presents
Voter’s Edge Illinois
Get the facts before you vote.
We depend on your support.
Text VOTE to 52000 to donate $10.
Brought to you by
MapLight
November 8, 2016 — Illinois General Election
We depend on your support.
Share your knowledge

Text VOTE to 52000 to donate $10.

Do you feel better informed having used Voter's Edge?

Help us inform other voters.

United States

U.S. House of RepresentativesCandidate for District 10

Photo of Brad Schneider

Brad Schneider

Democratic
Businessperson
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter's Edge.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • Create long-term opportunities for an expanding middle-class by growing our economy, lowering the cost of healthcare, making college an affordable aspiration for all families and protecting Medicare and Social Security.
  • Ensure the safety of our communities by taking on the gun lobby to finally pass commonsense legislation to reduce gun violence, while also addressing the underlying issues of education, economic opportunity, and treatment of mental health.
  • Fix our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform that frees people from living in the shadows of fear of deportation to be able to pursue higher education, buy homes, start businesses and expand our economy.

Experience

Experience

Profession:Businessperson
Representative, U.S. House of Representatives — Elected position (2013–2015)

Education

Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University MBA (1988)
Northwestern University BS, Industrial Engineering (1983)

Biography

From 2013-2015, Brad represented the 10th District of Illinois in the 113th Congress. In Congress and at home, Brad has focused on strengthening the middle class, rebuilding a vibrant economy and breaking through partisan gridlock to help move our country forward. Brad led on job creation efforts through his service on the House Committee on Small Business. And, as a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Brad strongly advocated for robust, sensible and engaged foreign policy, including a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.

Brad is committed to core Democratic values. In Congress, he proudly fought to protect the Affordable Care Act, Social Security and Medicare, a woman’s right to choose, a healthy, sustainable environment, and full equality for the LGBT community.

Before serving in Congress, Brad had a career in business that spanned more than two decades. He primarily worked as a management consultant helping family owned businesses with strategic planning and succession management. Brad also owned and managed a life insurance agency from 1997-2003.

Brad has deep roots and a long record of dedicated service in and for the community. Among his many commitments, he has been very active with the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, as well as serving on the board of American Jewish Committee. For four years, Brad served as the chair of the Chicago Alliance of Latinos and Jews. He is also a President’s Circle member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and a former board member of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest.

Brad earned his bachelor’s degree in Industrial Engineering from Northwestern University in 1983 and his MBA from Northwestern in 1988. He lived in Israel for a year after completing his undergraduate studies in 1983.

Brad and his wife, Julie, have lived in Deerfield for almost 25 years, where they have created a home, built their careers and raised two sons, Adam (22) and Daniel (21).

Among Brad’s favorite pastimes was coaching his sons’ baseball and soccer teams for over 12 years. When Brad isn’t on the campaign trail, he loves to be on the bike trails throughout the district.

Questions & Answers

Questions from Chicago Sun-Times (18)

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

The first difference between me and my opponent relates to the very first vote we will take in the new session of Congress. Mr. Dold will most certainly vote for Paul Ryan to continue as Speaker of the House, and thereby continue the same course of the past 6 years – seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act, roll back women’s rights, block efforts to move forward on any gun safety legislation or bring any type of immigration reform to a vote.  I will vote for a Democratic Speaker who will support the ACA, protect women’s rights and all civil rights, pass commonsense gun safety legislation and finally address comprehensive immigration reform.

Beyond that first vote for Speaker, our differences are reflected in our priorities and approaches for addressing the issues and opportunities facing our district and our nation. Mr. Dold has consistently voted for the Ryan Budget that represents more of the same “trickle-down” economic philosophy that contributes to the income disparity we see so starkly throughout the country.  Instead, I believe we should focus on growing our economy from the middle-out, working to rebuild our middle class by investing in infrastructure, promoting quality education for all students, and helping up those who still fall through the cracks.

I am committed to creating an economy that works for every American and every community, keeping the promises we’ve made to our seniors and ensuring the next generation has the opportunity for a quality education. 

