US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who?

melankolik asks: "With all the issues emerging these days related to DRM, 'piracy', anti-trust, civil rights, big business, et al, and with tech-illiterate politicians passing laws of dubious intent or results, it can be hard to tell who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are in our government (more realistically, who supports the Good and Bad legislation). What information can any of you politically savvy Slashdot readers offer to someone taking an interest in the political machine regarding the past and present legislation, stances, and agendas of our friendly neighborhood Senators, Governors, and other representatives?" As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others. Even so, it would be interesting to know how the representatives vote on specific issues, especially those that deal with computers and online rights. Has anyone been compiling this information?

Comments

It's easy to find the bad guys....

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Just look at whose lips are moving.

Re:It's easy to find the bad guys....

[cujo_1111]

My thoughts...

Democrats: Bad
Republicans: Bad
Greens: Bad
Anyone who has any position of power, real or otherwise: Bad

Compilation

[S. Traaken]

"Has anyone been compiling this information?"

I know some Gentoo users - they compile everything...

Easy

[Carlos Silva]

They'll all be supporting the things that give the most votes.

You've got to be kidding me.

[pi_rules]

All this information is recorded somewhere on the House of Reps and Senate websites. I was scanning records hourly as S 1805 (Protection for Lawful firearms commerce) was being debated and voted on in the Senate. I'll dig up the links in a second -- it'll be easier to spot once you've seen them before.

Oh, and Thomas can be used to search for the EXACT text of pending bills in both Houses. They're a myriad o them though so you pretty much need to be involved with an activist group that'll keep you posted on what bills are in committee and which ones have a chance of getting of committee. Unless your reps are on the actual committee it's not much use to call them up and voice opinions on a bill that's not going anywhere. Well, that's my take on it. Seems like your position would have more "oomph" if you call them when you know it's out of committee -- shows that you're on top of the issue.

Yep, there it is: Congress voting records

Here's a better page I gathered up from the Senate's site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html ... that's at least good for the 108th Congress.

Best way to learn how it works, IMHO, is to watch the NRA and other gun-rights groups. That's how I got involved with it all I guess.

Re:You've got to be kidding me.

[melankolik]

You know, I was actually reading through Thomas/loc.gov when I thought to ask this.

That's great if you want specific details on a specific bill or representative; when you're interested in a general idea of who supports what (that is, the issues and specific legislation when it's a major bill or resolution), it's a little less than informative, unless you have hours to read through each representative's history and research the meaning and implications of the texts.

Legalese doesn't say much to real-world effects of legislation, and it's not hard to miss a critical rider or somesuch which could really make all the difference in a text's significance.

Just had this idea...

[burns210]

Wha'dya know, I just had an idea for a website that would fit this.

Basicly, it was a 'framework' for a legislature(local, state, federal) that would cross-reference each bill or legislation with how each member voted... Want to know who is pro-abortion, simple query. Want to see all the Democrats that voted for Bush's XYZ legislation, simple stuff... Who is on what committee, and so on.

The beauty is, if this was done open source, then it could be applied to all 50 state legislatures (and other countries!) along with Congress, so there would be a fairly large(relative) demand for such a system.

Re:Just had this idea...

[pi_rules]

Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.

That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.

Here's how it went.

One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.

This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.

Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.

My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.

Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.

Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.

Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.

Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.

So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.

It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.

Re:Just had this idea...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I have two remarks here. They're basically unrelated.

The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.

The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.

Take a perfectly good bill. Attach an amendment to it that goes a little bit farther than you'd want to go in a perfect world. What happens? The bill dies, dead dead dead, because some people were unwilling to compromise.

Guess what, folks? Compromise is the highest of all political virtues. The correct course of action here was for the gun lobby to say, "You know, a 10-round limit on magazines is not totally unacceptable. Let's start negotiating until we reach a point of consensus."

Didn't happen. Instead, the cry went out across the land: vote NO!

Damn shame.

(Line-item veto is the WRONG answer. It effectively puts legislative power in the hands of the president. The right answer is to let our representatives know that we want them to reach reasoned compromises, not to throw babies out in pails full of bathwater.)

Re:Just had this idea...

[catsRus]

A right compromised is not a right! Lets compromise on the budget or something not infringement of our rights.

Re:Just had this idea...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.

That's not how things work in a republic. To get a little, you have to get a little. You can't just dictate public policy as if by the divine right of kings.

Re:Just had this idea...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds.

Ain't that just a kick in the head?

See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison.

It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal

Guess again.

Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.

I'm gonna go right ahead and call bullshit on this once again. It's a specious argument, ridiculous on its face. You're not fooling anybody.

This is about one thing and one thing only: your personal desire to pop off a dozen rounds or more on the practice range without having to stop to reload. I, as I explained, do not give a shit about this. The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.

The implications of only being allowed to carry 11 rounds in your Glock instead of 14 on the size of your penis, your testosterone level, or your overall fitness as a male specimen are not my problem.

The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

Re:Just had this idea...

[_hAZE_]

This topic actually inspired me to think (if you know me, you know I don't think very often, so this must be important).

I came to realize that one of the reasons I don't regularly vote is because I don't have time to figure out who I should be voting for. There are SO many different people out there, with SO many different opinions on SO many differet issues, it's nearly impossible to keep track of, especially for people that are trying to just get by with their own lives. I also think that a lot of the issues have gotten a little too complex for the average citizen (it could be we're all getting dumber, I can't really say for sure). I think a website for people in this situation would help many of us make semi-informed decisions and vote for "the right guy".

