or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

[x] close
Print

John B.T. Campbell III

Representative John B.T. Campbell III's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

John Campbell III
Full Name: John B.T. Campbell III
Office: U.S. House (CA) - District 45, Republican
First Elected: 12/06/2005
Last Elected: 11/06/2012
Next Election: 2014
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Catherine; 2 Children: Taylor, Logan
Birth Date: 07/19/1955
Birth Place: Los Angeles, CA
Home City: Irvine, CA
Religion: Presbyterian
Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
John Campbell III refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public ecords to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2012, are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Unknown Position Unknown Answer Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. HR 6099. 110th Congress. Abortion Pain Bill. John Campbell voted Yea on 12/06/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. S 403. 110th Congress. Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. John Campbell voted Yea on 09/26/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H Amdt 95. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood. John Campbell voted Yea on 02/18/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • National Right to Life Committee. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Family Research Council 93 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 3. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. John Campbell voted Yea on 05/04/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H Amdt 509. 111th Congress. Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. John Campbell voted Yea on 11/07/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • National Organization for Women. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the National Organization for Women attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2008, the National Organization for Women gave John Campbell a rating of 0 percent." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Afghanistan: Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. Chaos. 28 June 2011. "The President announced his latest strategy for Afghanistan in which he tries to thread the policy needle by giving a timetable for some withdrawal, but at the same time keeps more troops there throughout his term than at any time during the Bush presidency. I don't think he succeeded in pleasing anyone with this plan - certainly not this Member of Congress. He also still has not indicated what it is we are now fighting for and what the desired end-state looks like. Bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda is largely out of Afghanistan. Are we nation building? I think we are and I don't think that is worth $2 billion a week and more American lives. I also believe you either fight wars with all you've got, or don't fight them at all. Vietnam taught us that. The President seems to want to fight half a war. Speaker Boehner criticized the President's speech and basically called for keeping all the troops there until this unstated and undefined mission is accomplished. I don't agree with the Speaker anymore than I do with the President, although I give the Speaker credit for at least taking a militarily defensible position (all-in). I am for all-out. A growing number of Republicans and Democrats agree with me." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Silos. 7 July 2011. "Regular readers of these missives know that I don't fit neatly into a box. I am a conservative Republican who doesn't raise taxes and votes to cut nearly every bit of government spending I can find. But, I am against the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, think we should cut defense spending, support legalizing internet gambling, sponsor a lot of bills to prevent abuse of animals, want pristine, clean oceans and believe we need some government support of home mortgages. No, that is not a box." (votesmart.org)
  • Peace Action. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Peace Action 63 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Peace Action West. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of Peace Action West 63 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H Con Res 28. 112th Congress. Removing Troops from Afghanistan. John Campbell voted Yea on 03/17/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. $1.1 trillion In ONE DAY! 18 December 2009. "This is absolutely unsustainable. You can't raise taxes enough to cover it and everyone knows it. You can't keep borrowing this much money without ruining the credit of the U.S. Treasury and hurting the value of the dollar and everyone knows this as well. And of course, this disastrous, unsustainable spending doesn't yet include anything from the health care bill, global warming (where we supposedly are offering to give billions to underdeveloped countries where people don't have enough to eat so they can reduce their carbon footprint rather than feed their people), or the surge in Afghanistan. I obviously don't agree with the President and the Democratic leadership on much these days. But they won't even talk about stopping this or work towards finding a solution. That's not just bad policy; it's an abandonment of responsibility." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. The Weekly Standard - The Afghanistan Five. 18 March 2010. "The vote made Campbell one of five Republicans calling for an immediate withdrawal from the central front of the war on terror. His compatriots -- Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Tim Johnson, and John Duncan -- all opposed George W. Bush's Iraq surge. But Campbell, who won a special election to replace outgoing Chris Cox in December 2005, supported the surge and says 'Iraq was winnable and has strategic value.' He reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same cannot be said of Afghanistan.'We're just not going to be able' to put troops wherever terrorists hide,' Campbell told me. He says he always had qualms about the cost of the war, but it wasn't until President Obama's December 1 speech announcing the surge that Campbell decided the Afghan intervention could not be won. Campbell doesn't serve on the Armed Services Committee, but says he's 'studied virtually every war from the Norman conquest moving forward.' The Normans did not leave England precipitously." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. HR 5631. 110th Congress. Defense Department FY2007 Appropriations Bill. John Campbell voted Yea on 06/20/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Rep. Campbell Joins Effort to Cut Military Spending. 10 June 2011. "Campbell and the others emphasize the need to reduce defense spending in order to deal with the national debt. 'America's national debt represents the single, most dangerous threat to our future security, prosperity and hegemony in the world [¦] As we engage in a debate this year about reducing spending, we must examine all areas of the federal government, including the Department of Defense, for responsible efficiencies and expense reductions through a reassessment of our national defense needs.' Campbell has offered amendments to eliminate waste in the 2011 and 2012 Department of Defense budgets and has called for an audit of the Pentagon." (www.votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. The Hill - GOP 'No' Vote on Budget: 'Be like Governor Walker in Wisconsin'. 22 February 2011. "A Republican on the House Budget Committee explained his 'no' vote on the GOP budget proposal Monday: It didn't cut enough.' 'It wasn't necessarily the most popular vote amongst some Republicans,' Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) said on Fox News. Campbell noted that an amendment to take non-security spending back to 2008 levels failed, and decried an increase in defense spending. 'There is as much waste in defense as in any other part of the budget and it's something we need not to reflexively just increase all the time,' he said. Campbell said the most important reason for his 'no' vote was the deficit. 'We're headed for a debt crisis, like Greece or Ireland or whatever,' he said. 'I don't know if it's going to be a year, three years, five years, but we're headed for one and when we get to that, it will make 2008's collapse seem like nothing.'" (www.votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. The Raw Story - Obama's Cuts to Defense Budget are Good First Step, GOP Representative Says. 15 January 2011. "[T]he Obama administration's $78 billion cut to the defense budget is a good start to protect nation, according to a Republican congressman from California. 'This is just the beginning,' Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) said on Fox Business Network's Bulls & Bears Monday. He continued, 'We need to look at some more, and look at what is our role, what is our role going to be going forward with the military to keep ourselves safe but know we don't have unlimited resources.'" (www.votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Letter to Members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. 13 October 2011. "You have a unique opportunity to bring our defense spending in line with our legitimate national defense needs while getting our nation on the path to a balanced budget free of deficit. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted last year, paraphrasing President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 'The United States should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not one penny more.' [...] The June 2010 report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force detailed proposals to reduce our nuclear stockpile substantially, realizing savings of over $100 billion without compromising our national security.[1] The report proposed over $960 billion in defense department savings over the next decade. [...] Bringing our defense spending in line with our legitimate security needs must be considered along with other measures to regain our economic footing." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 1363. 112th Congress. 2011 Department of Defense Budget and Additional Continuing Appropriations. John Campbell voted Yea on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 3222. 110th Congress. Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2008. John Campbell voted Yea on 08/05/2007. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 4939. 110th Congress. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006. John Campbell voted Nay on 06/13/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H Amdt 13. 112th Congress. Reducing Navy and Air Force Aircraft Procurement. John Campbell voted Yea on 02/15/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 4986. 110th Congress. Defense Authorizations Bill. John Campbell voted Yea on 01/16/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 5631. 110th Congress. Department Defense Appropriations Act, FY 2007. John Campbell voted Yea on 09/26/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 2642. 110th Congress. Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Campbell voted Nay on 06/19/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. KPCC: Congressman John Campbell: GOP Should Propose Defense Cuts. 4 March 2010. "President Obama's proposed federal budget noses up close to $4 trillion. It includes a 3.4 percent boost in defense spending. KPCC's Washington Correspondent Kitty Felde says a GOP House member from Orange County wants to put the defense budget on a diet. Republican Congressman John Campbell of Irvine says the rising federal budget is putting the United States 'perilously close to an economic calamity.' He says cuts need to come somewhere -- and that includes the Pentagon [¦] 'I don't think you can see defense cuts from Democrats [¦] because I think they will be so excoriated for that that it can't come from them. It's got to come from some Republicans. And right now, I would love to tell you that there's a lot of us that would be willing to stand behind those. But I'm not sure that that's the case right now.'" (www.votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. Obama, Pelosi Redefine Big Spending - OCRegister. 8 April 2009. "The strategy of the oppressive government statists is to spend lots of money running up deficits. Then, when the situation escalates out of control, they will argue that their intention wasn't to raise taxes on everyone, but now they have no choice, that is, other than large, sweeping program cuts governmentwide. What they don't tell you is that you could simply "cut" it back to the level it was before they raised it. Of course, obscuring this fact is part of their strategy. Don't fall for it. In order to balance the Obama/Pelosi budget, they would have to raise every federal tax - payroll taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, the alternative minimum tax, death taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes - by at least 30 percent on everybody. The Republican alternative budget proposal is not rocket science. We simply hold spending steady instead of growing it by large margins, and this means lower deficits, less debt and no need to increase taxes." (www.votesmart.org)
