Kelly Loeffler

Kelly Loeffler

  • R-GA, Senator2020 – present
Kelly Loeffler's photo

Lifetime Score 70%

70%
‘20
2020: 70%

Key Voting Record

Ineligible / Out of OfficeDid Not Vote
Voted with FreedomWorks principlesAnti-Freedom Vote
Print Scorecard

Key Vote Description

Legislator Score / Vote

2020: 116th Congress 70%

  • 1: On the Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, H.R. 5430Yea

    Key Vote 1: On the Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, H.R. 5430

    This motion waives the Senate's "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) rules for H.R. 5430, allowing for a larger budget deficit.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 2: Guilty or Not Guilty: Article of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump for Abuse of PowerNay

    Key Vote 2: Guilty or Not Guilty: Article of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump for Abuse of Power

    As Professor Turley noted in his written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, “[T]he problem with the abuse of power allegation is its lack of foundation.” President Trump denied on multiple occasions that there was any quid pro quo tying the aid to Ukraine to investigations. The most notable claim that there was a quid pro quo comes from a former national security adviser who was relieved of his duties in a very public manner and is seeking to cash in on his time in the White House through a book deal.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 3: Guilty or Not Guilty: Article of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump for Obstruction of CongressNay

    Key Vote 3: Guilty or Not Guilty: Article of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump for Obstruction of Congress

    In addition to the charge of “abuse of power,” charge of “obstruction of Congress” rings hollow, too. House Democrats had not exhausted all legal mechanisms to compel testimony. House Democrats complain that federal courts would have taken too long to solve the disputes over subpoenas, yet they took 29 days to appoint impeachment managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Even if federal courts took months, or even years, to settle the legal disputes, with a presidential election on the horizon, the electorate would have had the final word.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 4: On the Joint Resolution: Iran War Powers ResolutionNay

    Key Vote 4: On the Joint Resolution: Iran War Powers Resolution

    Many of the issues with out-of-control government power stem from congressional leaders surrendering their constitutionally delegated power over to the executive branch, whether they be handed over to unelected regulators or in the office of the President itself. In order to chip away at the behemoth our federal government has become, we need our members of Congress to be willing to reclaim the powers our framers meant for them to have. This includes the power to initiate hostilities and to declare war on foreign nations. S.J.Res. 68 is one monumental step in that reclamation fight.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 5: On the Joint Resolution: Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability Rule CRA Resolution, H.J.Res. 76Nay

    Key Vote 5: On the Joint Resolution: Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability Rule CRA Resolution, H.J.Res. 76

    This Democrat-only Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution would undo updated borrower defense regulations that will be a marked improvement over the existing set of regulations that were issued under President Obama. The revised borrower defense regulations set to go into effect in July 2020 are the result of more than two years of deliberations and significant input from the public and from higher education stakeholders, following years of broad relief granted to groups under the existing regulations. As such, fortunately, the new regulations address many of the flaws of the existing structure of borrower defense.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 6: On the Motion to Table: Paul Amendment to H.R. 6074 to Pay for Coronavirus Emergency SpendingNay

    Key Vote 6: On the Motion to Table: Paul Amendment to H.R. 6074 to Pay for Coronavirus Emergency Spending

    The amendment would simply rescind unobligated funds for several international outreach and foreign aid programs that have been flagged in the past for being unnecessary and wasting taxpayer dollars, and apply those funds to offset the cost of emergency spending to combat the coronavirus domestically. The continued spread of the COVID-19 virus worldwide, including now in a number of US states, has justly caused significant public concern. As Congress moves to fund efforts to combat the spread of the disease, however, it should not forget its duty to avoid burdening future generations with unnecessary new deficit spending.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 7: On the Amendment: Wyden-Daines Amendment to H.R. 6172Yea

