Voter’s Edge Illinois
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
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 5

Photo of Mike Quigley

Mike Quigley

Attorney & Elected Official
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

  • Promote efforts to reform government and increase transparency to restore the public’s trust in government.
  • Fight for the federal funding Chicago and Illinois needs to remain a safe, competitive place for families to live and work.
  • End the gun violence epidemic gripping the streets of Chicago and the rest of the country.

Questions & Answers

Questions from Chicago Sun-Times (18)

What is your biggest difference with your opponent(s)?
Answer from Mike Quigley:

My Republican opponent, Vince Kolber, has expressed strong support for Presidential Candidate Donald Trump and his reckless policies. For example, Kolber has praised Trump’s “unpredictability” on the world stage. When it comes to our nuclear arsenal, the last thing that the American people or our allies need is an unpredictable leader. Furthermore, Kolber has applauded Trump’s “moderation in his position on immigration.” However, Trump continues to call for the inhumane, forced deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants and has doubled down on his support for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border; one that could cost taxpayers up to $25 billion. Being president requires an even-keeled temperament and sound, thoughtful judgement. Trump clearly has neither of these qualities and I question the wisdom of any candidate for Congress that would think otherwise. 

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 Mike Quigley:

Congress has a role to play in the campaign against ISIS and should vote on a new AUMF that is thoughtfully crafted and narrowly tailored. There is no doubt that defeating quasi-states and terrorist organizations presents obstacles unique to this day and age and challenges any traditional military strategy.  


What remains central to our military engagement in the Middle East is developing a strategy alongside our NATO partners and allies. The decision to maintain a small presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will help maintain some stability and support to Afghan troops, who have taken a leading role in the fight against the Taliban and also ISIS. The Afghan military has been able to address these challenges as a result of our investment, and the maintenance of a small number of U.S. troops will not only help save Afghan lives, but also protect the United States’ investment. The human and financial costs in Afghanistan have been immense and a complete withdrawal of troops has the potential to create a power vacuum in a volatile region.

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

ISIS is a serious threat to the United States and especially to our European allies. The security postures of the U.S. and Europe vary dramatically, but we share the strategic goal of eliminating ISIS and defending against terrorist attacks. Americans are understandably concerned for their safety, but we must not allow fear to lead to overreaction, bad policy, and unintended consequences. Instead, we must focus our resources on what really keeps America safe. 


First, we must strengthen our intelligence gathering and sharing capabilities. Second, we must ensure that our intelligence community is working alongside all levels of law enforcement to increase security and awareness here at home. Third, we must respond to terrorists’ evolving and sophisticated use of technology, such as encrypted communications and their on-going exploitation of social media. 


Next, we must restore funding for major U.S. Homeland Security grants for states and localities, which has been cut nearly in half since 2010. The recent terrorist attacks in Nice, Brussels, Paris, Orlando, and elsewhere, have confirmed that soft targets are today’s largest security vulnerability. They are easy to attack and difficult to protect. That’s why I offered an amendment to this year’s Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would have increased funding for programs like Buffer Zone grants, Transit Security Program grants, and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants, which are designed to help cities like Chicago better secure soft targets. 


Finally, Congress must work harder to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, including individuals inspired by ISIS, by enacting commonsense gun legislation. While no perfect solution exists to end all gun violence, we know from the experience of other countries that a combination of small but practical policy solutions can severely reduce it.


We also must avoid using inflammatory rhetoric, which does little more than fan the flames of hatred and will not keep America safe. ISIS has established a sophisticated and effective propaganda machine, responsible for attracting large numbers of foreign fighters from Western countries. Unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric from American public officials, often distorted and taken out of context, makes its way into recruitment materials targeted towards terrorist sympathizers. In fact, the intelligence community has warned that terrorists actually hope to stoke an increase in xenophobia, nativism and prejudice in the Western world. Our leaders can and must do better.

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 Mike Quigley:






I oppose calls for a ban on any refugee singled out due to religious background, ethnic identity or national origin. Governor Rauner’s decision to “pause”  resettlement made Illinois one of 31 states that said they would not accept Syrian refugees as part of the refugee resettlement program. The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program is under federal jurisdiction and States’ participation in the program under the State Plan agreement offers no legal pathway way to withhold or deny services to refugees on the basis of religion, ethnicity or country of origin. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) sent a letter to Illinois in November 2015 detailing these concerns and warning that non-compliance would potentially subject States to penalties and loss of federal funding.


Sadly, Governor Rauner’s decision on this issue, and Donald Trump’s continued call for a “Muslim ban”  is entirely political and responded directly to American’s fears, not facts. It’s also unenforceable, as seen in the recent federal court decision issuing a preliminary injunction, effectively halting Indiana’s plan to bar Syrian refugees.



Despite the rhetoric we’ve heard this election cycle, the vetting process for refugees is thorough and rigorous. The U.S. resettles less than one percent of the global refugee population, and is in a position to be highly selective in admittance and resettlement. The current process includes biodata and biometrics collection, identifying document collection and assessment, all of which is screened by multiple U.S. security agencies including FBI, Department of Homeland Security and State Department. All of this occurs before multiple in person interviews conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The system is designed so that an applicant who raises any questions or red flags can be eliminated from the applicant pool at every step of the process. Recurrent vetting, which continually checks applicants against terror databases, occurs throughout the entire process. This is especially important as most cases take on average one to two years to complete.

As the White House has stated, refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S. are subject to the highest level of security checks, more than any other category of travelers to the U.S. There are valid security concerns related to refugee vetting and admittance and it’s my position that we must continue to improve and implement the best technology to be used throughout the screening process so that we limit human error and are made aware of possible threats quickly. It is up to Congress to reprioritize and shift resources to provide our security agencies with these tools so they can efficiently, effectively, and safely process refugees. We are a nation of immigrants and we must not allow fear to prevent the U.S. from leading and bearing our share of responsibility for individuals and families fleeing war, oppression and violence around the globe. Banning Syrian refugees’ admittance into Illinois projects an image of close-mindedness and exclusion that run contrary to the embrace of diversity I witness throughout Illinois’ Fifth District. 


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 Mike Quigley:

After careful deliberation, I voted in favor of the JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. This vote was one of the most consequential of my Congressional career. Ultimately, I believe the world is safer as a result of the deal and I have closely followed Iran’s compliance efforts. As it relates specifically to Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is complying and is gradually disassembling parts of its nuclear program, specifically selling off excess “heavy water” and dismantling nuclear reactors, all while increasing access to both IAEA observers and the international community, broadly.


While I continue to support the deal, it’s important to keep in mind the narrow intent of the agreement and acknowledge it as a first step towards improving our diplomatic relationship with Iran. Ultimately, this is an effort to increase U.S. and global national security. The JCPOA is not a peace treaty; it is a narrowly tailored agreement meant to delay and ultimately eliminate Iran’s ability to develop and use a nuclear weapon. We should continue to view Iran with a skeptical eye and maintain economic sanctions unrelated to the nuclear deal, as they’ve proven to be a highly effective diplomatic tool. I remain steadfast in our commitment to provide military and diplomatic support to our regional allies, especially Israel. JCPOA was a landmark and historic agreement; it provides on-the-ground access to international observers for the first time in a generation and opens up new avenues for dialogue with Iran’s political leaders. The opportunities the nuclear deal presents must not be squandered due to politics. 


Like with other international agreements and treaties, the next president is bound to the terms of JCPOA. But, as is the nature of the presidency and American government in general, a new president will have the opportunity to impact or change policy related to Iran, including JCPOA.

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 Mike Quigley:

Not only do I believe that building a wall, as Donald Trump suggests, makes little sense, but it is also unachievable. It is a policy rooted in fear and would ultimately prove to be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Although Trump claims that building a concrete wall along the U.S.-Mexico border would cost $12 billion, many experts believe that it would cost at least $25 billion. This does not include the annual maintenance costs, which could cost tens of millions every year. Although he proposes that Mexico pay for the wall, Mexican officials have already said that Mexico will do no such thing. To compel Mexico to pay, Trump would ban remittances to Mexico, increase tariffs on Mexican imports, ban visas for law-abiding Mexicans, and increase visa fees for those crossing the border legally. There is little doubt that Mexico would retaliate against such actions, increasing the cost of goods and travel for American families and severely hurting American businesses that exported over $260 billion in goods and services to Mexico last year.