 

Congress has declined to formally authorize America’s undeclared war against ISIS. Should Congress take a vote to authorize the use of military force against ISIS?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

Yes, Congress should take a vote. As outlined in our Constitution, Congress has a critically important responsibility to authorize our nation’s use of military force. Our current campaign against ISIS is authorized under a law passed in September 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is appropriate to update the Congressional authorization of our current military engagements with a new AUMF.

In 2013, I attended a Gold Star ceremony at College of Lake County during my first Memorial Day as a member of Congress. Watching the families of our fallen veterans, I remember physically feeling the weight on my shoulders of decisions expected of Congress on whether and when to authorize military force. This responsibility has taken on a new level of importance to me as the father of a young Navy officer and as I seek to represent a district that includes Naval Station Great Lakes through which every Navy recruit will pass.

Our men and women serving in all the armed forces deserve an open and vibrant discussion on the mission and scope of our role in defeating ISIS.

 

More generally, what should Congress do to reduce the threat of ISIS abroad and at home? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

The terrorist organization ISIS represents a clear and present danger to American national security, both directly to American interests and as a destabilizing force in an important region. To fully address the risks, I believe we must (1) defeat ISIS at its roots in Syria and Iraq; (2) identify, disrupt and dismantle ISIS satellite and allied groups in places like Libya, Sinai, Indonesia and anywhere else they appear; (3) track and prevent the flow of radicalized fighters and terrorists from Syria to other nations, including the United States; and (4) counter ISIS efforts to radicalize “homegrown” terrorists through social media and other means.

In Congress, I voted to give our military the funding and authority it needs to help contain ISIS and ultimately eliminate the threat they pose. I believe that the United States must work with our international partners, and in particular our allies in the region, to stop the spread of this dangerous threat. This can only be done through our ongoing partnership to strengthen the Iraqi military and supporting a secure and democratic region. I also remain resolute in my belief that the U.S. engagement in Iraq and Syria must not involve combat troops on the ground. The ultimate defeat of ISIS, and the distorted ideology, will only come when the people living under the thumb of their oppression are able to rise up and take back their homes and their communities.

 

Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Do you support such action? What restrictions, if any, do you support on the admission of Muslims into the United States? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

While we must always be diligent in keeping all individuals seeking to do us harm from entering our borders, we should never ban any specific religious or ethnic group as a whole, and I would vigorously oppose any effort to do so. 

There are commonsense steps we can and should take to ensure that we are properly screening people entering this country, including social media screening of visa applicants. I would also support additional funding to ensure that our government has the resources needed to conduct robust, diligent screenings in a timely fashion. 

Donald Trump’s plan to ban all Muslims from entering into the United States will not only make us more enemies around the world, it goes against the very fabric of who we are as a nation. I’ve been dismayed that Donald Trump and others have focused on fear mongering and political expediency rather than discussing options that would keep our country safer and more secure. 

 

The United States’ nuclear deal with Iran turned one year old on July 14, 2016. Should the deal be maintained as it is, revised or scrapped completely? What is right or wrong with the Iran deal? And should the next president feel bound by it?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I was critical of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Deal) negotiated by the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia and Germany, because I believe that the deal as structured left gaps that would make it hard to enforce and included risks of further destabilizing an already chaotic region. I carefully studied the deal, spoke with former colleagues in Congress, and sought counsel from numerous and diverse experts. I also shared my concerns directly with Administration officials. In an op-ed in August of last year, I publicly stated I could not support the deal until the Administration, working with Congress and our European allies, took concrete steps to close the gaps and reduce the risks.

By September of last year, however, the deal as originally drafted went into force.  In the months since then, Iran has taken the required steps outlined by the JCPOA and on January 16th of this year received the extensive sanctions relief defined in the agreement.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Iran has also continued its nefarious activities at home, in the Persian Gulf, and around the world.  Activities not specifically addressed by the agreement, including, but not limited to, testing ballistic missiles that would be able to carry a nuclear warhead, continuing its support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, sending arms and troops to the wars in Syria and Yemen, and expanding its human rights violations and oppression of its own people all need to be addressed. 