  • Citizens for Tax Justice. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 0 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • National Taxpayers Union. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported reasonable tax and spending policies as defined by the National Taxpayers Union 93 percent of the time in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Tax Reform. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 100 percent in 2007." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell signed Americans for Tax Reform: The Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 1 January 2012. "I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." (s3.amazonaws.com)
  • John Campbell. 2008 Fiscal Year Budget. 26 March 2007. "Now let us talk about a few more things on these taxes. Some of the rhetoric that people may hear from the majority party here is that this tax relief in 2003, 2001, this just gave tax cuts to the rich. We hear that over and over: 'tax cuts to the rich.' Well, as Mr. Garrett pointed out, a $70,000-a-year family of four in New Jersey is probably not rich, and they would be paying $1,500 or whatever the amount was that you said. Let us look at some of this. Now, these are numbers in billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker; so they can't relate to per person. This is the total Democrat proposed tax increase. This orange slice stands for the people who save money because of the 10 percent income tax bracket. Now, the 10 percent income tax bracket is the lowest tax bracket that exists. It is at $15,000 of income for a married couple. So this amount of this tax is going to people with roughly a taxable income of about $15,000. That is rich? I don't think so." (www.votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. A Taxing Fact Check. 4 February 2010. "Obama, Pelosi, and Reid may not have raised income taxes last year, but they surely tried to. Last year's administration budget submission had dozens of tax hikes. The health care legislation they are still pushing has 18 separate tax hikes. All told, ATR has calculated that President Obama proposed or supported $2.1 trillion in tax hikes in 2009. And let's not forget that he signed into law a $65 billion tax hike on cigarette smokers 16 days into his administration. The median income of a smoker is $36,000 [¦] The reason these tax breaks are in place is to avoid double taxation of international corporate income. To take away these tax breaks is to tell an American company that they will potentially have to pay taxes twice on the same income." (www.votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Facebook: Wall. CBO Director Confirms Fallacy in Administration's Tax Revenue Estimates. 2 February 2012. "There's a lot of rhetoric right now saying that we can solve the deficit problem by just taxing households that bring in $250,000 or more. We can't. If you want to solve the deficit problem, then you have to either significantly reduce federal spending or you have to increase taxes on virtually everybody." (www.facebook.com)
  • John Campbell. Taxing the Rich. 20 September 2011. "The President's latest proposal to make "the rich pay their fair share" is just another awful idea in a series of awful ideas from this Administration. First of all, it again defines a taxpayer making $200,000 as "rich". I know a number of such people and I suspect you do too. They live comfortable lives, but I don't think they deserve the suddenly pejorative term "rich", particularly if they come to that income by way of 2 working spouses and some investment income because they have saved money over time. But, the new wrinkle here is the so-called "Millionaires" tax on incomes over $1 million. Obama's rhetoric explains that he will only require that these incomes pay the same tax rate as "middle class families". Well, obviously, the tax rate on these incomes is already much higher than for lower tax brackets. Most deductions for higher income people have already been largely eliminated through the alternative minimum tax and other tax laws over the last 20 years. There are really only 2 ways to get the tax rate on your $1 million income down. The first is if a bunch of that income is derived from capital gains taxes which are taxed at 15% currently. The second is if you give away a bunch of your money in charitable contributions, which is the only deduction that is not currently limited for high incomes. What the President is proposing to do is establish a new minimum tax rate on the gross incomes (not net incomes) of individuals regardless of their charitable contributions or the character of their income." (campbell.house.gov)
No Inferred Answer Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • The Club for Growth. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, The Club for Growth attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2010, The Club for Growth gave John Campbell a rating of 100 percent." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 1424. 110th Congress. Financial Asset Purchase Authority and Tax Law Amendments. John Campbell voted Yea on 10/03/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Prosperity. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 5297. 112th Congress. Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments. John Campbell voted Nay on 09/23/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. A Real Spending Limit Is Good For California, Unfortunately Prop 1 Isn't One. 20 April 2009. "I served in the California Legislature for 5 years from 2000 through 2005. Consequently, I witnessed the last California fiscal crisis first hand in 2002/2003, and determined that the Governor and Legislature were unlikely to ever control spending. So, they need an external discipline to force them to do so. Make no mistake about it, the current and past fiscal crises were all caused by runaway spending, not because taxes were cut or otherwise too low. In order to combat this, I became the primary author of a proposal to create a state constitutional spending limit which we called the 'Deficit Prevention Act' (DPA). This proposal was the product of much research, polling, and consensus building amongst a number of interested groups and individuals in Sacramento and throughout the state of California. I made enacting a spending limit, like the DPA, a signature part of my time in the legislature because I felt it was the only thing that would prevent the state from overspending its way into another crisis. Had the DPA been a part of the 2005 ballot initiatives and passed, we would not have a deficit today." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Campbell Recognized for 100% Vote on Spending Cuts. 25 February 2011. "Heritage Action for America has recognized Congressman John Campbell as a Member of Congress who voted for every spending cut amendment to H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. 'With a record annual deficit of $1.5 trillion this year alone, debt has become the single, most dangerous threat to America's future security, prosperity, and hegemony in the world [¦] We need to start making significant cuts and reforms in federal spending, while generating private sector economic growth, and do so quickly, in order to avoid being forced to make 50% cuts over night due to a debt crisis brought on by insolvency.'" (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Debt Limit. 9 June 2011. "I have become somewhat despondent lately at how little progress we are making in Washington on the deficit front. The 2011 spending reductions were miniscule. The responsible Medicare reforms put forth in the Paul Ryan budget are being demagogued heavily by Democrats who now believe they have found their 2012 campaign issue. Their "Mediscare" demagoguery is based on complete falsehoods. But, the point is that they are painting themselves into a corner where they cannot politically accept reforms that they have attacked so bitterly. Most Republicans won't reduce defense spending because it is defense, and most Democrats won't reduce any spending at all, including defense. So, the 2012 budget foresees a sizable increase in defense and homeland security spending. Because of this, the Ryan budget only reduces non-entitlement spending by $31 billion below actual spending for this year. Remember the deficit is $1.2 trillion. Democrats would like to raise taxes, an idea with which I obviously disagree. But, they only propose raising taxes on corporations and incomes over $250,000. Even if you do all the tax increases they are proposing, you don't come close to balancing the budget." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Op-Ed: Time To Panic About Spending, Debt. 18 February 2010. "President Barack Obama has unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2011. It is a monstrosity. It increases spending, it increases taxes, it increases debt, and it increases the deficit. That's bad enough, but that's not the half of it. The spending, taxes, debt and deficit go out as far as the eye can see. The deficits average just short of $1 trillion per year over the 12-year period outlined in the budget, even with the administration's overly optimistic economic assumptions. By comparison, the average annual deficit during the years (1994-2006) that Republicans controlled Congress was $104 billion. That deficit was too high then, but this deficit simply has no comparison." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Tax Cuts and Stimulus. 30 July 2009. "Yesterday, The Hill ran a story titled 'Dem says tax cuts blunted the stimulus.' In it, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar said that the tax cuts in the stimulus package took money away from legitimate infrastructure spending. Frankly, I think the Chairman may have his facts confused. It was his Speaker, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid who took money away from infrastructure and gave it to other pork barrel-esqe spending proposals. Congressional Democrats larded up the bill with ridiculous spending measures all the while reducing the percentage of infrastructure spending. In terms of comparison, the President's stimulus proposal and the final stimulus bill that was signed into law contained roughly the same proportion of tax cuts." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. The Foundry - Stop The Spending Now. 18 March 2010. "Federal spending is out of control. Even President Obama knows it [2]. To really stop the madness, Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN), and John Campbell (R-CA) have proposed [3] a simple solution - a constitutional amendment capping federal spending at 20 percent of the economy. Their proposal puts the debate squarely where it should be: exploding federal spending and the size of government. The authors of the amendment write that [4] 'Fiscal reform must begin and end with significant spending restraint. If not - if spending continues unchecked - this generation will prove to be the first to mortgage the future of its children and grandchildren instead of leaving a better and more prosperous future'. So true. Congress has proved itself incapable of fixing the massive fiscal mess they created. Now it must fix the legislative process and begin to propose real spending reforms." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. Issue Position: Proposition 24 - Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act. 3 February 2012. "At a time when we're trying to pull California out of a deep recession and put people back to work, Prop. 24 imposes tax increases on the very businesses that create jobs. California employers and small businesses will be hit with nearly $2 billion dollars in higher taxes which will further stifle job growth throughout the state. That means more small businesses closing shop, more employers expanding into other states, fewer jobs, and fewer long-term tax revenues to fund the general fund. I oppose Proposition 24 because it repeals recently enacted tax benefits such as: the elective single sales factor, net operating loss (NOL) carry back, and tax credit sharing. It would additionally repeal the recently enacted expansion of the NOL carryover from 10 to 20 years. The California State Franchise Tax Board estimates show 120,000 businesses would pay higher taxes under Proposition 24." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. Issue Position: Measure R (Irvine). 3 February 2012. "As a founding member of the Irvine Public Schools Foundation (IPSF), I support Measure R. The IPSF has been in the vanguard of having local parents take control and ownership of local schools, rather than looking to Sacramento or DC for help solving local education issues. One of the biggest attractions of Irvine as a place to live or a place to do business is the quality of the school district, so it makes sense for the City to support efforts to maintain that quality. This ballot measure, if adopted by the Irvine voters, would ratify and extend prior decisions of the Irvine City Council to provide certain financial support to public schools for K-12 Irvine students served by the Irvine and Tustin Unified School Districts (School Districts). More specifically, the ballot measure would direct the City Council to continue to allocate funds annually for the Irvine Educational Partnership Fund and the Challenge Match Grant programs for Fiscal Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 on the same general terms and at the same general levels as has been approved by the City Council for Fiscal Year 2010-2011." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. An Awful Excuse For A Stimulus Bill. 14 January 2009. "It must be done quickly and decisively. Let's assume that throwing more money at the public education system will fix it; I personally don't believe it, but for argument's sake let's make the assumption. In this stimulus bill, school spending accounts for about one-sixth of the recovery package. Education is great, and we need to make sure that we are educating the best and the brightest in the world, but this package needs to be about fast action and stimulating the economy, not improving education. Sure, the argument can be made that this will be stimulative in terms of having more educated people coming into the workplace, but that won't occur for at least a decade. Moreover, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that only $26 billion of this amount will be spent in the next six months, even though the bill calls for all grants and contracts to be let out within 90 days. There is no way around it; this is not quick and decisive." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Embracing Reagan's Legacy By John Campbell. 14 November 2007. "Federal intrusions into local education, like No Child Left Behind, are not productive or helpful. We do not support federal schools, to which the collectivist crowd is moving. Education is best served by being closer to parents and kids and farther away from Washington control." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. New Taxes For Energy That Won't Produce. 8 September 2008. "I am sure many of you have been paying attention to the debate (or lack thereof) on energy in Congress. Well now the majority has decided to take up a bill after months of pleas from Republican members of the House. However, this bill is designed to fail, and worse yet it increases spending and taxes. Don't believe it? Here are some of the details. Lack of Incentive: The bill allows offshore drilling, only for States that choose it, no closer than 50 miles from the coast, however it also prohibits revenue sharing of new oil and gas proceeds, thereby removing any incentive for States to "opt in" and allow drilling off their coasts. Nor does the bill offer any lawsuit protection, so companies that do search for oil will continue to be hampered with limitless litigation by environmental groups [¦] Reduces revenue: The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated the government could initially receive $5 billion in additional revenue without raising taxes by opening the OCS and allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. Yet this bill continues to limit drilling in the OCS. According to CBO, it reduces revenue to the Treasury by $1 billion" (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 3534. 112th Congress. Offshore Drilling Regulations and Other Energy Law Amendments. John Campbell voted Did Not Vote on 07/30/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Chaos. 28 June 2011. "The President released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last week. That is a monumentally awful decision. That reserve is for when the supply and availability of oil is catastrophically reduced. There is plenty of oil. The President cited the Libyan oil disruption as the reason for this decision. That's nuts. Saudi Arabia is already making up that shortfall. The President seems to think that everything revolves around Libya. No, the President did this to try to affect the price of gas before the summer driving season because he is unwilling to do the obvious thing that would really reduce gas prices, which is to start drilling for all our American oil in Alaska, the Dakotas, Colorado, the Gulf of Mexico and off the eastern seaboard. Someday, we (taxpayers) will pay to refill this reserve at most likely a higher price than we paid to sell it. A one day blip in oil prices in exchange for more deficit and no energy policy. Not a good trade." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Amid Financial Mess, Republicans Seeking To Highlight Energy, Drilling - The Hill. 17 September 2008. "House Republicans have watched their winning issue of drilling take a back seat in the wake of the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan, leaving GOP lawmakers to think of creative ways to highlight energy as they prepare to head back to the campaign trail [¦] Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who has urged his colleagues to support Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan given the critical nature of the financial crisis, said, 'I agree with my colleagues completely on energy, but again that will not solve this problem. I think that's something we are going to need to look at once we get through this. The economy is still not going to be good and then we are going to need to look at a lot of [energy]-related proposals.'" (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 1230. 112th Congress. Offshore Leasing Act. John Campbell voted Yea on 05/05/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H Amdt 773. 112th Congress. Ending Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling Rigs that Meet Certain Safety Standards. John Campbell voted Did Not Vote on 07/30/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Environment America. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of Environment America 7 percent in 2009." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Environment America. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of Environment America 7 percent in 2009." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 2454. 111th Congress. Energy and Environmental Law Amendments ("Cap and Trade"). John Campbell voted Nay on 06/26/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • League of Conservation Voters. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 910. 112th Congress. Energy Tax Prevention Act. John Campbell voted Yea on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Global Warming Blasphemy. 17 September 2007. "The question is this: How much of our limited financial and political resources should we divert from these critical 100% manmade problems to try and deal with a problem in which our efforts are 'very likely' to make some contribution? Put another way: Reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a very expensive proposition. So expensive that many progressive European countries are already scaling back their greenhouse gas reduction plans as the real costs and economic effects become known. If we could take the many trillions of dollars that may be spent on reducing the growth in greenhouse gases, and instead cure AIDS around the world, which would you do? In a heartbeat, I would choose to cure AIDS and be assured of saving many, many millions of lives. That's the kind of decision we as a society face." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Guns: Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. H AMDT 1156. 110th Congress. Trigger Lock Amendment. John Campbell voted Yea on 06/28/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 6842. 110th Congress. Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban. John Campbell voted Yea on 09/17/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Gun Owners of America. 04/18/2012. "In 2010 Gun Owners of America gave John Campbell a grade of 82." (votesmart.org)
  • National Rifle Association. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. National Rifle Association endorsed John Campbell in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Triggers and Critters. 21 June 2011. "I have been a longtime member of both the NRA and the Humane Society. I do not see their missions as being in conflict. I strongly support the Second Amendment to the Constitution and believe that people should have the right to keep and bear arms. This is about freedom, it is about self-defense, and it is about respect for the Constitution. I also love animals. I believe that human beings should treat animals humanely, in part, because they are God's creatures and we have a moral obligation to care for and protect them. I also think that how a society treats animals is closely correlated to how that society will treat its people [¦] I will continue to speak out for and vote to support the Second Amendment. And, I will just as vociferously support laws that protect animals, both wild and domesticated, from abuse at the hands of the dark side of human behavior. I'm a gun-owning animal lover. And, I think that's just fine." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. OC Register - 'It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over' On Health Care. 18 March 2010. "This health care bill is awful, but every poll shows that most of you already know that. The bill will effectively destroy the best parts of the world's finest health care and perpetuate those parts that don't work. According to the president's own actuary, it will increase costs for everyone whose insurance is not subsidized by the government. It is fiscally reckless, adding an enormous new entitlement when the nation is already approaching bankruptcy because of our inability to pay for the entitlements we already have. It increases taxes for 10 years and provides benefits for 6 years, creating an illusion that it balances the budget when, in fact, it will make our already unsustainable deficits substantially worse. Morally, it is reprehensible because it promises a lot of free stuff to people with no way to pay for it. It is a Ponzi scheme. This is a health care bill Bernie Madoff would be proud of." (votesmart.org)
  • American Public Health Association. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 2. 112th Congress. Repealing the Health Care Bill. John Campbell voted Yea on 01/19/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Health Care Reform. 16 March 2010. "Madam Speaker, analysts tell us that the Medicare system in this country will be bankrupt in 7 years and that Social Security and Medicaid are not far behind. What that means is we can't pay for the entitlements we've got. So what does this health care bill do? It adds more entitlements. It's like learning that you can't pay the mortgage on your house and buying a second one and five more cars. Americans wouldn't do that, but President Obama and the Democrats in this House are going to. We can't pay for the entitlements we've got. Let's pay for them first before we add new ones. Unfortunately, because of the actions of this House, America is going bankrupt, and this health bill will hasten that bankruptcy. Vote 'no' and kill this bill." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Health Care Update. 2 October 2009. "It takes 218 votes to pass a bill in the House. Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a health care bill that is a full-blown, complete 'single-payer' system with the entire health care system being run by the government and private health made illegal. This bill has nearly 100 cosponsors - all Democrats. Since Republicans are being excluded from the health care bill design & negotiations, there is no Republican that will vote for what they have now. That means that nearly half of all the people who will vote for the Pelosi bill are on record as saying that they want complete socialized medicine. The 'government option' is the road to get there, which is why they are fighting so hard for it. 'Single-payer,' 'socialized medicine,' 'required government-run health care,' or 'national health system,' whatever you want to name it, is where the bills in both the House and the Senate are designed to lead us [¦] I could go on and on. This Obama/Pelosi health care plan is awful in so many ways." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Let's Move Forward On A Job Agenda For Americans, Not An Agenda Of Government-run Health Care. 27 October 2009. "Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Democrat majority in this town is determined to install a government-run health care system which will be costly, inefficient, and provide bad care. We all know that. I happen to support something that's directionally opposite to that, something called the Patients' Choice Act, which, instead of putting new bureaucracies in between people and their doctors, it would eliminate some of the existing bureaucracies and get employers and the government out of the way between people and their doctors so that they can control their own health care." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. The Orange County Register: 2012 Voter Guide. Responded, "We need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered solutions. Giving patients more choices, flexibility, and personal responsibility in their health care decisions will drive down costs. Ideas such as allowing individuals the right to purchase Health Savings Accounts and to purchase health insurance across state lines along with other free-market ideas will all greatly increase coverage and reduce costs without government controls. Giving people choice works," to the question: "What would be the most efficient way to address health-care expense and coverage issues?" (www.ocregister.com)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. HR 4437. 109th Congress. Border Security Bill. John Campbell voted Yea on 12/16/2005. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Campbell Statement on Senate Immigration Bill. 26 June 2007. "The Senate amnesty bill masquerades as a solution to the illegal immigration crisis, when it in fact perpetuates and will expand illegal immigration over the next decade because so many of its' provisions are unenforceable. The proposed amendments will not change this underlying fact. They are akin to putting 'lipstick' on a 'pig.' Therefore, I will continue to vehemently oppose this legislation." (votesmart.org)
  • National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 5281. 112th Congress. DREAM Act. John Campbell voted Nay on 12/08/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Legal Immigration. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Americans for Legal Immigration endorsed John Campbell in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 15 December 2005. "Mr. Chairman, there are cities around this country that have laws or executive orders under which they prohibit law enforcement officials from reporting to the Department of Homeland Security when they encounter, through the normal course of law enforcement practice, individuals who are aliens, who are foreign nationals and who are in this country illegally. That, first of all, is a violation of Federal law. Both the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 both prohibit cities from adopting that sort of ordinance. But secondly, it is just wrong. We have Federal law here, and we have people in the ordinary course of their law enforcement activities encountering people who are foreign nationals and in this country illegally, and cities are passing ordinances making it a crime basically for those law enforcement officials to let Department of Homeland Security know that." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Issue Position: Illegal Immigration. 1 February 2012. "As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, John Campbell is working to advance policies that strengthen border security and improve interior enforcement. He opposes amnesty and other plans that would lead to increased levels of illegal immigration. He authored two amendments to crack down on localities that ignore federal immigration laws to protect illegal immigrants, and he co-sponsored the legislation to build 700 miles of border fencing as well as a dozen other security and enforcement measures." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Letter to President Obama. 9 September 2011. "Members of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus along with member of the House vehemently oppose your August 18 2011 announcement to bypass Congress and use prosecutorial discretion to achieve amnesty to individuals who are illegally residing in the US. The manner with which your administration has introduced this policy not only robs the public of a thorough betting, but it also fails to appreciate the negative consequences of this policy shift [¦] In addition, we are convinced the consequences of implementing this policy, will include, but certainly not be limited to, the loss of public confidence and the encouragement of future illegal immigration. Even prior to this, the American public's confidence in the Administration to address illegal immigration was tenuous at best. This is evidenced by the number of states that have initiated and passed their own immigration enforcement laws. This shift in policy confirms the general public suspicion that the Administration is not serious about controlling illegal immigration." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. HR 3685. 110th Congress. Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). John Campbell voted Yea on 11/07/2007. (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. HR 2965. 112th Congress. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. John Campbell voted Yea on 12/15/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Traditional Values Coalition. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Traditional Values Coalition 85 percent in 2006" (votesmart.org)
  • Human Rights Campaign. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 20 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. H J Res 88. 110th Congress. Same-Sex Marriage Resolution. John Campbell voted Yea on 07/18/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Family Research Council 85 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • American Civil Liberties Union. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 8 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • American Family Association. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the American Family Association 94 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer National Security: Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. Issue Position: Homeland Security and The War on Terrorism. 3 February 2011. "John Campbell understands the challenges we face and he remains committed to keeping Americans safe at home while we fighting terrorists abroad. He has supported efforts to provide investigators with the tools they need to catch terrorists, improve security at our ports and along the border, and equip the military with the tools they need to be successful." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Issue Position: Iraq. 3 February 2012. "John Campbell believes failure in Iraq is not an option. A stable and a free Iraq will be a valuable ally in the Middle East. America must support Iraq's freely elected government, train their security forces, and keep it from becoming a terrorist stronghold." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Letter to President Obama. 9 May 2011. "The success of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice is a tribute to the sustained commitment of our armed forces, our intelligence agencies, and our Special Forces. We share your pride in their courage and competence. The success of this mission does not change the reality that America still faces a determined and violent adversary. It does, however, require us to reexamine our policy of nation building in Afghanistan. We believe it is no longer the best way to defend America against terror attacks, and we urge you to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan that are not crucial to the immediate national security objective of combating al Qaeda [¦] The killing of Osama bin Laden was made possible by a strong intelligence operation and well-trained Special Forces units. In combating extremism, the combination of actionable intelligence and highly mobile Special Forces has proven most effective against an enemy that is not limited to a single geographic location." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • John Campbell. American Jobs And Economy At Risk. 2 October 2008. "Mr. Speaker, on Monday afternoon after this House rejected and defeated the economic recovery bill, Americans lost over $1 trillion in the stock market. They lost over $1 trillion in their savings and in their investment and in their retirement accounts. If we do not act, that will be just the beginning. Why, they would have been better off if we had taken the $700 billion in that bill and thrown it in the Potomac. But that is not what this bill will do. This bill takes that $700 billion and buys assets which have three different backstops to make sure that the taxpayers not only get all of their money back, but could perhaps actually make a profit. Mr. Speaker, American jobs are at risk, the economy is at risk, their retirements are at risk. We must act. I hope we follow the Senate's lead tomorrow and pass this bill." (votesmart.org)
  • Alliance for Retired Americans. 04/18/2012. "John Campbell supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 0 percent in 2008." (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Lawmakers Scramble To Revise Bailout Bill - Associated Press. 25 September 2008. "'The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens,' Bush said. 'And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting.' Some lawmakers reported a shift in constituent calls pouring into their offices. Calls and e-mails were overwhelmingly opposed to the rescue plan before Monday's vote, many offices said. But Monday's stock market dive prompted calls Tuesday from Americans furious about Congress's inaction, some said. Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., who voted for the legislation, said that before Monday's vote, constituents' calls to his office were running 8-to-1 against the bill. Tuesday, he said, most were supportive of the measure. 'The calls now are saying, 'I lost 10 percent of my retirement yesterday,' Campbell said. 'The calls I'm getting are thanking me now.'" (votesmart.org)
  • John Campbell. Thursday, May 12, 2011 - Medicare and Seniors and Such. 12 May 2011. "Remember back in the early 2000's when then-President George W. Bush proposed reforming Social Security with an option to set up "private accounts"? In spite of Republican control at the time of the White House, the House and the Senate, the proposal failed to garner the requisite 60 votes in the Senate and therefore did not become law. Democrats used this to some success in the next election by relentlessly pounding Republicans for trying to "end Social Security". [¦] We must reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and we must do so soon and aggressively. If we do not, these programs will collapse, our economy will be severely damaged and we will further discourage people from and punish them for saving and taking care of themselves. And, we will simultaneously reduce living standards for seniors and opportunities for younger people. If you don't like our proposals, then put forward your own." (www.campbell.house.gov)

Key

Candidate Answer

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

Inferred Answer

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

Unknown Answer

Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue.

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

Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as the candidate has submitted it. Project Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

About Project Vote Smart

Help Us If You Can

Media & Communications

Education

For Candidates

One Common Ground, Philipsburg, MT 59858 Hotline: 888-Vote-Smart (888-868-3762)
All content © 1992 - 2013 Project Vote Smart unless otherwise attributed - Privacy Policy - Legislative demographic data provided by Aristotle International, Inc. Mobile Version

Back to top