zoebak

see main

no merri

some new here

==

(2 vers, both 7 pp?)

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

House of Representatives, 19th District, California

1401 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Congresswoman Lofgren,

We hope this finds you well.  Thank you for your long record of progressivism on political reform issues, most recently by sponsoring the Redistricting Reform Act of 2017.

This letter addresses concerns raised by you or your Legal Counsel Arlet Abrahamian in meetings with representatives of Santa Clara County-Move to Amend concerning MTA's proposed "We the People" constitutional amendment, H.J.R. 48.  These concerns are underlined and our response follows.

1. Non-profit corporations have benefited from corporate constitutional rights (CCRs).   For example, the protections of the 14th Amendment, though originally intended for freed slaves, have also helped non-profits.

Response:

To date, the Supreme Court has granted these CCRs:

●Equal Protection & Due Process (14th Amend.)

●No surprise inspections/searches (4th Amend.)

●Due Process and Compensation for government takings (5th Amend.)

●Political and commercial speech, “negative” speech (1st Amend.)

●Jury trial in criminal case (6th Amend.)

●Freedom from double jeopardy (5th Amend.)

●Jury trial in civil case (7th Amend.)

Each of these rights could be conferred statutorily as well.  CCRs are unnecessary, whether for non-profit or for-profit corporations.  If neither the states nor Congress enacted such protections it would mean that the people thought they were unnecessary or inadvisable.

Who has really benefitted from CCRs? The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.   Between 1890 and 1910, cases brought under it involving corporations outnumbered those involving the rights of blacks, 288 to 19. Logan, Rayford Whittingham (1965). The betrayal of the Negro, from Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson. New York: Collier Books. p. 100.  (This work was cited in a secondary source; we have not found a copy of it yet.  We have seen a similar statistic cited elsewhere.)

[AKA southern sheriff scenario)]

2. Eliminating corporate constitutional rights (CCRs) would make non-profits such as Planned Parenthood subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.  In your email declining to support H.J.R. 48 you wrote:

Corporate personhood, or allowing corporations to assert certain Constitutional rights, predates the Citizens United decision, and has allowed organizations that protect civil liberties to continue to operate in even the most hostile circumstances. In the 1958 Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama, the Court ruled that the NAACP was not required to comply with the State of Alabama’s subpoena seeking their membership lists because NAACP members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights would be violated if the corporation was forced to comply. Corporate personhood has also allowed corporations to protect themselves from warrantless searches by asserting their Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has decided, and I agree, that not all of the rights of natural persons apply to corporations, but stripping them of any constitutional rights would not be appropriate either.”

Response:

If the federal constitution were amended to establish that corporations had no rights under it, existing state and federal statutory law would protect corporations from unreasonable searches and seizures.  E.g., CA Penal Code, Title 12, Chapter 3 (search warrants); United States Code, Title 18, Chapters 109, 205 (searches and seizures).  But even absent such statutory protections the U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized the right of corporations to represent their members' constitutional rights under appropriate circumstances.

In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) the Alabama attorney general obtained an injunction against the Alabama branch of the NAACP for violating that state's incorporation laws, and sought information including the names and addresses of its members.  The NAACP complied with the AG's demands except for providing to the membership information.

The Association both urges that it is constitutionally entitled to resist official inquiry into its membership lists, and that it may assert, on behalf of its members, a right personal to them to be protected from compelled disclosure by the State of their affiliation with the Association as revealed by the membership lists. We think that petitioner argues more appropriately the rights of its members, and that its nexus with them is sufficient to permit that it act as their representative before this Court. In so concluding, we reject respondent's argument that the Association lacks standing to assert here constitutional rights pertaining to the members, who are not, of course, parties to the litigation.

To limit the breadth of issues which must be dealt with in particular litigation, this Court has generally insisted that parties rely only on constitutional rights which are personal to themselves. Tileston v. Ullman, :{318 U. S. 44:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:; Robertson and Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (1951 ed.), § 298. This rule is related to the broader doctrine that constitutional adjudication should where possible be avoided. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, :{297 U. S. 288:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:, :{297 U. S. 346:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:-348 (concurring opinion). The principle is not disrespected where constitutional rights of persons who are not immediately before the Court could not be effectively vindicated except through an appropriate representative before the Court. See Barrows v. Jackson, :{346 U. S. 249:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:, :{346 U. S. 255:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:-259; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, :{341 U. S. 123:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:, :{341 U. S. 183:(style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-skip-ink:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"):}:-187 (concurring opinion).

If petitioner's rank-and-file members are constitutionally entitled to withhold their connection with the Association despite the production order, it is manifest that this right is properly assertable by the Association. To require that it be claimed by the members themselves would result in nullification of the right at the very moment of its assertion. Petitioner is the appropriate party to assert these rights, because it and its members are, in every practical sense, identical. The Association, which provides in its constitution that "[a]ny person who is in accordance with [its] principles and policies . . ." may become a member, is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their own views.  (pp. 458-459, emphasis added.)

In other words, the NAACP as a non-profit corporation did not itself have the right to object to the AG's demand, but it had the right to assert its members' rights where they could not assert their rights themselves without giving up those same rights. So even under this highly unlikely worst case scenario a non-profit would not need CCRs itself, but could assert its members' rights to protect them and their rights.  We respectfully request that you re-visit your analysis of this case.

3. Corporations need constitutional rights and eliminating CCRs will cause huge financial disruption.

Response:

The Constitution was adopted in 1789.  It doesn't mention corporations. The case that purportedly first granted CCRs was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).  Thus for nearly a century corporations had no constitutional rights.  During this time they experienced explosive growth. So lack of CCRs did not appear to hamper them.  Again, if eliminating CCRs caused any economic angst Congress and/or the states could enact appropriate legislation to address specific problems.  But on its face, financial disruption does not appear to be an issue.

4. Constitutional amendments are very difficult to adopt.  Including CCRs makes it more difficult.

Response:

Not all constitutional amendments are difficult to adopt.  The 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 was adopted in three months, eight days!  Why? Because its time had come. Eighteen to 20 year olds were fighting and dying in Vietnam and thus it was generally thought they should have the vote.

Reigning in corporations is an idea whose time is long overdue.  A national telephone poll of all 50 states and the District of Columbia by the Gallup organization in January of 2016 found that 63 per cent of U.S. adults "say they're dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations." (Margin of error +/- 4 %.)  These findings were consistent with those of the previous 10 years.

Most amendments take substantially longer.  It took 70 years to pass the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, but would anyone today say it was not worth the effort?

The same forces that would oppose an amendment establishing that money is not free speech protected by the1st Amendment would likely also oppose an amendment prohibiting CCRs because in each instance the wealthy and powerful would have their power decreased.  Excluding the issue of CCRs from an amendment that limited 1st Amendment rights for election spending might make it easier to pass. But it would leave corporations with more power than the Founders intended them to have, more power than they need to function, and more than the rights of people whose democratically passed legislation has been overturned by CCRs.  See below.

5. How have CCRs resulted in concrete examples of harm to people?

Response:

1st Amendment--Right Not to Speak

--Food Labeling Requirement Banned

International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 596 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1979)

overturned a Vermont law requiring the labeling of all products containing recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST) based on the right not to speak in commercial speech.

--Corporations not required to display poster on workers right to organize

In National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, 717 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the NLRB made failure to post a notice informing workers of their rights an unfair labor practice.  The appellate court found this violated the corporate employer's 1st Amendment right not to speak.

4th Amendment--Search and Seizure

Surprise Inspections of Business Premises Prohibited

When an OSHA inspector tried to do a routine inspection of Barlow’s Inc. (an electrical and plumbing installation business), Mr. Barlow, the company’s president, refused to allow the inspector to enter the nonpublic employee area. Relying on the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons [and] houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures” Barlow objected that the inspector lacked a search warrant, even though Section 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) did not require a search warrant for inspections of safety hazards and violations of OSHA regulations.  The Secretary of Labor sought an order to compel compliance with the OSHA inspection. Rejecting the Secretary of Labor’s argument that surprise inspections are reasonable and essential to OSHA’s enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that OSHA’s Section 8(a) was unconstitutional because it authorized inspections without a warrant. Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)

In an earlier case, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the conviction of a business owner who was convicted of refusing to allow the fire department to enter his business for a routine, random inspection. Citing the 4th Amendment, the Court required an administrative warrant to enter commercial premises. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545-546 (1967).

These decisions treat artificial commercial entities like natural persons even though the Fourth Amendment’s language seems to contemplate only human beings, their homes and personal effects. The result is that governmental attempts to protect the public from a myriad of dangers stemming from private commercial activities (e.g., food contamination, drug impurities, automobile defects, and environmental hazards) are thwarted by removing the advantage of surprise inspections that impede the ability of businesses to hide, alter or disguise dangerous conditions.