I remain absolutely committed to continuing and rededicating ourselves to the policy of preventing Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, not just over the 15 years covered by the JCPOA but forever. While my concerns about the deal remain, now that it is in force, I believe we must rigorously enforce the deal to the letter and without limits. I also think we must aggressively address Iran's actions outside the framework of the JCPOA, not just articulating but demonstrating that the United States, irrespective of who is our President, will do everything in its power to contain Iran and pursue stability in the region.

Furthermore, I believe that those who call for the United States to unilaterally walk away from the JCPOA either don't understand the ramifications of such action, or worse, are using the security of the region, and in particular the security of Israel, as a partisan wedge issue. Unilaterally walking away from the agreement would leave Iran with all the benefits of sanctions relief without any of the agreed to constraints on their nuclear program. It would also isolate the United States at a time when U.S. leadership in the region and around the world is more important than ever.

 

Should the United States build a physical wall along our nation’s entire border with Mexico? Should a “path to citizenship” be created for the millions of people already living here without proper documentation? Would you support legislation to prevent the deportations of so-called “Dreamers” — youth who came to the U.S. illegally as small children with their parents?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

No to the wall; yes to a “path to citizenship;” yes to supporting our “Dreamers.”   

Since our nation’s founding, immigrants have comprised an important component of the American social fabric. Immigrants provide the diversity, energy and wealth of knowledge that helped make America the dynamic and prosperous nation that we are today. Unfortunately, our current immigration system is broken and holding back our economic potential. Deficiencies in the legal immigration process coupled with imperfect border security have resulted in an unprecedented amount of illegal immigration. There are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living within our borders, functioning in a shadow economy that disregards their personal integrity and disadvantages all American workers.  

It is essential that we enact comprehensive immigration reform. When I served in the House, I helped introduce a such a bill and worked to convince Speaker Boehner to bring that bill up for a vote by the full House of Representatives. 

In fact, I have consistently called for an immediate vote in the House on this bill, which I am confident, would pass overwhelmingly. This legislation would reform our nation’s broken immigration system in a bipartisan and comprehensive way. It would strengthen border security, increase visas for skilled workers and provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country.  Importantly, it would take care of our “Dreamers,” the young people who want so badly to be a full part of our nation’s future.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, comprehensive immigration reform would grow our economy and it would lower our debt.

It’s disappointing that rather than work to secure the border or fix our broken immigration system, too many in Congress continue to play politics and refuse to move forward on immigration reform.

As for Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall and deport millions, it is not only unachievable, it represents the worst of politics. Donald Trump’s rhetoric is mean spirited, hurtful and dangerous.  

We are stronger as a nation when we reject the politics of exclusion and allow people of all nationalities, faiths, races and creeds to join in and enrich our national life.

I do believe that we need to continuously work to improve and enhance our border security, including our airports and seaports.  We can do this without militarizing our borders or our vibrant border communities.  That’s why when I was in Congress I supported the bi-partisan McCaul-Thompson legislation passed by the House Homeland Security Committee.

 

Federal judges in July ruled against voter identification laws in Wisconsin and Texas, concluding that they disproportionately impact minority voters and violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Should voters be required to show a photo ID when voting? And should the federal government have a say in this, or is it strictly a matter for the individual states to decide? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I agree with the federal judges’ ruling and believe requiring voters to show a photo ID when voting is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The federal courts provide a critical backstop to states’ efforts to disenfranchise voters and the federal government must continue to play a role to protect the rights of all voters. 

 

Should all or certain federal public lands, including national parks, wildlife refuges and forests, be given to states to control? Do you support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration for oil and other fossil fuels, even if those resources are not immediately developed? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

The National Park Service (NPS) celebrates its 100-year anniversary this year.  I am immeasurably grateful for the wisdom and foresight of our national government to set aside these lands for the benefit of all Americans. Our national parks, forests and wildlife refuges are part of our national treasure and the legacy we will leave to future generations.

Born and raised in Colorado, I grew up visiting some of our most beautiful national parks, national forests and wildlife refuges.  These visits formed my appreciation for nature and the environment.  From my experiences, I understand that the federal government plays a critical role in conservation and preserving wilderness through our nation. 

