General U.S. Small Business Administration 409 3rd Street SW Washington, D.C. 20416 Dear Inspector General Ware: The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll. Congress intended the program to provide relief to America’s small businesses quickly, and demand for the program was extraordinary: PPP lenders approved more than 1.6 million loans totaling more than $342 billion in the program’s first two weeks, according to your office.1 The Small Business Administration subsequently released data that shows a political organization may have taken advantage of the program’s expedited nature to obtain funds for which they were ineligible. Specifically, the data show a Democrat-affiliated political organization in Florida applied for and received PPP funds, contrary to the intent of Congress that the program should support small businesses, non-profits, veterans’ organizations, and tribal concerns. The Small Business Administration issued regulations that specifically prohibit “businesses primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities” from receiving PPP loans.2 Despite this restriction, the Florida Democratic Party (FDP) applied for and received a PPP loan worth $780,000.3 The details of the FDP loan application raise serious questions as to whether the applicant intentionally misled the Small Business Administration in order to obtain PPP funds. FDP filed its application under the identity of a non-profit organization called the “Florida Democratic Party Building Fund, Inc.” The Florida Democratic Party Building Fund, Inc. is a separate legal entity from the Florida Democratic Party, but Florida state records show the party formed the not-for-profit corporation in April of 2019 to construct, own or operate “the headquarters of the state executive committee of the Florida Democratic Party and related political organizations.”4 Documents show the Florida Democratic Party Building Fund, Inc. -
Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012
VERIZON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS JANUARY – DECEMBER 2012 1 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 A Message from Craig Silliman Verizon is affected by a wide variety of government policies ‐‐ from telecommunications regulation to taxation to health care and more ‐‐ that have an enormous impact on the business climate in which we operate. We owe it to our shareowners, employees and customers to advocate public policies that will enable us to compete fairly and freely in the marketplace. Political contributions are one way we support the democratic electoral process and participate in the policy dialogue. Our employees have established political action committees at the federal level and in 20 states. These political action committees (PACs) allow employees to pool their resources to support candidates for office who generally support the public policies our employees advocate. This report lists all PAC contributions, corporate political contributions, support for ballot initiatives and independent expenditures made by Verizon in 2012. The contribution process is overseen by the Corporate Governance and Policy Committee of our Board of Directors, which receives a comprehensive report and briefing on these activities at least annually. We intend to update this voluntary disclosure twice a year and publish it on our corporate website. We believe this transparency with respect to our political spending is in keeping with our commitment to good corporate governance and a further sign of our responsiveness to the interests of our shareowners. Craig L. Silliman Senior Vice President, Public Policy 2 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 Political Contributions Policy: Our Voice in the Political Process What are the Verizon Good Government Clubs? and the government agencies administering the federal and individual state election laws. -
POLITICAL ATTITUDES in AMERICA by Joshua Swann a Thesis
POLITICAL ATTITUDES IN AMERICA by Joshua Swann A thesis submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Baltimore, Maryland December 2019 © 2019 Joshua Swann All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT This study sought to understand how political attitudes are formed and how do these attitudes affect political life in America? The author approached the research through case study to make conclusions. The study began with a hypothesis that the shaping of political attitudes is a political strategy used to threaten democracy. Chapter one found that politicians leverage messaging strategies to shape political attitudes and align the electorate; these strategies may or may not be based on facts, but rather facts as seen by the politician/political parties. Chapter two furthers an examination of how political attitudes are formed through the lens of race and identity rhetoric. The literature review, further supported by case study discovered that race continues to be used by many politicians to shape political and policy attitudes in the US; subsequently creating social divisions, instilling fear amongst voters. Chapter three looks at how political attitudes impact political life in the United States, specifically through the judiciary. This chapter demonstrates that the Supreme Court is a political institution shaped by the party affiliation of the justices. This conclusion, supported by a case study of Obergefell v. Hodges, shows that political attitudes greatly impact democracy and legislative interpretation. This thesis found that political attitudes are shaped by strategic messaging. Politicians have consistently used race to shape how voters view issues. The partisan nature of American political life is ultimately a threat to democracy, as seen through the political behavior of the judiciary.