5th Amendment--"Just" Compensation

Mining That Damaged Homes Allowed Because Corporation Not Compensated

The Mahons owned the surface rights of land upon which they built their home. The conveyance deed to their property expressly permitted the Pennsylvania Coal Company to mine coal under the surface of their land. Relying on the Kohler Act, a 1921 state statute addressing subsidence issues, the Mahons later sued to enjoin the corporation’s coal mining to the extent it would cause subsidence of their home. At the Coal Company,’s urging, the Supreme Court invalidated the Kohler Act, saying that it violated the 5th amendment takings clause forbidding a taking of private property “for public use and without just compensation.”

Despite the fact that the Kohler Act prohibited coal mining that would cause subsidence of public properties (e.g. public buildings and roads) as well as private dwellings, the Supreme Court per Justice Holmes found that the purpose of the Kohler Act was to protect a small group of private individuals rather than the lives and safety of the general public. This finding precluded the Mahon’s contention that the Kohler Act was, as Justice Brandeis’ dissent argued, constitutionally valid as an exercise of the state’s police power to protect public health and welfare. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v, Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).  (The Supreme Court has defined the “police power” as being coextensive with inherent state sovereignty,  Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 524 (1934).  States often use the police power to legislate protections for public health, safety, and morality.)

Commerce Clause

State and Local Governments Prohibited from Limiting Importation of Hazardous Waste for Disposal

The Supreme Court has used the Commerce Clause to invalidate state or local laws that sought to halt or limit importation of hazardous waste for disposal.  For example, in City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978) the Court ruled that state regulation based only on where the waste originated violated the Commerce Clause.  Similarly, in Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep’t of Natural Resources, 112 S.Ct. 2019 (1992) the Court ruled a county could not regulate waste based on the county of origin, whether interstate or intrastate, without violating the Commerce Clause.  And in Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 112 S.Ct. 2009 (1992) the Court ruled charging more for out-of-state waste than in-state waste also violated the Commerce Clause.

These cases disregard the legitimate interests state and local governments have in protecting their health, safety, and natural resources, traditionally appropriate subjects for protection by the police power. Hazardous waste can cause disease, birth defects, genetic damage, crippling, blindness, and death.  Transporting hazardous waste creates additional danger over long distances on highways shared by the public. Hazardous waste facilities often result in water pollution from leachate, explosive methane, fires, and aesthetic degradation, and are often sited near low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.  Although none of these cases turned on the corporate identity of the plaintiffs they illustrate how corporations have used another constitutional provision to the detriment of average citizens, local governments, and states.

In other cases:

--Citizens in St. Louis, Missouri, collected signatures to place an initiative on the ballot that would have changed how the city gave tax breaks for fossil fuel development.  First, opponents of the measure convinced a judge to enjoin the measure [THAT IS, REMOVED THE INITIATIVE FROM THE BALLOT] based in part on the business entities' rights under the Citizens United decision.  Then the state legislature passed a law banning the city from restricting financial incentives to coal mining companies for two years.  The only company this law applied to was Peabody Coal. Peabody Coal v. Take Back St. Louis (2014).

-- A coal corporation sued a public interest group that criticized the coal corporation, alleging the corporation suffered mental anguish and emotional distress.  Murray Energy v. Public Citizen (2014).

--Fracking bans passed by local governments have also been overturned.

This is an incomplete list.  Where does it end?

We request that you reconsider supporting H.J.R. 48.  Please let us know if we can be of help in any way.

Thank you for your consideration.  We appreciate your work, especially under current conditions and the present administration.

On behalf of Santa Clara County-Move to Amend,

Respectfully and all the best,

John Fioretta, Esq.

speeches

https://votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/21899/zoe-lofgren#.XNhV-RRKiM8

ltr to pruitt

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1242899/letter-to-the-hon-scott-pruitt-epa-administrator-reinstate-longstanding-toxic-air-pollution-protections/?search=corporation#.XNhWbRRKiM8

...Last month, the Environmental Integrity Project released a brief analysis of the current HAP emissions of 12 major sources in the Midwest, and their potential emission increases without longstanding protections from HAPs. Combined, these facilities released over 121,000 pounds of HAPs annually in 2016, including neurotoxins like lead and carcinogens like benzene. Without the safeguards preserved in EPA's 1995 policy, the report found that "the total emissions from these major sources could more than quadruple to a total of 540,000 pounds a year, because the new exemption allows such facilities to save money by cutting back on their pollution controls." Furthermore, the report highlighted the danger in relying on corporationsto report their emissions to prove their HAP emissions are below the 10/25 ton per year threshold and will remain there. The report noted major sources "seldom actually measure their hazardous emissions" on their own volition, so monitoring requirements were created in scores of MACT standards to keep them honest. But EPA's reversal of an essential protection against toxic air pollution would allow industrial emitters to no longer meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements in MACT standards. This is in addition to letting polluting facilities evade the emission limits that protect Americans from increased HAPs.

...

Lofgren, Boucher Introduce Bill Protecting Net Neutrality

By: :{Zoe Lofgren:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: 

Date: May 18, 2006 

Location: Washington, DC 

Keyword Search : Corporation

Lofgren, Boucher Introduce Bill Protecting Net Neutrality

Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) joined with House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today in introducing HR 5417, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006." This bipartisan measure would ensure competitive and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.

"Our net neutrality legislation protects the communications freedom and innovation created by the Internet, instead of allowing the equivalent of an Internet toll road." said Rep. Lofgren. "The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate with one another and do business. It's just common sense to keep that revolution where it belongs--in the hands of ordinary individuals instead of a handful of big corporations. Our bill will prevent an Information Superhighway Hijacking."

"The Internet has flourished as an open medium where users can access any lawful content, applications and services, using any devices. The measure which we are introducing will assure that the status quo is preserved and that the market power broadband providers now exercise over transmission is not extended to control of content," Rep. Boucher said. "This measure is particularly important and timely because H.R. 5252, the Energy and Commerce Committee video franchising measure, is insufficient to ensure that broadband network providers do not abuse their market power to discriminate against competitive Internet content or services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to enact bipartisan legislation which will preserve the Internet as we know it."

The "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" would amend the Clayton Act to prohibit broadband network providers from interfering with the ability of users to access the Internet content, applications and services of their choice or the ability of independent content, application and service providers to reach consumers with the same speed and quality of service as the network provider. It would also require network providers, if they prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to a particular type of content, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all content of that type at no charge.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca16_lofgren/051806_lofgren_net_neutrality_bill.html

hobby lobby?

In the amicus, the members explain how the legislative history of the ACA supports the conclusion that the contraceptive coverage requirement of the ACA satisfies the test applicable to a free exercise of religion challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

As the Congressional amici point out to the court: "The contraceptive coverage requirement does not substantially burden any exercise of religion in which the Corporations might be found to engage because it does not compel the Corporations to administer or use the contraceptive methods to which they object, nor does it require them to adhere to, affirm, or abandon a particular belief. It merely requires the Corporation, like other for-profit employers to provide comprehensive insurance coverage under which their employees may make their own personal decisions whether to use whatever form of contraception, if any, best suits their individualized health and wellness needs."

Source: http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/hoyer-pelosi-slaughter-degette-along-87-members-congress-file-amicus-brief-supreme-court-con  

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1235156/letter-to-hon-alex-azar-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-more-than-100-democrats-to-call-on-department-of-health-and-human-services-to-put-patients-first-and-withdraw-discriminatory-refusal-of-care-rule/?search=corporation#.XNhWxRRKiM8

The proposed rule also defines "referral" in a way that has never been applied in statute or regulation and goes beyond the plain meaning of the term. The proposed rule defines "referral" to include the provision of "any information" by "any method" pertaining to health care that could help a person obtain the care they need, requiring only that the health care entity believe that the service they object to is a "possible outcome" of providing information. This means that refusal laws that were initially intended to narrowly exempt providers who object to providing a referral in the plain meaning of the word can now be exempted from providing any information to a patient that can be remotely connected to a procedure to which they object. This definition of referrals could hamper patients' ability to get information they need for their care.

The proposed rule omits critical statutory language from multiple laws it cites requiring that patients be informed of the provider's refusal--undermining Congress' deliberate use of language intended to include basic patient protections to mitigate the harm of refusals. Such a language change could even encourage providers to withhold necessary information from patients or leave patients unaware about their state of care.

The proposed rule expands the universe of entities that can claim religious or moral exemptions, by expanding the definitions of "entity" and "health care entity". The proposed rule adds "a plan sponsor, issuer, or third party administrator" to the definition of "health care entity." It also contains a separate definition of "entity," which includes any "person" defined in 1 U.S.C. 1, such as corporations, joint stock companies, a state, or any public agency or institution. These expansive definitions could provide cover for a number of new entities not to do their jobs. The new definitions could also mean entities not previously covered by refusal laws will have to accommodate their individual employee's refusals to provide care or more broadly "assist" in any practice to which he or she is opposed. Under the proposed rule, all the newly covered entities would also be subject to burdensome new notice and compliance requirements.