That is why I do not support opening public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration for oil and other fossil fuels. 

Closer to home, I also believe our Great Lakes need to be restored and protected, and was proud to be a champion of the Great Lakes in Congress.  I supported fully funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and offered measures to protect Lake Michigan while I was in Congress. I strongly disagreed with my opponent’s votes to slash more than $250 million in funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and was pleased to reinstate those funds.

 

What changes, if any, to the U.S. tax code do you support and why?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

Put simply, our outdated tax code is straining our economic recovery, restricting job growth and hurting communities. I believe we must work to pass comprehensive tax reform that broadens the tax base, lowers our corporate tax rates so that we are internationally competitive, closes outdated, unnecessary loopholes, reduces tax burden on middle class families and addresses the needs of pass through entities—S-corps, LLCs and partnerships.  I would be open to considering any tax plan that took these important issues and viewpoints into consideration. 

I also believe it is imperative that any efforts at reform address the needs of small businesses and working families, not just large corporations.  Toward that end, I introduced a bipartisan measure while I served in Congress to ensure that small businesses' tax structure is addressed during tax reform. Pass-through entities—partnerships, limited liability companies, S-corporations, as well as sole proprietorships—represent 90 percent of businesses in our country, and this measure would help protect them during tax reform proposals. 

The high rate, complexity and uncertainty, combined with the unwillingness of Congress to have a serious debate about reforming our tax code, is putting American businesses at a disadvantage at a time when it is becoming increasingly important to be able to compete internationally. Modernizing our tax code will not be easy, but it is critical to our success. It will require difficult decisions and both sides of the aisle will have to compromise, but it’s essential to our long-term economic success. 

 

What are the most important actions Congress can take to ensure the solvency of Social Security?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

Social Security is a promise we made to our seniors, and is a promise worth keeping. The multigenerational commitment of Social Security is a foundation of our social contract, and a defining feature of our national prosperity. Underlying this program, along with Medicare, is the deeply rooted belief that all seniors, the people who supported our families and developed our communities, deserve the dignity of a secure retirement and affordable health care. More than a third of today’s seniors depend on Social Security to keep them out of poverty. That’s one reason I oppose raising the retirement age or attempts to privatize Social Security. It is our duty to honor the generations that came before us and worked to secure our freedom, and it is also our duty to provide critical safety nets that help our older generation retire with dignity. 

Still, I believe there are measures we can take to strengthen Social Security. For example, lifting the salary cap on people earning more than $1 million a year. Someone earning a million dollars a year should pay the same percentage into Social Security as hard-working, middle class families.  And we can create incentives for those who are able and wanting to work longer to have the option to delay receiving Social Security benefits.

 

The Republican Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What is your view? The Obama Administration has issued guidelines to schools, saying they must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. What is your view? And do you believe parents of LGBT children should be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I have long been an outspoken advocate for marriage equality, and campaigned on equality in 2012 and again in 2014. The Supreme Court’s decision making same-sex marriage a constitutionally protected right across the country was a momentous victory for equality, and a great milestone for our nation.

While I celebrate our country’s progress, I am reminded of the long road ahead for LGBT equality. That is why I support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because no one should be able to be fired for who they love. I am also in favor of the Obama Administration’s efforts to support our transgender youth and look forward to expanding on their efforts when I return to Congress. I am firmly against parents being able to force their children into so-called “conversion therapy.” 

 

What is the single most important action Congress can take to reduce U.S. gun violence?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

The single most important action Congress can take is to stand up to the NRA and gun lobby and allow a simple up or down vote on commonsense gun safety legislation

For me, standing up to gun violence isn’t just about good policy, it’s personal. I am named after my great-uncle who was murdered by a gunman before my birth. With my inherited responsibility for carrying forth his legacy, my very first speech from the floor of the United States Congress was about standing up to the NRA and calling for sensible gun safety legislation. That speech and my votes in Congress earned me an “F” grade and a zero rating from the NRA.