So.. I agree and disagree with your statement about the complexity/simplicity of this particular project.

In a perfect world, yes, the project would go down to each individual bill and each attached amendment to each bill and who supported what and include the lobbies and such. Unfortunately, you're right - that's way too complex.

Instead, I think we should focus on "the newbies guide to politics" - keep it simple:

First, this has to be a community effort. Citizens from all over the country should be allowed to add information on their local candidates, maybe with some form of peer review upon submission.

Then, list all the current senators and house members and the president, along with all the currently running candidates. Also include the ability to add more local positions like governor, council persons, mayors, etc.

Once you've got all that.. list the issues, and break them down into categories to make them easy for idiots like me to check out what I want to see. Abortion, Jobs (with sub-categories for things like tech jobs, auto workers, whatever), military, foreign policy, whatever.

Then.. it's the simple process of cross-referencing all the people with the issues, and wallah! You've got "An Idiot's Guide to Politics".

Re:Just had this idea...

[babbage]

It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.

That's not how things work in a republic.

Clearly, you've been sleeping through George Buh's America, where as far as he and his pals are concerned, that's exactly how they want things to work. You're talking about the ideals of democratic America, and they were nice, but the Rubicon has been crossed and now we've got our dear little tinpot leader changing things as fast as possible. Are we a republic any more? These days, I'm not sure that the term applies.

Be that as it may, Twirlip is absolutely correct: compromise is the absolute core of a functioning democracy, and it absolutely cannot be sacrificed for something as petty as legislative expediency. So it takes years for Congress to get things done -- so what? Do you really want to live in a nation so unstable that the law making bodies are able to change the rules at a whim? That's not democracy, that's dictatorship, and shifting too much power in El Presidente's direction is too big of a step in the wrong direction. When congress moves fast, bad things happen: the Patriot Act is a shining example of the kind of disaster that can happen when compromise & consideration are sacrificed for political expediency, and we're not going to have to live with that mistake for years to come.

Elsewhere in this thread, Twirlip urged you (pi_rules) to look back at history, to see how compromise has molded this country. Did you bother taking his advice? Again, he was right: every nuance of our federal system was the result of compromise. Some wanted a strong, centralized federal system, while others wanted all power devolved to the states -- hence the delicate balance the Constitution strikes between federal & state control. Some wanted to consolidate power in northern cities, while others wanted more of a voice for the rural south -- hence the compromise of building Washington DC in the (at the time) rural south, but close to what was then the middle of the country. Some wanted slavery, some were against it -- hence the 3/5 compromise, which arguably delayed the civil war by decades. Et cetera.

A political system with no compromise is a disaster. North Korea, Iraq, <troll> Buh's America </troll>. No sane person would ever want to live in one of these places. But the line item veto is practically an invitation to give up on legislative compromise, and would undermine the structure of our carefully tuned political system in ways that would be vast, subtle, and ultimately disastrous.

No political issue is so important that achieving it is worth undermining the entire systeem that has served us so well for decades, is it? I sure don't think so...

Also useful...

[Captain Splendid]

...opensecrets.org, a good website that lets you know who's holding the leash on your favorite politician.

vote-smart.org

[ThinkingGuy]

I'm jumping into this rather late, but I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the Project Vote Smart. Just go to vote-smart.org and it'll tell you who your federal representatives are, at the federal and state level. It tells when they're up for re-election, their voting record on various issues, and their ratings by various interest groups. It's definitely helped me to be a more informed voter.

Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"?

[cr0sh]

Have we all forgotten the PATRIOT Act? That huge pile of paper that none of our representatives read (not to mention it seems to have been written overnight - or more accurately, was written waaay prior to 9/11 - in anticipation? Or was more known?), but every single one of them voted for (ok, that isn't accurate - I think there was one representative who didn't vote for it or voted against it or something).

A huge document (it was supposed to be several inches thick in its entirety) - but not one of our "representatives" actually read it and discussed it before voting on it. It tramples a whole host of our rights, rights guaranteed by our Constitution (and our guns, if "we the people" weren't such pussies) - this should be treasonable action - so why isn't anything happenning?

Don't tell me "but we are at war" - WE ARE NOT AT WAR - Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war - only they can do this, and are required to do this by our laws and the Constitution, but this has not yet happened...

How many "wars" have we been in since WWII that have been "declared wars"? None? They have all been "police actions" or "peacekeeping missions" or some other such drivel - yet we and the media (hell, even our President!) keep calling this a war, that a war - think of the children!

It is sickening, it is disgusting, it is an abomination to the ideals which this country was founded upon.

This is only one piece of so-called "bad legislation" - please. I could rattle off a ton more - you know it, I know it. Most of our congresscritters couldn't find their ass with both hands, many are in the employ of the RIAA and MPAA, bought and paid for with media dollars for legislations like the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The rest: they are bought and paid for various so-called "Christian" organizations, seeking to limit what can be done by and for science, in the name of some fantasy "man in the sky".

Representatives, supposed "statesmen" (but very few deserve that title, once you know the definition of it) - people we supposedly elect (and even this is in question!!!) to protect our greater interests from the few - are instead in their pockets.

Don't tell me that there aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" - most (all?) of our representatives willingly sacrificed our Constitutions when they voted and signed on to the PATRIOT Act without reading or discussing it. Many have lied, cheated, and stolen while in office. Our own President is a known alcoholic with a DUI!

Remember friends, you reap what you sow - and this crop is the worst of them all.