In short, the new definitions for a number of terms in the proposed rule exceed the Department's authority and will undoubtedly compromise the health of patients, burden providers, and deny patients the protections Congress provided them.

The Proposed Rule Conflicts with Federal Laws that Protect Patient Access to Care and the Constitution

Letter to the Honorable Richard Cordray, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Waters, Conyers, Johnson Lead Over 60 House Democrats in Letter Supporting CFPB Arbitration Proposal

Letter

By: :{Zoe Lofgren:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Pete Visclosky:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Eleanor Norton:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Alan Lowenthal:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Jerry Nadler:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Nydia Velázquez:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Mike Capuano:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Karen Bass:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Bob Brady:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Bobby Scott:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Tim Ryan:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Gwen Moore:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Don Beyer, Jr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{John Garamendi:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Danny Davis:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Ted Deutch:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Steve Cohen:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Keith Ellison:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Bill Foster:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Paul Tonko:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Bonnie Watson Coleman:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Emanuel Cleaver II:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Sheila Jackson Lee:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{José Serrano:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Carolyn Maloney:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Elijah Cummings:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Luis Gutiérrez:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Mark Takano:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Hakeem Jeffries:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Barbara Lee:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Stephen Lynch:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{André Carson:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Jared Huffman:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Debbie Wasserman Schultz:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Suzanne Bonamici:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Ed Perlmutter:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Jim McGovern:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Eric Swalwell:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Dan Kildee:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Earl Blumenauer:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Tulsi Gabbard:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Al Green:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Denny Heck:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Diana DeGette:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{John Conyers, Jr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Lois Frankel:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Maxine Waters:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Peter Welch:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Mike Honda:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Hank Johnson, Jr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Lacy Clay, Jr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Rubén Hinojosa, Sr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Terri Sewell:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Gregory Meeks:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Patrick Murphy:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Raul Grijalva:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Suzan DelBene:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Don Payne, Jr.:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Cedric Richmond:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{David Cicilline:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Brad Sherman:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Matt Cartwright:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Judy Chu:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{Jan Schakowsky:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}::{Gerry Connolly:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: 

Date: Aug. 3, 2016 

Location: Washington, DC 

Keyword Search : Corporation

We write in strong support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's proposed rule to prohibit the use of class-action waivers in forced arbitration agreements for financial services and products, and to increase transparency in the arbitration process. Consistent with the Bureau's exhaustive study on forced arbitration, which found that forced arbitration restricts consumers' access to relief in disputes with financial service providers by limiting class actions, the proposed rule is a critical step to protect the public interest by ensuring that consumers receive redress for systemic unlawful conduct.

There is overwhelming evidence that class-action waivers in financial products and services agreements undermine the public interest. Originally used primarily in commercial settings, forced arbitration clauses have proliferated in everyday consumer contracts, and are now prevalent in financial services agreements.By restricting class actions and class-wide arbitration in consumer contracts, these clauses enable corporations to avoid public scrutiny by precluding access to the courts. This is particularly problematic for small, diffuse misconduct that harms innumerous consumers. As the Bureau's research has shown, consumers rarely use arbitration to recover small claims, such as those associated with overdraft fees, because these cases are either too costly for consumers to pursue on an individual basis, or the individual consumer is unaware of a corporation's misconduct.

The proposed rule is in the public interest and will protect consumers. As you know, Congress expressly granted authority to the Bureau to research the impact of forced arbitration clauses in financial products and services, and based on this evidence, to promulgate a rule to prohibit or impose conditions on the use of forced arbitration if the Bureau finds that it would be "in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." There is little doubt that the Bureau's proposed rule will serve these twin goals. As more than 200 of the nation's leading law professors and scholars have observed, "class actions can serve as a powerful tool to help consumers of financial services and products vindicate their rights under federal and state law." The Bureau's study confirms this conclusion, finding that in addition to providing consumers with financial remedies for unlawful, predatory, or fraudulent conduct, class action settlements also included behavioral relief for consumers through corporate commitments to alter fraudulent practices that gave rise to the claim. On an individual basis, these forms of relief would have been largely unavailable or greatly diminished. The Attorneys General from 16 states likewise note that the "need for regulations to protect the public interest has never been so great," observing that forced arbitration has predictably resulted in consumer harm and "a systemic failure to hold accountable those companies who abuse the trust placed in them by consumers." In discrimination cases, individual consumers may not even be aware that they were harmed by a corporation's unlawful conduct. As the Center for Justice and Democracy has found, class actions are uniquely capable of holding corporations accountable for civil rights violations for these claims.

We strongly believe that your comprehensive study on forced arbitration unequivocally demonstrates that the proposed rule is necessary to the public interest and consumer welfare. Congress has already acted to ban forced arbitration clauses in residential mortgages and in financial products offered to servicemembers and veterans. We have entrusted the Bureau with authority to extend these protections to the rest of the financial services marketplace. Accordingly, we encourage you to proceed quickly to ensure that consumers have equal protection under the law.

Source: http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399950

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/481156/lofgren-responds-to-supreme-courts-ruling-on-citizens-united-case/?search=corporation#.XNhZ2BRKiM8

Lofgren Responds To Supreme Court's Ruling On Citizens United Case

Statement

By: :{Zoe Lofgren:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: 

Date: Jan. 21, 2010 

Location: Washington, DC 

Keyword Search : Corporation

Today, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, released the following statement in response to the United States Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

I'm appalled that the Supreme Court would overturn decades of established precedent and gut our nation's campaign finance laws. This decision isn't about free speech, it's about money. The Court has opened the door to unlimited and unrestricted spending by the largest and wealthiest corporations. The vast coffers of Wall Street banks, health insurance giants, and oil companies will now be free to saturate our air waves and media with their political agenda to drown out other voices. The conservative courts assertion that "independent expenditures including those made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption…" is absurd. The conservative court is essentially dragging us back into 19th century when robber barons controlled the political process.

Source: http://www.lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=573&Itemid=89

==

2005

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/134853/online-freedom-of-speech-act/?search=corporation#.XNhbsRRKiM8

Online Freedom of Speech Act

By: :{Zoe Lofgren:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}: 

Date: Nov. 2, 2005 

Location: Washington, DC 

Keyword Search : Corporation

ONLINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT -- (House of Representatives - November 02, 2005)

...

But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and I do support this bill. If I believed what the New York Times and the Washington Post said, I would indeed be concerned. I was a strong supporter of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I signed the discharge petition.

I voted for it. I am glad it passed. I would note, however, that what the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal section 441(b) of the act that prohibits contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah about soft money and corporate money, I am sure it is sincere, is simply, as a matter of law, incorrect.

What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they decide to say something very positive about the election of their party's candidate for President, they have a problem under the FEC rule.

And if my Web site, Lofgren for Congress, links to Feinstein for Senate, I probably am violating the rules. And there is no need for that. We do not want the heavy regulatory load on the Internet, nor do we need to do it.

Under current law, unless we pass this exemption, Daily Chaos, which if they call me for a comment on a candidate and it was run on their daily Web site within the specified time, we might have an actual problem here unless they are entitled to the press exemption. It is not clear that they are.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important since the court was not sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications covered by the act.

I do believe that in coming from Silicon Valley, especially so, that the ability to use the new technology to promote the viewpoint of individuals is essential to the growth of democracy. We have seen ever-increasing numbers of people participate in elections.

I think part of the reason for that is the ability to use the Internet to communicate. We are concerned, and rightly so, about the cost of TV. It costs a huge amount of money to run TV ads. Well, the cost to send an e-mail is almost nothing. So the use of the Internet is a great democratizer; that is little ``d,'' not big. We need to make sure that communications using the Internet are protected.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that what this bill will do would be to protect the technology, to protect the Internet itself. It would not reduce in any way the prohibitions found in 441(b) any more than a corporation could use its funds to buy lawn signs or political signs; they could not pay for ads either.

And so I do think that it is worth noting that for the record I would just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political speech on the Internet.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

==

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/21899/zoe-lofgren#.XNWq_hRKiM8

2018 Endorsements

• Armenian National Committee of America
• Armenian National Committee of America- Western Region (ANCA-WR)
• California Labor Federation
• California League of Conservation Voters
• California Professional Firefighters
• California School Employees Association
• Drug Policy Forum of California (DPFCA)
• Equality California
• Feminist Majority Political Action Committee
• NARAL Pro-Choice California
• National Organization for Women
• National Union of Healthcare Workers
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
• Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California
• Sierra Club
• The Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans
• United Auto Workers

Budget, Spending and Taxes

• Public Statements
• Key Votes

Business and Consumers

• Public Statements
• Key Votes

Campaign Finance and Elections

...

Economy and Fiscal

• Public Statements
• Key Votes

Education

https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/21899/zoe-lofgren/

Washington, D.C. Webmail

http://lofgren.house.gov/contact/

Washington, D.C. Website

http://lofgren.house.gov/

D.C.

:{:{1401 Longworth House Office Building}:

Washington, DC 20515}: 

Phone: 202-225-3072

District

:{:{635 North First Street

Suite B}:

San Jose, CA 95112}: 

Phone: 408-271-8700

• Member, District of Columbia Bar, present
• Member, New Democrat Coalition, present
• Founding Executive Director, Community Housing Developers
• Member, People Acting in Community Together
• Member, Board of Trustees, San José-Evergreen Community College District,, 1979-1981

Issue Positions

For Presidential and Congressional candidates who refuse to provide voters with their positions, Vote Smart has researched their public records to determine their likely responses. These issue positions are from 2018.

Pro-choice		Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
Unknown Position		Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
Unknown Position		Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
Yes		Campaign Finance: Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
Yes		Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
Unknown Position		Economy: Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
Unknown Position		Education: Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
Yes		Energy & Environment: Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
Yes		Energy & Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes		Guns: Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
No		Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
No		Immigration: Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
No		Immigration: Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
Yes		Marijuana: Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
Unknown Position		National Security: Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
No		National Security: Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?

Key

Official Position: Candidate had the Political Courage to address this issue directly.

Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue directly, but Vote Smart inferred this issue position based on the candidate's public statements, voting record, and evaluations from special interest groups.

Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue.

Vote Smart's Research: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position.

==

https://ballotpedia.org/Zoe_Lofgren

Zoe Lofgren (Democrat) is the representative from California's 19th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

Lofgren was first elected to the seat in 2013. She was re-elected in 2018, beating Republican Justin Aguilera in the general election by a result of 74 percent to 26 percent. Lofgren represented California's 16th Congressional District from 1995 to 2013.

From 1994 to 2018, Lofgren captured between 65 and 73.9 percent of the vote at general elections.

Lofgren was a **superdelegate** to the 2016 Democratic National Convention from California. Lofgren supported Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Lofgren is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning she will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.

Career

Below is an abbreviated outline of Lofgren's academic, professional, and political career:[1][2]

• 2013-Present: U.S. Representative from California's 19th Congressional District
• 1995-2013: U.S. Representative from California's 16th Congressional District
• 1981-1994: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
• 1978-1980: Practicedimmigration law as partner of Webber & Lofgren
• 1979: Member, Board of Trustees of San Jose-Evergreen Community College District Board
• 1978: First Executive Director of Community Housing Developers
• 1970-1978: Staff Assistant to her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards
• 1975: Graduated fromSanta Clara University School of Law with J.D.
• 1970: Graduated from Stanford University with B.A.

Committee assignments

U.S. House

2019-2020

At the beginning of the 116th Congress, Lofgren was assigned to the following committees::{[Source]:(style="box-sizing:border-box;position:relative;vertical-align:baseline;top:-0.5em"):}:

• Committee on House Administration Members, Chair
• Committee on :{Judiciary Members:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:
• Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Members

2017-2018

At the beginning of the 115th Congress, Lofgren was assigned to the following committees:[3]

• Committee on House Administration
• Committee on Judiciary
• Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

2015-2016

Lofgren served on the following committees:[4]

• House Administration Committee
• Judiciary Committee

• Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the**Internet**
• Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Ranking member

• Science, Space, and Technology Committee
  • Subcommittee on Space
  • Subcommittee on Oversight

2013-2014

Lofgren served on the following committees:[5]

• United States House Committee on House Administration
• United States House Committee on the Judiciary
  • Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
  • Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member
• United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
  • Subcommittee on Energy
  • Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
• United States Congress Joint Committee on the Library

2011-2012

• House Administration Committee
  • Subcommittee on Oversight, Ranking Member
• Judiciary Committee
  • Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
  • Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet
• Science, Space, and Technology Committee
  • Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
  • Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

Key votes

See also: Key votes

Ballotpedia monitors legislation that receives a vote and highlights the ones that we consider to be key to understanding where elected officials stand on the issues. To read more about how we identify key votes, click here.

Key votes: 115th Congress, 2017-2018

For detailed information about each vote, click here.

• Votes on domestic policy (click to expand)

• Votes on economic affairs and regulations (click to expand)

• Votes on foreign policy and national security issues (click to expand)

Key votes: Previous sessions of Congress

Issues

Presidential preference

2016 presidential endorsement

✓ Lofgren endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democrat primary in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[109]

See also: Endorsements for Hillary Clinton

American response in Syria

See also: United States involvement in Syria

More than 100 House lawmakers signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to call Congress back into session if he planned to use military force in Syria.[110]

Rep. Scott Rigell wrote in the letter in August 2013, “engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”[110][111]

The members of Congress believed that Obama should have asked Congress for permission before engaging in Libya. The letter asked, “If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missles, [sic] 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute ‘hostilities,’ what does?”[111]

The letter stated, “If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict."[111]

A total of 98 Republicans signed the letter. Lofgren was one of 18 Democratic members to sign the letter.[111]

On August 29, 2013, more than 50 House Democrats signed a letter written by California Rep. Barbara Lee that called for a congressional resolution on strikes, and cautioned that the dire situation in Syria "should not draw us into an unwise war—especially without adhering to our constitutional requirements."[111][112] The letter also called on the Obama administration to work with the U.N. Security Council “to build international consensus” condemning the alleged use of chemical weapons. Lofgren was one of the 50 Democrats in the House to sign the letter.[111][112]

Endorsements

Lofgren endorsed Pete Aguilar in California's 31st District Democratic primary in 2014. The 31st District has been a top target for Democrats since Gary Miller (R) won the seat in 2012.[113]

House Judiciary Committee

Lofgren was first appointed to the House Judiciary Committee in 1999 after she was sworn into her third term in Congress.[114] Lofgren has served on the committee continuously to this date.[115][116][117][118][119]

Campaign themes

2012

Lofgren's campaign website listed the following issues:[120]

• Healthcare

Excerpt: "Access to affordable, quality health care is a right all Americans deserve. I have spent my entire career working to make that simple statement a reality."

• Economy

Excerpt: "It is now clear thatsystemic flaws in our economy combined with unscrupulous greed on Wall Street very nearly toppled our entire economy. Even now after the initial storm, millions of Americans struggle to support their families." votesmart 404 http://www.lofgrenforcongress.com/2011/03/economy/

• Education

Excerpt: "I have had the great privilege of serving on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the San Jose Evergreen Community College District Board, and as a member of Congress. As a result, I’ve been part of both the local and national conversation on education."

• Immigration

Excerpt: "As an immigration attorney, I understand the frustrations inherent in dealing with our immigration service agencies. "

• Innovation and Technology

Excerpt: "As a life-long resident of Silicon Valley, I’ve had a front row seat to the birth and expansion of the internet age. The digital world, as it exists today, is a direct result of investments that Americans made decades ago."

Elections

2018

See also: California's 19th Congressional District election, 2018...Based on congressional financial disclosure forms and calculations made available by OpenSecrets.org, Lofgren's net worth as of 2012 was estimated between $856,047 and $2,565,000. That averages to $1,710,523, which is lower than the average net worth of Democratic representatives in 2012 of $5,700,168.36. Lofgren ranked as the 164th most wealthy representative in 2012.[160]Between 2004 and 2012, Lofgren's calculated net worth[161] decreased by an average of 2 percent per year. Between 2004 and 2012, the average annual percentage increase for a member of Congress was 15.4 percent.[162]...

Filings required by the Federal Election Commission report on the industries that give to each candidate. Using campaign filings and information calculated by OpenSecrets.org, Ballotpedia calculated the percentage of donations by industry received by each incumbent over the course of his or her career (or 1989 and later, if elected prior to 1988). Lofgren received the most donations from individuals and PACs employed by the Computers/Internet industry.

From 1993-2014, 35.55 percent of Lofgren's career contributions came from the top five industries as listed below.[165]

Zoe Lofgren Campaign Contributions

Total Raised $6,711,214

Total Spent $5,809,166

Top five industries that contributed to campaign committee

Computers/Internet $982,534

Lawyers/Law Firms $618,808

Retired $277,725

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $262,250

Real Estate $244,654

% total in top industry 14.64%

% total in top two industries 23.86%

% total in top five industries 35.55%

...

National Journal vote ratings

See also: National Journal vote ratings

Each year National Journal publishes an analysis of how liberally or conservatively each member of Congress voted in the previous year. Click the link above for the full ratings of all members of Congress.

2013

Lofgren ranked 99th in the liberal rankings in 2013.[170]

2012

Lofgren ranked 59th in the liberal rankings in 2012.[171]

2011

Lofgren ranked 75th in the liberal rankings in 2011.[172]

Voting with party

The website OpenCongress tracks how often members of Congress vote with the majority of the chamber caucus.

2014

Lofgren voted with the Democratic Party 90 percent of the time, which ranked 158th among the 204 House Democratic members as of July 2014.[173]

2013

Lofgren voted with the Democratic Party 96.3 percent of the time, which ranked 56th among the 201 House Democratic members as of June 2013.[174]

...

Lofgren most often votes with:

Democratic Party Suzanne Bonamici

Republican Party Chris Gibson

Lofgren least often votes with:

Democratic Party Jim Matheson

Republican Party Randy Weber

• Campaign website

• Biographies:
  • U.S. Congress
  • Wikipedia
• Political profiles:
  • GovTrack
  • CongressMerge
  • OpenCongress
  • Project Vote Smart
• Financial (federal level):
  • FEC contributions
  • OpenSecrets.org
  • LegiStorm.com
• Interest group ratings:
  • Project Vote Smart
• Issue positions:
  • On The Issues
  • Project Vote Smart
• Public statements:
  • Project Vote Smart
• Voting record:
  • Project Vote Smart
  • *Washington Post*
• Media appearances:
  • *C-SPAN*
• Media coverage:
  • *Washington Post*

• Facebook page
• Twitter feed
• YouTube channel

Footnotes

Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation [and as part of that process, fully disclosing executive compensation].

Proponents support voting YES because:

We should not deprive the public, the stockholders, from being able to do anything meaningful once they find out about scandalous levels of executive compensation or board compensation. Everyone talks about the corporate board as the remedy. But the board is often a part of the problem, being paid huge amounts of money for showing up once or twice a year at meetings.

Give the stockholders a meaningful remedy. Once you get the mandatory disclosure put in place by previous legislation, we are saying the stockholders should be allowed to have a referendum on that and not have a runaround by the board.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This vote is based on mischaracterization--it is an unnecessary amendment. The opportunity for these kinds of votes already exists within the structure of corporate governance right now. A good company from Georgia, AFLAC, went ahead and already has these nonbinding shareholder votes. But there is a difference between having individuals in the private sector, shareholders and individuals outside of the mandating of government to have it occur and have government come in with its heavy hand and say, this is exactly what you need to do because we know best. Our constituents know better how to act and how to relate to corporations than Washington.

Reference: Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act; Bill H R 1257 ; vote number 2007-244 on Apr 20, 2007

Zoe Lofgren on Budget & Economy

Click here for 15 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy. Voted NO on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached. (May 2013) Voted YES on terminating the Home Affordable mortgage Program. (Mar 2011) Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009) Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009) Voted YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009) Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008) Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008) Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008) Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007) Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004) Increase debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion. (Jul 2011) Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (May 2014) Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

Zoe Lofgren on Civil Rights

Click here for 29 full quotes on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights. Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013) Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007) Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000) Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001) Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002) Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006) Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006) Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008) ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009) Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights. (Jun 2011) Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011) Ratify CEDAW (Discrimination Against Women). (Jan 2011) Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012) Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Apr 2013) Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013) Protect LGBT families from illegal immigrant deportation. (Sep 2011) Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007) Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007) Give domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees. (May 2009) Honor the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. (Jan 2009) Supported legislation on violence against women & safety. (Jul 1999) Supported funding for women's and disadvantaged businesses. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Corporations

Click here for 10 full quotes on Corporations OR**background on Corporations.** Voted NO on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners. (Mar 2013) VotedYES on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Voted YES on allowingstockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004) Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001) Rated26% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003) Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business. (Oct 2011) Rated 100% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012) Reform bankruptcy to protect jobs and retirement. (Jan 2013)

Zoe Lofgren on Crime

Click here for 12 full quotes on Crime OR background on Crime. Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009) Voted YES on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007) Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996) Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995) Rated 68% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000) More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001) Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001) Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance. (Mar 2007) Rated 69% by the NAPO, indicating a moderate stance on police issues. (Dec 2014) Megan's Law: public list of sexually violent offenders. (Jul 1995)

Zoe Lofgren on Drugs

Click here for 9 full quotes on Drugs OR background on Drugs. Voted YES on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001) Rated +20 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance. (Dec 2006) Allow rehabilitated drug convicts get student loans. (Jan 2008) Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws. (Jul 2013) Rated 75% by NORML, indicating a pro-legalization stance. (Jan 2014) Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis. (Jan 2009)

Zoe Lofgren on Education

Zoe Lofgren on Education

Click here for 14 full quotes on Education OR background on Education. Voted NO on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011) Voted YES on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009) Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007) Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006) Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006) Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001) Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001) Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998) Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000) Rated 90% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003) Comprehensive sex ed for sexually-active adolescents. (Feb 2013) Sponsored 10/10 Loan Forgiveness: cancel college loans after 10 years. (Mar 2013) Supported funding for teacher training & other initiatives. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Energy & Oil

Click here for 23 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on **Energy & Oil****.** Voted NO on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011) Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007) Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005) Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004) Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003) Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000) Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001) Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005) Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006) 50% clean and carbon free electricity by 2030. (Mar 2016) Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

Zoe Lofgren on Environment

Click here for 18 full quotes on Environment OR background on**Environment****.** Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009) Voted YES on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009) Voted YES on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008) Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006) Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005) Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) Prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands. (Apr 2001) Rated 100% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003) Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008) Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs. (Feb 2011) Prohibit invasive research on great apes. (Apr 2011) Rated 88% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012) Sponsored tightening restrictions on hydrogen sulfide emissions. (Mar 2013) Require labeling genetically engineered food. (May 2013) Extend to 2023 Superfund hazardous waste cleanup. (Jan 2014) Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Zoe Lofgren on Families & Children

Click here for 10 full quotes on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children. Voted YES on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. (Jun 2009) Voted YES on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001) Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000) Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001) Rated 8% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003) Permanent crime database for volunteers with kids. (Jul 2008) More funding & services for victims of domestic violence. (Jan 2013) Sponsored recognition of National Foster Care Month. (May 2014) Supported funding child care, child health, & child housing. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Foreign Policy

Click here for 18 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy. Voted YES on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009) Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005) Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001) Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000) Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000) Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999) Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000) Member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. (Jan 2001) Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001) Rated +4 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012) Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s. (Mar 2007) Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008) Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, as official US policy. (Mar 2009) Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009) Condemn Iran for state-sponsored persecution of Baha'i. (Feb 2009)

Zoe Lofgren on Free Trade

Click here for 13 full quotes on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade. Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007) Voted YES on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007) Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998) Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000) Rated 53% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002) Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (Jun 2007) $25B more loans from Export-Import Bank. (Feb 2015) Rated 38% by the USAE, indicating support for trade sanctions. (Dec 2012)

Zoe Lofgren on Government Reform

Click here for 26 full quotes on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform. Voted YES on Senate pay raise. (Jun 2009) Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007) Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007) Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006) Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005) Voted NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005) Voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001) Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000) Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005) Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007) Member of House Committee on House Administration. (Mar 2011) Member of House Judiciary Committee. (Mar 2011) Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge. (Nov 2011) Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures. (Feb 2012) Establish 15 days of early voting in all states. (Nov 2012) Full disclosure of campaign spending. (Jan 2013) No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote. (Jun 2014) Establish "My Voice Voucher" small campaign contributions. (Feb 2014) Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers. (Jan 2015) Automatic voter registration for all citizens. (Mar 2015) Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)

Zoe Lofgren on Gun Control

Click here for 9 full quotes on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control. Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000) Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003) Close the Gun Show Loophole; restrict show sales. (May 2009) Ban "fire sale" of firearms after delicensing closure. (Jan 2013) Ban large-capacity ammunition. (Mar 2013) Stricter regulation on gun show firearm sales. (Mar 2013)

Zoe Lofgren on Health Care

Click here for 35 full quotes on Health Care OR background on Health Care. Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund. (Apr 2011) Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009) Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009) Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008) Voted YES on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008) Voted YES on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008) Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007) Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006) Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004) Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003) Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003) Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999) Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999) Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000) Rated 89% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003) Provide mental health services for older Americans. (May 2005) Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007) Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007) Remove restrictions on estriol (menopause medication). (Jun 2008) Require insurers to cover breast cancer treatment. (Jan 2011) Increase funding for occupational & physical therapy. (Apr 2011) Establish a public insurance option via healthcare Exchanges. (Jan 2011) Sponsored merging Alzheimers diagnosis and care benefit. (Apr 2013) Religious exemption from ObamaCare individual mandate. (Feb 2015) Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998) Supported funding women's health needs. (Jul 1999) Supported funding older women's health. (Jul 1999) Supported funding Prenatal and Postpartum Care. (Jul 1999) Supported funding Family and Children's Coverage. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Homeland Security

Click here for 22 full quotes on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security. Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011) Voted YES on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008) Voted YES on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008) Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007) Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007) Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006) Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005) Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005) Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004) Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004) Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003) Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002) Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999) Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003) Include post-traumatic stress disorder in vet's disability. (Feb 2008) Study & address suicides among veterans. (Apr 2008) Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays. (Mar 2010) End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act. (Oct 2013) Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007) Recognize women veterans; assist military families. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Immigration

Click here for 10 full quotes on Immigration OR background on Immigration. Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001) Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003) Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006) Sponsored allowing more visas for STEM college graduates. (Sep 2012) Provide lawyers and evidence for children being deported. (Feb 2016) Let illegal alien children attend school. (Mar 2009)

Zoe Lofgren on Jobs

Zoe Lofgren on Jobs

Click here for 16 full quotes on Jobs OR background on Jobs. Voted NO on allowing compensatory time off for working overtime. (Apr 2013) Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008) Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004) Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001) Rated 87% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003) Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006) Form unions by card-check instead of secret ballot. (Mar 2009) Rated 0% by CEI, indicating a pro-worker rights voting record. (May 2012) Raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2016. (Mar 2013) Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008) Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009) Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Zoe Lofgren on Principles & Values
Click here for 4 full quotes on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values. Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism. (Aug 2000) Member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. (Jul 2001) Member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus . (Jan 2001) Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2007)

Zoe Lofgren on Social Security

Click here for 10 full quotes on Social Security OR background on Social Security. Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001) Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000) Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000) Changing Social Security disproportionately affects women. (May 2001) Rated 89% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003) Reject privatization; don't raise the retirement age. (Aug 2010) Sponsored keeping CPI for benefits instead of lower "Chained CPI". (May 2013) Rated 98% by ARA, indicating a pro-Trust Fund stance. (Jan 2013) Supported pension reform and tax credits for long-term care. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Tax Reform

Click here for 15 full quotes on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform. Voted YES on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007) Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004) Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001) Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001) Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001) Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000) Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000) Rated 28% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003) Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006) Tax incentives for child care; eliminate marriage penalty. (Jul 1999) Tax incentives for education, new schools, & families. (Jul 1999)

Zoe Lofgren on Technology

Zoe Lofgren on Technology

Click here for 20 full quotes on Technology OR background on Technology. Voted NO on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government. (Apr 2013) Voted NO on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011) Voted YES on delaying digital TV conversion by four months. (Mar 2009) Voted NO on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007) Voted YES on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006) Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005) Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004) Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003) Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002) Chief information officer to digitize federal government. (Aug 2000) Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus. (Jan 2001) Fund nanotechnology research & development. (Dec 2003) Require text on TV for visually-impaired viewers. (Apr 2005) Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007) Permanent ban on state & local taxation of Internet access. (Oct 2007) Member of House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. (Mar 2011) Stop foreign internet piracy of copyrighted materials. (Jan 2012) Sponsored investing $1 billion in transportation projects. (Mar 2013) Create online database of science & math scholarships. (Dec 2007)

Zoe Lofgren on War & Peace

Click here for 14 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace. Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011) Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008) Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999) Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001) Wage war on Terrorism, not on fellow Americans. (Sep 2001) Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011) Terminate funding for Iraq War on Dec. 31, 2011. (Aug 2011) Defund US military presence in Afghanistan. (Jan 2013) Intervene in Iraq to protect persecuted Christians. (Jul 2014) Work with Iraqi government to fight ISIL. (Aug 2014)

Zoe Lofgren on Welfare & Poverty

Click here for 9 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty. Voted NO on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients. (Mar 2013) Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009) Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003) Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001) Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000) Grants for faith-based groups to teach English. (Apr 2011) Sponsored maintaining SNAP nutrition assistance program. (Mar 2013) Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007)

no lnx

zoe519

==

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/zoe-lofgren

2018

97 /91% lifetime

LCV scores: Lifetime, 92%; 2014, 97%.

2015428Forest ManagementLands/Forests

2018328Attack on Public ProtectionsClean Air

-

Climate Scores: Given a 'B-' rating (down from an 'A' rating in 2013) on climate issues; from 2000 onward voted 33 of 39 times in favor of climate. http://climatescores.com/index.php#

--Opposes Keystone XL Pipe Position on Jobs/Economy/National Debt --U.S. Chamber of Commerce Lifetime (2013) score of 32%

--National Association of Manufacturers Lifetime (2013) score of 11%.

--2009 voted for HR 2454 (Waxman/Markey)

--Long history of extremely high ratings by LCV

==

2/19

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00007479

Top 20 contributors to Campaign Committee & Leadership PAC Combined Download .csv file

Top: 20

Rank Contributor Total Individuals PACs

1 Fragomen, Del Rey et al $114,470 $109,070 $5,400

2 Alphabet Inc $78,450 $58,450 $20,000

3 Cisco Systems $65,850 $54,350 $11,500

4 Butler Amusements $40,500 $40,500 $0

5 Kleiner, Perkins et al $39,100 $39,100 $0

6 Intuit Inc $32,550 $22,550 $10,000

7 Fenwick & West $32,050 $32,050 $0

8 Seagate Technology $31,425 $31,425 $0

9 Deloitte LLP $24,250 $4,250 $20,000

10 Alloy Ventures $21,425 $21,425 $0

11 Marcus & Millichap $20,800 $20,800 $0

12 PricewaterhouseCoopers $20,000 $0 $20,000

12 Ernst & Young $20,000 $0 $20,000

14 Alexander Law Group $17,050 $17,050 $0

15 KPMG LLP $17,000 $0 $17,000

16 Microsoft Corp $16,800 $11,800 $5,000

16 Charles & Nancy Geschke Foundation $16,800 $16,800 $0

18 Skadden, Arps et al $16,500 $16,500 $0

19 ME Fox & Co $16,100 $16,100 $0

20 Facebook Inc $15,650 $5,650 $10,00

Campaign Committee & Leadership PAC Combined Fundraising, 2017 - 2018LAST REPORT: 12/31/2018

Raised:

$2,242,024

Spent:

$2,384,418

Cash on hand:

$1,140,372

Debts:

$0

Top Contributors, 2017 - 2018

Contributor Total Individuals PACs

Fragomen, Del Rey et al $114,470 $109,070 $5,400

Alphabet Inc $78,450 $58,450 $20,000

Cisco Systems $65,850 $54,350 $11,500

Butler Amusements $40,500 $40,500 $0

Kleiner, Perkins et al $39,100 $39,100 $0

Top Industries, 2017 - 2018

Industry Total Individuals PACs

Lawyers/Law Firms $297,512 $271,612 $25,900

Electronics Mfg & Equip $269,755 $193,350 $76,405

Retired $196,012 $196,012 $0

Securities & Investment $171,480 $165,480 $6,000

Internet $147,050 $95,550 $51,500

Industry Favorite

Zoe Lofgren is a top recipient from the following industries in the 2017 - 2018 election cycle:

Recreation (#3)

Electronics Mfg/Eqp (#4)

Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Committee & Leadership PAC Combined Download .csv file

Top: 20

Industry Total Individuals PACs

Lawyers/Law Firms $297,512 $271,612 $25,900

Electronics Mfg & Equip $269,755 $193,350 $76,405

Retired $196,012 $196,012 $0

Securities & Investment $171,480 $165,480 $6,000

Internet $147,050 $95,550 $51,500

Accountants $91,930 $4,930 $87,000

Real Estate $69,236 $60,236 $9,000

Recreation/Live Entertainment $64,100 $49,100 $15,000

Non-Profit Institutions $55,000 $55,000 $0

TV/Movies/Music $37,296 $19,296 $18,000

Democratic/Liberal $32,447 $31,247 $1,200

Lobbyists $30,300 $29,300 $1,000

Education $30,271 $30,271 $0

Beer, Wine & Liquor $30,080 $19,580 $10,500

Health Professionals $27,286 $3,786 $23,500

Business Services $26,432 $25,432 $1,000

Civil Servants/Public Officials $25,203 $25,203 $0

Human Rights $25,050 $20,550 $4,500

Building Trade Unions $25,000 $0 $25,000

Industrial Unions $24,700 $0 $24,700

Sector Totals

no graph]

abcdefhiklmnopqrstuvwxyz

abcdefhiklmnopqrstuvwxyz

$-130K

$0

$130K

$260K

$390K

$520K

Agribusiness

Communications/Electronics

Construction

Defense

Energy & Natural Resources

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate

Health

Lawyers & Lobbyists

Transportation

Misc Business

Labor

Ideological/Single-Issue

Other

Sector Total Individuals PACs

Agribusiness $39,750 $6,100 $33,650

Communications/Electronics $474,831 $320,426 $154,405

Construction $9,713 $4,013 $5,700

Defense $5,500 $0 $5,500

Energy & Natural Resources $27,237 $17,737 $9,500

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $373,004 $261,754 $111,250

Health $45,448 $10,448 $35,000

Lawyers & Lobbyists $327,812 $300,912 $26,900

Transportation $22,407 $12,951 $9,456

Misc Business $152,113 $110,113 $42,000

Labor $69,250 $2,050 $67,200

Ideological/Single-Issue $117,172 $82,472 $34,700

Other $312,821 $313,321 -$500

Percent of Contributions Categorized

==

In the wake of the prosecution and subsequent suicide of Aaron Swartz, lawmakers have proposed to amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Representative Zoe Lofgren has drafted a bill that would help "prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users".[40] Aaron's Law (H.R. 2454, S. 1196[41]) would exclude terms of service violations from the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and from the wire fraud statute, despite the fact that Swartz was not prosecuted based on Terms of Service violations.[42]

In addition to Lofgren, Representative Darrell Issa and Representative Jared Polis—all on the House Judiciary Committee, raised questions about the government's handling of the case. Polis called the charges "ridiculous and trumped up," while referring to Swartz as a "martyr."[43] Issa, also chair of the House Oversight Committee, announced that he is investigating the actions of the Justice Department's prosecution.[43][44]

As of May 2014, Aaron's Law was stalled in committee, reportedly due to tech company Oracle's financial interests.[45]

==

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1918

introduced :  H.R.1918 - Aaron's Law Act of 2015

114th Congress (2015-2016)

BILLHide Overview icon-hide

Sponsor: Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19] (Introduced 04/21/2015)

Committees: House - Judiciary

Latest Action: 05/15/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.  (All Actions)

co-sponsor:

Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5]* 04/21/2015

Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2]* 04/21/2015

Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3]* 04/21/2015

Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-14]* 04/21/2015

Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]* 04/21/2015

==

2017

Definition – What does Aaron’s Law mean?

Aaron’s Law is pending legislation introduced in response to the death of Aaron Swartz, a respected and celebrated political activist, computer programmer and entrepreneur who founded Demand Progress and co-founded Reddit. Swartz died January 11, 2013, at the age of 26.

Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Aaron’s Law would amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and wire fraud statute. In 2010, Swartz was charged with 13 felony wire fraud and hacking charges based on these laws. If Swartz had been convicted, he may have been forced to pay a large fine or have received a prison sentence of up to 35 years.

U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced bipartisan legislation in 2015 to better target serious criminals and curb overzealous prosecutions for non-malicious computer and Internet offenses.

Cosponsors of the legislation also include U.S. Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.).

“Violating a smartphone app’s terms of service or sharing academic articles should not be punished more harshly than a government agency hacking into Senate files,” Wyden said. “The CFAA is so inconsistently and capriciously applied it results in misguided, heavy-handed prosecution. Aaron’s Law would curb this abuse while still preserving the tools needed to prosecute malicious attacks.”

“The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is long overdue for reform,” said Lofgren. “At its very core, CFAA is an anti-hacking law. Unfortunately, over time we have seen prosecutors broadening the intent of the act, handing out inordinately severe criminal penalties for less-than-serious violations. It’s time we reformed this law to better focus on truly malicious hackers and bad actors, and away from common computer and Internet activities.”

“I am proud to join Sen. Wyden and Rep. Lofgren today in offering this bipartisan and bicameral legislation which will amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Aaron’s Law will reduce overbroad prosecutions and adjust unfair sentencing practices,” Paul said.

Aaron’s Law would address fundamental problems with the CFAA by:

Establishing that breaches of terms of service, employment agreements, or contracts are not automatic violations of the CFAA. By using legislative language based closely on 9th and 4th Circuit Court opinions, the bill would instead define ‘access without authorization’ under the CFAA as gaining unauthorized access to information by circumventing technological or physical controls — such as password requirements, encryption or locked office doors. Hack attacks such as phishing, injection of malware or keystroke loggers, denial-of-service attacks, and viruses would continue to be fully prosecutable under the strong CFAA provisions this bill does not modify.

Bringing balance back to the CFAA by eliminating a redundant provision that enables an individual to be punished multiple times through duplicate charges for the same violation. Eliminating the redundant provision streamlines the law, but would not create a gap in protection against hackers.

Bringing greater proportionality to CFAA penalties. Currently, the CFAA’s penalties are tiered, and prosecutors have wide discretion to ratchet up the severity of the penalties in several circumstances, leaving little room for nonfelony charges under CFAA (i.e., charges with penalties carrying less than a year in prison). The bill ensures prosecutors cannot seek to inflate sentences by stacking multiple charges under the CFAA, including state law equivalents or non-criminal violations of the law.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THAT ‘‘ACCESS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION’’ UNDER SECTION 1030 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, MEANS CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS IN ORDER TO GAIN UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS.

a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1030(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by—...

==

Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat, has represented the 16th District of California in the U. S. House of Representatives since 1995. (map)

1 Record and controversies

1.1 Iraq War

1.2 Environmental record

1.3 Support for gun control

1.4 Orphan works legislation

2 Biography

2.1 2006 elections

2.1.1 2008 elections

3 Committees and Affiliations

3.1 Committees

3.1.1 Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

3.1.2 Affiliations

4 More Background Data

5 Contact

6 Articles and resources

6.1 Sources

6.2 Resources

6.2.1 Local blogs and discussion sites

Record and controversies

Iraq War

Lofgren voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.[1]

For more information see the chart of U.S. House of Representatives votes on the Iraq War.

Environmental record

For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal

Support for gun control

Lofgren cosponsored H.R 1022 (Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2007) on March 15, 2007.[2]

Main article: U.S. gun legislation

Orphan works legislation

Rep. Lofgren introduced the Public Domain Enhancement Act of 2003 (H.R. 2601) in the 108th Congress.[3]

The bill would have “required the Register of Copyrights to charge a fee of $1 for maintaining in force the copyright in any published U.S. work. The bill would have required the fee to be due fifty years after the date of first publication or on December 31, 2006, whichever occurred later, and every ten years thereafter until the end of the copyright term." [4]

The bill was originally introduced on June 25, 2003. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and then the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, which were chaired by Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas), respectively. The bill received no hearing or other action. [5]

Main article: orphan works legislation

Biography

Lofgren was born Sue Lofgren on December 21, 1947. A lifelong San Francisco Bay Area resident, Lofgren attended Gunn High School in Palo Alto, earned her BA at Stanford University and a law degree at Santa Clara University. She stayed in the San Jose area after graduation, serving eight years as a staff assistant to Congressman Don Edwards. After two years as partner at a law practice in San Jose, she was elected to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and served for 13 years.

In 1994, Edwards decided to retire after 32 years in Congress, and Lofgren won the Democratic nomination for the seat. San Jose is so heavily Democratic that her victory was inevitable. Lofgren was only the second representative of the 16th District (Edwards had served since the district's creation in 1963).

2006 elections

In 2006, the Republicans nominated Charel Winston to face Lofgren in her November 2006 bid for reelection. (See U.S. congressional elections in 2006) [1] Lofgren retained her seat.

2008 elections

Before Hillary Clinton conceded the race, Zoe Lofgren, as a superdelegate, had endorsed Barack Obama for President.

For more information and sources, see the state page for this superdelegate linked to in the blue box above.

Committees and Affiliations

Committees

House Committee on Homeland Security

Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterroris

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology

House Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims -Ranking

House Committee on House Administration

Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

House Committee on Homeland Security

Subcommittee on Economic Security Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity

Subcommittee on Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment - Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee Management Integration and Oversight

House Committee on House Administration

House Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Task Force on Antirust

Subcommittee on Courts the Internet and Intellectual Property

Subcommittee on Immigration Border Security and Claims

Joint Committee on the Library of Congress

Affiliations

National Advisory Board, Roosevelt Institution [6]

More Background Data

Wikipedia also has an article on Zoe Lofgren.

==

Beginning in 2009, Lofgren served as chair of the House Ethics Committee. In doing so, she presided over a rare sanction of censure, against long-time member Charles B. Rangel.[11]

In the Stop Online Piracy Act House Judiciary Committee hearings, she defended the current state of the internet in opposition of the bill. She has also opposed the data retention requirements in the H.R. 1981 (theProtecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011).[12]

In February 2013, Lofgren became one of the sponsors of the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act to expedite open access to taxpayer-funded research.[13]

Committee assignments[edit]

United States House Committee on House Administration

Subcommittee on Oversight (Ranking Member)

United States House Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement (Ranking Member)

United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

Caucuses[edit]

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (Associate Member)

==

635 North 1st Street, Suite B

San Jose, CA 95112

Phone (408) 271-8700

https://lofgren.house.gov/

Chief of Staff: Stacey Leavandosky Since Q3 '09

Scheduler: Sabrina Kirkwood Q3 '09 and Q3 '15

Lauren A Mylott

Current Staffer

House

DC Scheduler

Lauren A Mylott

Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Democrat, California

Since Q2 '15

Legis. Dir.: None

Comm. Dir.: Peter Whippy  Since Q2 '10

Financial Services LA: ZJ Hull

Foreign Policy LA: Antigona Kukaj

Education LA: Angela Ebiner https://www.linkedin.com/in/angelaebiner?trk=pub-pbmap

Arlet E Abrahamian, George Z Hull

Legislative Counsel

http://congressional-staff.insidegov.com/l/35085/Stacey-E-Leavandosky

Sandra E Soto

District Chief of Staff

Sandra E Soto

Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Democrat, California

Since Q3 '09

Kathy K Truong

Current Staffer

House

District Scheduler/Congressional Assistant

Kathy K Truong

Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Democrat, California

Since Q1 '15

Martin Radosevich

Current Staffer

House

Senior Policy Advisor

Since Q1 '15

https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-radosevich-2bb63a7b

Energy Independence

Zoe knows that when it comes to energy policy, it is time to move away from the failed policies of the past to a new direction where protecting the environment and powering our society spur new U.S. industries that grow our economy. With an ever growing demand for energy in our modern industrialized era, she believes America needs to lead the world in the development of new, clean and sustainable power sources.

As a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Zoe is working to put our country on a path to energy independence. She is a strong advocate for long-term policies that invest in energy efficiency, clean renewable energy, and research into the next generation of innovative power source technologies.

Click here to learn more about Zoe's thoughts and latest work on Energy Independence.

Protecting our Environment

From an early age when Zoe spent time with her family outdoors in California's many parks and natural places, she developed the belief that we all have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment. Throughout her public service, Zoe has worked to protect the environment and strived to ensure we have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Zoe has also long believed that protecting the environment and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, Zoe believes American "know how" and innovation will lead the way in addressing the challenges we face from climate change. With this in mind, the efforts of Silicon Valley innovators and engineers will continue to play a key role in pioneering the new technologies that will help protect our environment.

To that end, Zoe is committed to working with her colleagues in Congress to find solutions ensuring a clean and healthy environment capable of nurturing and supporting our families and future generations.

Click here to learn more about Zoe's thoughts and latest work on Protecting our Environment.

==

official www capt 4/17

President Declares Major Disaster in California following February Storms and Flooding

Posted in Press Releases on April 4, 2017 | Preview rr

Tags: Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, DC – On April 1, President Donald Trump issued a Major Disaster Declaration for the State of California. The declaration, granted in response to a request from California Governor Jerry Brown and supported by California’s Congressional Delegation, led by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), triggers the release of federal funds to help communities affected by the winter storms. “I’m glad to see the federal government respond to Governor Brown’s request for assistance,” said Lofgren, C... Read more

Lofgren and Honda Announce $2 million for Santa Clara County Endangered Species Habitat Protection

Posted in Press Releases on September 21, 2016 | Preview rr

Tags: Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan will receive $2,000,000 in federal funding for endangered species habitat acquisition, announced U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) and Mike Honda (D-Silicon Valley) today. The grant, a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, will support the acquisition of up to 3,286 acres in Santa Clara County to protect key habitat for federal endangered species such as the bay checkerspot butte... Read more

Honda, Eshoo & Lofgren Announce $2.46 Million for Zero-Emission Transit

Posted in Press Releases on August 8, 2016 | Preview rr

Tags: Innovation and Technology, Energy and Environment

SANTA CLARA, CA – Nearly $2.5 million in federal funding was awarded to Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) to purchase electric zero-emissions buses and related infrastructure. The federal grant was announced today by U.S. Reps. Mike Honda (D-Silicon Valley), Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) and Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). The grant of $2,458,305 – competitively awarded under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Low or No Emission Bus and Bus Facilities program – will be used to purchase bat... Read more

Lofgren and Matsui Introduce Legislation to Increase Investment in Clean Energy Technologies

Posted in Press Releases on December 2, 2015 | Preview rr

Tags: Growing a Strong Economy, Innovation and Technology, Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As high-stake negotiations to reach a new global climate accord unfold in Paris, U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D- Calif.) and Doris Matsui (D- Calif.) introduced legislation today to spur American investment in clean energy projects, create jobs, support the rapidly growing field of clean energy technologies needed to combat climate change, and help the U.S. achieve energy security. Modeled after the enormously successful victory bonds of World War II, the Clean Energy Victory Bonds... Read more

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Applauds $4 million in Federal Funding for South Bay Water Reclamation & Reuse Program

Posted in Press Releases on May 15, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Energy and Environment

SAN JOSE, CA – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-19) announced today that the City of San José will receive $4 million in federal funding for the South Bay Water Recycling Program. The funding will go towards construction of infrastructure improvements expanding the water recycling program, including more than 20 miles of recycled water pipeline, two 2.75 million gallon storage reservoirs, and reliability improvements at the transmission pump station. Recycled water from the project is used for multiple pu... Read more

Reps. Lofgren, Massie, Eshoo & Woodall Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Bring Electric Car Recharging Stations to Federal Facilities

Posted in Press Releases on May 9, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Reps. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Thomas Massie (KY-4), Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18), and Rob Woodall (GA-7) introduced bipartisan legislation today that would allow federal agencies to construct power charging stations for employees with electric vehicles at no cost to the taxpayer. The EV-COMUTE Act (Electric Vehicle Charging Offers Modern Utility Terminals for Employees Act) is modeled after an initiative at the U.S. Capitol that has proven successful for commuters with electric cars to ... Read more

Reps. Lofgren and Swalwell Applaud Armed Services Committee Support for Fusion Research Facilities

Posted in Press Releases on May 7, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Innovation and Technology, Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representatives Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) and Eric Swalwell (CA-15) applauded a decision by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) to remove a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would cut funding and reduce academic access to the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratories. An amendment to restore access and funding was led by HASC members Representatives Lorett... Read more

Reps. Lofgren and Matsui Introduce Legislation to Increase Investment in Clean Energy Technologies

Posted in Press Releases on April 8, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Growing a Strong Economy, Innovation and Technology, Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Reps. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) and Doris Matsui (CA-06) introduced the Clean Energy Victory Bonds Act today, legislation allowing Americans to invest in clean energy technologies and projects around the country that will create jobs and spur the rapidly growing field of clean energy technologies that will be needed to increase U.S. energy security. Patterned after the enormously successful victory bonds sold during World War II, Clean Energy Victory Bonds would allow Americans acro... Read more

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Urges her Colleagues to Support Groundbreaking U.S. Fusion Research Efforts Now Facing Cuts in President's Budget

Posted in Press Releases on March 25, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Innovation and Technology, Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-19), a senior member of the House Science Committee and a long time supporter of robust U.S scientific research, testified before the House Budget Committee on March 25, 2014, advocating for fully funding U.S. fusion research. Rep. Lofgren noted that despite the groundbreaking progress fusion research experiments at facilities like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) made this summer, those same research initiatives are now facing budget cuts in the Pre... Read more

16 Members of the CA Democratic Congressional Delegation Urge Gov. Jerry Brown to Seek Drought Relief under the Recently Passed Omnibus Bill

Posted in Press Releases on January 16, 2014 | Preview rr

Tags: Energy and Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sixteen members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation (CDCD), chaired by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), released the following letter today urging Governor Jerry Brown to seek assistance and relief for the state’s drought offered under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, more commonly known as the Omnibus Bill. The following is the full text of the letter which can also be viewed by clicking here: January 16, 2014 The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor... Read more

D.C. - Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-19), a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee representing part of Silicon Valley, spoke on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on her opposition to H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act (video is also availablehere):

https://www.opensecrets.org/

1993 - 2014 Total Receipts: $7,078,394

1993 - 2014 Total Spent: $6,035,211

Debts: $0

Last Report: Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Top 5 Contributors, 1993 - 2014

Contributor Total Indivs PACs

American Assn for Justice $97,000 $0 $97,000

Cisco Systems $91,732 $52,232 $39,500

Google Inc $88,300 $50,300 $38,000

National Venture Capital Assn $81,500 $0 $81,500

Intuit Inc $79,500 $68,700 $10,800

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 1993 - 2014

Industry Total Indivs PACs

Computers/Internet $1,055,634 $555,302 $500,332

Lawyers/Law Firms $636,508 $435,765 $200,743

Retired $302,525 $302,525 $0

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $272,950 $21,200 $251,750

Real Estate $260,604 $180,404 $80,200

...view more data

Source of Funds

legend Individual Contributions $3,660,137 (52%)

legend PAC Contributions $3,267,599 (46%)

legend Candidate self-financing $17,693 (0%)

legend Other $132,965 (2%)

==

==

American Assn for Justice $97,000 $0 $97,000

Cisco Systems $91,732 $52,232 $39,500

Google Inc $88,300 $50,300 $38,000

National Venture Capital Assn $81,500 $0 $81,500

Intuit Inc $79,500 $68,700 $10,800

National Assn of Realtors $76,500 $0 $76,500

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $66,200 $0 $66,200

Fragomen, Del Rey et al $65,253 $48,350 $16,903

American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $62,000 $0 $62,000

Oracle Corp $56,600 $21,600 $35,000

National Assn of Letter Carriers $54,850 $0 $54,850

Deloitte LLP $54,600 $9,600 $45,000

Laborers Union $53,000 $0 $53,000

Service Employees International Union $49,490 $490 $49,000

eBay Inc $46,853 $8,100 $38,753

Stanford University $45,950 $45,950 $0

Microsoft Corp $45,000 $5,000 $40,000

Roche Holdings $44,500 $0 $44,500

Marcus & Millichap $43,400 $43,400 $0

Adobe Systems $41,750 $41,750 $0

==

==