To truly secure the border, Congress must enact comprehensive immigration reform that provides an earned a pathway to citizenship, giving undocumented immigrants the chance to get in line, pay fines and back taxes, earn legal status, and become productive members of our society. This will better reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants into this country and will allow millions of people to come out of the shadows. That’s why I support and was proud to introduce a House companion to the Gang of Eight immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013. 


I strongly support efforts to prevent the deportations of Dreamers and was proud to cosponsor the original DREAM Act, which would offer Dreamers a pathway to legal status and served as the basis for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.


Immigration reform should not be a partisan issue. With interests as diverse as labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce, law enforcement and civil liberties groups, and the bipartisan support of more than 200 members of the House, it is time for Congress put politics aside and allow a vote on immigration reform. Every day we fail to pass immigration reform is another day that American families are torn apart, we deny basic rights to thousands living in detention, and we waste millions of dollars on costly enforcement policies that don’t work.

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 Mike Quigley:

Recent attempts by states around the country to restrict access to the polls through new discriminatory photo ID requirements are a stark reminder that there is still much work to be done before full voting equality for all Americans becomes a reality. As the United States continues to lag behind other democracies in voter registration and turnout, it is time we work to expand one of our most essential rights as Americans. The federal government plays an essential role is expanding and protecting this right. That’s why I was proud to cosponsor the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which restores important voting rights protections that the Supreme Court struck down by updating the Voting Rights Act’s formula and requiring states with a recent history of voting discrimination to gain clearance from the Department of Justice before making voting law changes.

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 Mike Quigley:

Our nation’s natural resources are the greatest gift we can give to future generations of Americans. Protecting the unique landscapes, ecosystems, and biodiversity in national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands should be among our highest priorities. Public lands and national parks are the heritage of all Americans, as is the responsibility for protecting them. The federal government should maintain control of the public lands to ensure that they are looked after with the interests of every state in mind. 


Opening public lands, including the outer continental shelf, for fossil fuel cultivation is a betrayal of the trust of the American people. Drilling and excavation activities have the ability to cause permanent damage to the fragile landscapes in which they take place. Furthermore, the damage that burning those carbon intensive fuels will do to the delicate balance of the global climate system should cause us to rethink the need for any additional drilling.

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

The federal tax code needs to be overhauled from top to bottom. Since 1986, lobbyists and special interests have distorted and misshaped our tax code so much that I am convinced the only people it truly benefits are tax attorneys. Corporations want a simpler code. Small businesses want a simpler code. Individuals want a simpler code. We need comprehensive tax reform that simplifies both the corporate and individual codes, makes our corporate rate competitive with the rest of the world, and does away with needless complexities that simply hold back our economy. And we need a code that incentivizes healthy economic behavior and boosts the middle class, rather than one that allows write offs for yachts and encourages corporations to move jobs overseas.


When we finally reform our tax code, there are some things that must be included. First, the individual code must be fair and balanced. We cannot reform the tax code on the backs of the middle class. Second, we must reform the individual code and corporate codes at the same time. So many of our small businesses, especially here in Chicago, are either partnerships, small businesses, or in the type of tax structure that requires them to file as individuals. Whenever the top corporate rate is set drastically different than the top individual rate, you see significant distortion in the business community.  And third, we need to make a serious effort to get our corporate code in line with the rest of the world. The recent slate of corporate inversions shows that we simply cannot bury our heads in the sand while American corporations take advantage of the current system. We are allowing American corporations to reap the benefits of American infrastructure, education, and tax breaks while at the same time moving jobs and profits overseas.


While not perfect, President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal includes a very serious and thoughtful tax plan that deserves consideration from Congress. It would expand tax credits proven to keep millions of working-class families out of poverty, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. The President’s plan would also assist small businesses by expanding the use of the cash accounting method, simplify and increase the R&D tax credit, expand tax incentives for clean energy investments, and attempt to fix our broken international business tax system. Moreover, the proposed framework plan would cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, with a 25 percent effective rate for domestic manufacturers. These rate reductions are responsibly paid for through the elimination of inefficient tax expenditures that distort the allocation of capital away from where it is most productive.

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

Social Security serves as the backbone of our retirement system and Congress should work to both expand benefits and strengthen the program for today’s seniors, as well as for future generations of retirees. Currently, Social Security only has enough funding in its trust funds to pay out full benefits until 2034. To preserve Social Security and to help fund more generous benefits, Congress must take some targeted steps to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. One major step is to eliminate the cap on income that is taxed for Social Security. Increasing the income cap from the current $118,500 a year and eventually phasing this cap would preserve Social Security for decades more without letting the burden fall on middle-class families.

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 Mike Quigley:

As a vice chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, and a founding member of both the Transgender Equality Task Force and the LGBT Aging Task Force, I am fully committed to advocating for policies that provide full equality for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The landmark Supreme Court decision affirming marriage equality signaled a major victory in the long fight for LGBT equality. But, I recognize there is still serious work to be done. 


Transgender students have the same right to privacy and safety as any other student. Schools have a responsibility to protect and serve the entirety of their student body and that includes providing students the opportunity to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Transgender students are more vulnerable to violence when using the bathroom that does not match their gender identity and by forcing students to use the bathroom that matches their “sex at birth”, schools are in practice barring transgender students from using the bathroom at all. 


Conversion therapy has been repeatedly discounted for having no grounding in scientific evidence and the practice is often cruel and abusive. Many cities and states, including Illinois, have taken initiative and implemented conversion therapy bans, which I support. Conversion therapy has no place in our communities and I would support a federal ban on the practice.

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

When it comes to preventing gun violence, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Elected officials should stop cowering to the gun lobby and begin to address the gun violence epidemic our country is facing. That starts with expanding background checks for all firearm transfers. Whether a sale is online, at a gun show, between neighbors, or at a licensed dealer, the process to purchase a firearm should not differ. I recently experienced this firsthand when I visited a gun show in Indiana. The ability to purchase a semi-automatic rifle with no questions asked is not only disturbing, it is nonsensical. Lax gun laws in Indiana drive much of the unprecedented violence we see in Chicago. According to the Chicago Police Department, 20 percent of all crime guns come from Indiana. Requiring mandatory background checks and providing adequate funding for the National Instant Background Check System is just one step to address these loopholes that plague our gun laws.


Congress must also reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that lapsed in 2004. Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and Orlando -- just to name a few -- have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate this style of weapon. The type of firearms that fall into this category are not used for hunting or sport, they are weapons of war. A Department of Justice study found that the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders. The original ban included certain types of ammunition that I believe should be banned again. A magazine capable of holding 100 rounds far exceeds everyday use. To put this in perspective, the military only uses 30-round magazines with their semi-automatic M16 issued rifles. As Justice Anthony Scalia stated in his opinion of the District of Columbia et al. v. Heller case, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” I do not disagree that Americans have the right to bear arms, but weapons used on the battlefield should not be among them.


There is no one size fits all solution to the gun violence epidemic, it will take a combination of small pragmatic solutions. I look forward to continuing the fight for gun violence prevention and finding ways to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who wish to do us harm.

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 Mike Quigley:

I am a proud cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist Act. Congress has an obligation to close the terrorist gun loophole, a proposal overwhelmingly supported by the American people on both sides of the aisle. That’s why I was also proud to join my Democratic colleagues, led by Rep. John Lewis, on the House floor in June demanding a vote on this bill. The terrorist attacks in Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels all emphasize the urgency with which Congress should act to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.


Soft targets, such as movie theaters and sporting events, are increasingly vulnerable to attack. Preventing these attacks is complicated and complex and requires coordinated efforts between local law enforcement, federal law enforcement, the intelligence community and private sector partners. At the very least, Congress should assist this challenging work and limit potential terrorists from buying firearms. Foreign fighters who leave the United States to join terrorist groups abroad pose a particular threat, as they can return home and legally purchase a gun, despite being flagged by the FBI or CIA as a possible threat—this fact defies explanation and it’s Congress’s responsibility to protect the American people.

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

I was proud to vote for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA, while not perfect, is achieving many of its original goals. Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years and millions of Chicagoans have been provided access to quality health care, some for the first time. The uninsured rate continues to drop to historic lows as coverage has become accessible and more affordable to millions of Americans. Most importantly, the ACA has instituted a consumer driven healthcare system. Institutionalizing preventive services, removing insurance barriers for pre-existing conditions, ensuring women aren’t arbitrarily charged higher insurance rates and allowing coverage to extend until age 26 have all proven hugely popular and contributed to cost savings.


Speaker Ryan’s recently announced replacement plan is short on details, does not include any cost analysis and has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Compared to the ACA, which is a broad, national policy, the alternative plan offered by Speaker Ryan reverts to piecemeal solutions of the past. I remain open to supporting legislation that improves the ACA and provides for technical fixes. I cannot, however, support legislation that undermines the benefits being felt as a result of the ACA’s implementation.

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 Mike Quigley:

The plan laid out by Speaker Ryan is consistent with many other failed attempts to repeal or weaken the the ACA. Instead of working towards improving the law, it repeals the ACA and offers few details in way of a replacement. The plan lays out some of the failures of ACA—at one point citing the coverage gap, or the group of Americans neither eligible for subsidies or Medicaid. But, this coverage gap could be explained by Republican governors’ refusal to expand Medicaid and Congress refusing to extend subsidies. 


We must be willing to reform parts of Medicare and Medicaid to ensure their continued existence and solvency. We’ve begun that process by implementing ACA, which specifically lowered or eliminated costs on certain preventative services like colonoscopies and mammograms for Medicare beneficiaries. It also helped extend the trust fund by targeting waste, fraud and abuse, thereby making the program more efficient. Billions of dollars have been recovered as a result of these reforms.   

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 Mike Quigley:

I am fully committed to the continued funding of Planned Parenthood and the immediate repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Efforts to politicize women’s reproductive health care are not new, but over the past two years, we’ve seen an especially aggressive attack against choice and efforts to defund women’s health clinics, some of which do not perform abortion services at all. The Hyde Amendment is dangerous, unfair and effectively bars women from exercising their constitutional rights. Roe v. Wade does not guarantee the right to choose for wealthy women; it guarantees the right to choose for all women.  


The Hyde Amendment disproportionately affects low-income women, women of color and immigrant women. Mostly, this impacts the more than nine million American women enrolled in Medicaid, a program explicitly designed to aid Americans with limited means. Essentially, the policy is discriminatory, as the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose regardless of how much she earns, how she is insured or where she lives. I trust women to make their own health decisions and recognize the real need Planned Parenthood and other women’s health clinics meet in providing necessary services, including abortion. 

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 Mike Quigley:

I support the President’s proposal for free community college tuition, as laid out in the “America’s College Promise Proposal”. And I proudly cosponsored the House legislation that would authorize this program. In today’s economy, a college degree is the key to a good paying job and the plan to make community college free for responsible students helps them provide a better future for themselves and their family.


We have a responsibility to make college affordable for everyone and access to free community college could help save students from crushing student loan debt. Federal funding provided to community colleges through this proposal helps build high-quality community colleges and expand and reinforce support for technical training programs, which remain essential to 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 Mike Quigley:

There are multiple drivers of college tuition increases, some that must be addressed by government and some that must be addressed by institutions internally. Cuts to state education budgets, including higher education, have forced colleges and universities to shift costs onto students. Sometimes, lost funding is replaced by tuition and fees. But, with more students than ever attending college, cuts to funding are not solely responsible. Colleges and universities have a role to play in addressing rising tuition costs and finding ways on campus to slow that growth. 


Congress can and should do more to make college more affordable for everyone. First, we should allow borrowers to refinance their federal and private student loans at lower rates. There’s no reason that rates on mortgages and car loans can be lowered, but not student loans. Secondly, Congress must ensure that Pell Grants are keeping up with rising tuition costs. That requires indexing the grant to inflation. And finally, Congress should authorize President Obama’s proposal for free community college tuition, as laid out in the “America’s College Promise Proposal”. These policies are by no means exhaustive, but would serve as an important step towards reducing the financial burden weighing down millions of students and families across the country.

Who gave money to this candidate?


Total money raised: $992,089

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

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Ernst & Young
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Beer Wholesalers Association
New Democrat Coalition
The Desert Caucus
U.S. Travel Association
Union Pacific
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)

More information about contributions

By State:

Illinois 46.69%
District of Columbia 28.60%
Virginia 7.48%
New Jersey 2.27%
Other 14.97%

By Size:

Large contributions (98.43%)
Small contributions (1.57%)

By Type:

From organizations (56.84%)
From individuals (43.16%)
Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

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