    Key Vote 7: On the Amendment: Wyden-Daines Amendment to H.R. 6172

    This amendment would disallow the collection of internet search and browser history under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. This information could still be acquired, but via other legal authorities that require a demonstration of probable cause by the government. This is largely codifying what is supposed to be current practice, but the government’s long history of reading the restrictions on their access to information extremely broadly justifies establishing a clear prohibition on acquiring such intrusive and revealing personal information. One need only check one’s own browser history to see how many details about a person’s life and that of their family can be inferred merely by acquiring that data.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 8: On the Amendment: Lee-Leahy Amendment to H.R. 6172Yea

    Key Vote 8: On the Amendment: Lee-Leahy Amendment to H.R. 6172

    This amendment greatly expands the instances under which amici curiae may be appointed to present some semblance of an adversarial process in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) proceedings. Obviously, it would defeat the point of a legitimate surveillance order to have the target be able to represent themselves in front of the FISC, but the Lee/Leahy amendment insists that amici with expertise in privacy and civil liberties be present to ensure a fair proceeding in their stead in a number of instances. At their discretion, the FISC would be expected to appoint an amicus in FISA applications involving: new interpretations of law; First Amendment-protected activities; persons affiliated with political campaigns, religious organizations, or domestic new media; the use of new surveillance technologies; or other civil liberties concerns. This would greatly increase the likelihood that abuses of surveillance authorities, including both the NSA’s mass surveillance of Americans revealed by Edward Snowden and the FBI’s abuse of the same against President Trump’s campaign, would be discovered and flagged before they got out of hand. The government would also be explicitly required to disclose all possible exculpatory evidence that may undercut the need for a surveillance order to both the FISC and the amicus. The importance of such a requirement is highlighted by both the Carter Page incident during the Trump campaign, in which information about Page being an intelligence asset was withheld from the FISC. Recent revelations that the FBI also withheld exculpatory evidence in their investigation of General Flynn, as well, further calls that the disclosure of such information be explicitly demanded.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 9: On the Amendment: Paul Amendment to H.R. 6172Nay

    Key Vote 9: On the Amendment: Paul Amendment to H.R. 6172

    This amendment would require that a warrant be acquired under a non-FISA court in order to conduct surveillance on any US person and would disallow the use of information collected on US persons under either FISA or Executive Order 12333 from being used against them in court. Because it challenges the very structure of the surveillance authorities the government claims, this is considered a more ambitious reform than the others. However, it would bring surveillance authorities far closer into line with the express intent of the 4th Amendment - that all Americans receive due process against undue searches and seizures and that defendants have access to all information available to the government in the event of a court proceeding. The specific prohibition on the use of EO 12333 data against Americans is particularly noteworthy in light of Senator Burr’s recent assertion on the Senate floor that the executive branch could use it to continue Section 215 surveillance unabated in the absence of legislative permission.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 10: On the Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline for the Great American Outdoors ActNay

    Key Vote 10: On the Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline for the Great American Outdoors Act

    The Great American Outdoors Act, the legislative vehicle for which is H.R. 1957, would create the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, which would be financed by revenues collected from the sale of oil, gas, coal, and other energy produced on federally owned land and waters to support deferred maintained projects in federal parks and other federally owned lands. The bill would also make the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent, bringing it outside the annual congressional appropriations process. Additionally, the Great American Outdoors Act would require the LWCF to purchase more land annually at a time when the federal government already owns roughly 28 percent of land in the United States. The federal government owns a majority of land in a handful of states, including Nevada (80.1 percent), Utah (63.1 percent), and Idaho (61.9 percent). The Great American Outdoors Act shifts LWCF spending from discretionary spending subject to congressional appropriation to mandatory spending. In FY 2019, mandatory spending represented 61.4 percent of all federal spending. This spending is on autopilot and not subject to annual congressional appropriation. Discretionary spending is subject to annual appropriation and represented 30 percent of federal spending in FY 2019. As Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) noted in his floor speech on Tuesday, the Great American Outdoors Act “will cost nearly $17.3 billion over the next 10 years…all for land projects that we cannot afford, let alone maintain.” FreedomWorks supports invoking budgetary points of order against the Great American Outdoors Act and opposes efforts to waive them.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • No votes for this year match the provided filters.
  • View scorecard »