Senseless gun violence is happening daily across America, hurting our communities, schools, even our children in their own homes. We can’t prevent every instance of violence, but inaction is unacceptable. We must work to enact safe, sensible gun policy to reduce gun violence, while preserving our constitutional right to bear arms. I support a comprehensive gun violence prevention package that includes mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, closing the gun show loophole and shutting down bad apple gun dealers, restoring the national ban on assault weapons, making trafficking of guns across state lines a federal crime, and promoting enhanced gun lock and gun safety technology.   

I helped introduce such legislation when I was in Congress in 2013.  In contrast, my opponent has voted 24 times in the past year alone against Democratic efforts to bring a gun safety measure to a vote. He is even refusing to add his name to the petition that would require the Speaker to bring the bill to the floor.

But tackling the gun violence affecting communities across the nation requires more than just commonsense gun safety legislation.  We need to work on the economic and educational challenges in struggling communities where gun violence is rampant.  And we need to deal with the mental health issues that contribute to approximately two-thirds of gun-related deaths each year.

 

The “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” would give the Department of Justice authority to keep suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly” list from buying firearms. The bill was voted down in Congress late last year but pushed again in June after the Orlando massacre of 49 people. Do you support or oppose this bill, and why?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

Yes. I support the bill. That’s just common sense. 

Unfortunately, the NRA and its allies in Congress have continued to block this and any gun safety legislation from even coming to a vote. Again, my opponent has voted with his party 24 times to prevent this legislation from coming to the floor for a vote, and still refuses to sign the discharge petition that would force a vote on this critical bill. This is unacceptable. We need a leader in Washington who will stand up to the gun lobby and demand responsible gun laws.

 

Should Obamacare be repealed, left intact, or changed — and if so, how? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I oppose repealing the Affordable Care Act and in Congress repeatedly voted against Republican attempts to do so. Every American deserves access to quality, affordable health care. And while not perfect, the Affordable Care Act represents an important step forward in providing health care to millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act allows kids to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26, eliminates preexisting conditions as a barrier to getting insurance, prohibits insurance companies from kicking people off their insurance when they get sick, and closes the Medicare doughnut hole that affected millions of seniors. 

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly wasted taxpayer time and money, and even shut down the government, in their endless efforts to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act.  It is disappointing that Congressman Dold has gone along with his leadership and voted nearly 30 times to repeal, defund and dismantle the healthcare reform law, rather than working to improve the legislation. He continues to support the Republican budget that would defund ACA and set us back nearly a decade.

We simply cannot afford this kind of dysfunction and gridlock. Rather than partisan attempts to repeal, defund or dismantle healthcare reform, we must focus on working together to improve what is working, fix what is not working and rethink what is not fixable. That’s why I helped introduce legislation to repeal the arbitrary medical device tax that hinders medical innovation and I also supported legislation that would ensure that individuals who paid their health insurance premiums, and tried to but could not enroll online, receive retroactive health insurance coverage.

 

A plan to replace Obamacare, presented by House Speaker Paul Ryan in June, would gradually increase the eligibility age for Medicare, which is now 65. Starting in 2020, the Medicare age would rise along with the eligibility age for full Social Security benefits, eventually reaching 67. Do you support this change in the eligibility age for Medicare? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

No, I do not support raising the eligibility age of Medicare. 

We can best strengthen Medicare and Medicaid by continuing to work towards lowering the cost for delivering quality health care to all Americans.  That’s why I will continue to support the Affordable Care Act and will work diligently to build on the parts of the law that are working, fix those that are not, and when necessary, find new approaches for what can’t be fixed, always moving towards improving quality and lowering costs.

I am committed to safeguarding Medicare and strengthening it for future generations. We must address rising health care costs that threaten Medicare’s long-term sustainability and continue to emphasize prevention, while also streamlining the bureaucratic process and reducing administrative costs.  

That said, I will defend the Medicare guarantee so that no senior will ever have to choose between heating their homes and maintaining their health. And I will continue to oppose efforts by my opponent to end the Medicare guarantee and transform the program into a voucher system.  I voted twice against the Ryan Plan privatizing the system and shifting costs to seniors and our most vulnerable citizens.  

While serving in Congress, I cosponsored the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, which would make it easier for Medicare patients to qualify for coverage of skilled nursing facility care. 

 

The GOP platform opposes the use of public funds for Planned Parenthood and other groups that “perform or advocate” abortion. It also opposes funding health care that includes abortion coverage. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s platform called for continued funding of Planned Parenthood and repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars the direct use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Where do you stand?  
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I fully support continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood and believe we should repeal the Hyde Amendment.

Planned Parenthood provides comprehensive health care services to millions of of women and their families and in many places, without Planned Parenthood these families would not have access to critical health care. 

I was proud to earn a 100% score from Planned Parenthood and NARAL: Pro-Choice America while serving in Congress. All women should have the freedom to make their own choices about their bodies without interference from Congress, and Planned Parenthood should be applauded for the wide range of necessary health services they provide to women and men. I am disheartened by Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and the important work they do, including an amendment introduced by my opponent that called for legal investigation  and defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics for 90 days. 

The voters in the Tenth District deserve a Representative that will always support a woman’s right to choose, and for whom that promise isn’t conditional.  

 

President Obama has proposed making two years of community college free nationally. Do you support or oppose this proposal? If you support it, how would you have the nation pay for it? 
Answer from Brad Schneider:

I support President Obama’s proposal to make two years of community college free nationally when students meet the necessary requirements. I believe that students must also invest in their higher education and that meeting free tuition requirements ensures students are making that investment.  

More and more jobs require a degree or some higher education and it’s essential that we put students in the best possible position as they enter the work force. Yet at the same time, the costs of college are skyrocketing. For example, at 4-year public colleges and universities, in-state tuition-and-fees have risen by more than 40 percent in just the last ten years. Even those who graduate from college are too often burdened with crushing amounts of debt. Student loans are now a larger source of personal debt in our country than credit cards or auto loans.

The President’s proposal would allow students to earn the first half of a bachelor’s degree and earn skills needed in the workforce at no cost, significantly improving the accessibility of a college education. This proposal could be paid for by closing tax loopholes and expenditures for wealthy Americans. I believe this program and other efforts to expand higher education opportunities are ultimately an investment in our future that will yield returns through a lifetime of higher earnings for college graduates and increased growth for our economy.

 

College costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about 30 years. What is driving this increase and what should be done about it?
Answer from Brad Schneider:

The rising cost of college is a troubling trend that is closing off the opportunity for a higher education from too many families. Driving this increase are a number of factors, including funding cuts at the state-level for public colleges and universities, an exploding number of non-faculty college staff, and spending on lavish campus amenities to attract top students.

We must never stop working to ensure anyone who wants to pursue a college can do so and can graduate without a crushing mountain of debt. That is why I support federal programs that provide financial aid to needy students, such as Pell Grants, and oppose Republican efforts to cut these programs through the budgets proposed by Paul Ryan.

I also support President Obama’s effort to hold educational institutions accountable by scoring their performance in providing students with the lessons and skills necessary to secure a job and succeed in their careers.

 

Who gave money to this candidate?

Contributions

Total money raised: $5,187,641

Top contributors that gave money to support the candidate, by organization:

1
Employees of Bradley Scott Schneider
$135,400
2
Employees of Mesirow Financial
$29,600
3
Employees of Simmons Hanly Conroy
$20,000
4
Employees of Henry Crown & Company
$16,200
4
Employees of Underground Devices
$16,200

More information about contributions

By State:

Illinois 51.25%
District of Columbia 11.21%
California 8.64%
New York 5.45%
Other 23.45%
51.25%11.21%8.64%23.45%

By Size:

Large contributions (76.20%)
Small contributions (23.80%)
76.20%23.80%

By Type:

From organizations (21.50%)
From individuals (78.50%)
21.50%78.50%
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Videos (1)

— September 30, 2016 Chicago Sun-Times

Brad Schneider tells why he should be the congressman from the 10th district.

Candidate Contact Info

Email brad@schneiderforcongress.com
Phone: (847) 748-3788

Who else is running?

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION