Share on WeChat
https://www.powervoter.us:443/michael_bennet
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.

Michael Bennet

D

Running, 2020, Presidential Primary Election

August States

Colorado U.S. Senate, Sr (2009 - Present)

Congress Bills
Quick Facts
Personal Details

Education

  • JD, Yale Law School, 1993
  • BA, Wesleyan University, 1987

Professional Experience

  • JD, Yale Law School, 1993
  • BA, Wesleyan University, 1987
  • Law Clerk, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Superintendent, Denver Public Schools, 2005-2009
  • Chief of Staff, Mayor, City of Denver, John Hickenlooper, 2003-2005
  • Managing Director, Anschutz Investment Company, 1997-2003
  • Special Assistant, United States Attorney, State of Connecticut, 1997
  • Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 1995-1997
  • Administrative Aide, Ohio Governor Richard Celeste, 1988-1990

Political Experience

  • JD, Yale Law School, 1993
  • BA, Wesleyan University, 1987
  • Law Clerk, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Superintendent, Denver Public Schools, 2005-2009
  • Chief of Staff, Mayor, City of Denver, John Hickenlooper, 2003-2005
  • Managing Director, Anschutz Investment Company, 1997-2003
  • Special Assistant, United States Attorney, State of Connecticut, 1997
  • Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 1995-1997
  • Administrative Aide, Ohio Governor Richard Celeste, 1988-1990
  • Senator, United States Senate, 2009-present
  • Candidate, President of the United States, 2020

Former Committees/Caucuses

Former Member, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, United States Senate

Former Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families, United States Senate

Former Member, Subcommittee on Nutrition, Agricultural Research, and Specialty Crops, United States Senate

Former Member, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security, United States Senate

Current Legislative Committees

Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

Member, Finance

Member, Select Committee on Intelligence

Member, Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management and Trade

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, and Natural Resources

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure

Member, Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy

Member, Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy

Member, Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight

Religious, Civic, and other Memberships

  • JD, Yale Law School, 1993
  • BA, Wesleyan University, 1987
  • Law Clerk, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Superintendent, Denver Public Schools, 2005-2009
  • Chief of Staff, Mayor, City of Denver, John Hickenlooper, 2003-2005
  • Managing Director, Anschutz Investment Company, 1997-2003
  • Special Assistant, United States Attorney, State of Connecticut, 1997
  • Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 1995-1997
  • Administrative Aide, Ohio Governor Richard Celeste, 1988-1990
  • Senator, United States Senate, 2009-present
  • Candidate, President of the United States, 2020
  • Former Editor-in-Chief, Yale Law Journal

Other Info

  • Douglas J. Bennet

  • Susanne Christine

Spouse's Occupation:

Natural Resources Attorney

Policy Positions

2020

Abortion

1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Budget

1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- Yes

Education

1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes

Energy & Environment

1. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

2. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- Yes

Guns

1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes

Health Care

1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No

Campaign Finance

1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Economy

1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No

Immigration

1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No

2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

National Security

1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Unknown Position

2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- No

Trade

Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Yes

Defense

Do you support increasing defense spending?
- No

2016

Abortion

1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Budget

1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

Crime

Do you support mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders?
- No

Education

1. Do you generally support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Unknown Position

Guns

1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes

Health Care

1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No

Social Security

Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts?
- No

Campaign Finance

1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Economy

1. Do you support lowering taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

Immigration

1. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

National Security

1. Do you support increased American intervention in Iraq and Syria beyond air support?
- Yes

Environment

Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

Energy

1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes

2. Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
- Yes

Marriage

Do you support same-sex marriage?
- Yes

Speeches
Articles

Colorado Sun - Michael Bennet: Coronavirus and a housing crisis go hand in hand. Congress must act.

May 30, 2020

By U.S. Senator Michael Bennet It is hard to ask someone to socially distance if they have been forced out of their home. But in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century, we risk a new outbreak of evictions as 40 million Americans have lost their jobs and millions more struggle with reduced incomes. Colorado residents are about to face rent due on June 1. Meanwhile, Colorado's eviction moratorium, originally set to end today, lifts in just two weeks. If Congress does not act, data released yesterday by the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project predicts that 416,000 Coloradans could face eviction by the end of September. If Congress does not act, data released just yesterday by the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project predicts that 416,000 Coloradans could face eviction by the end of September. Every person removed from their home is another person forced to double-up with friends or family or crowd into a shelter. And each person who can't pay rent is another hit to the incomes of mom-and-pop landlords and small businesses. As our housing challenges grow, so do the challenges to our public health and economy. To limit these risks, we must directly address the housing crisis in the next relief package. We can start by drawing from proposals in the bipartisan Evictions Crisis Act I introduced with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio in December, which would help families stay in their homes during the pandemic and until they can get back on their feet. Current policies will not be enough. Although federal, state, and local moratoria on evictions and late fees have helped in the short-term, they can't stop an eventual wave of people losing their homes. After all, these limits do not cover all renters, and many who are covered still won't be able to pay the accumulated rent when a moratorium ends. On top of that, many mom-and-pop landlords can't go without monthly rent while these limits remain in effect. For all of these reasons, Congress needs to address the housing crisis in the next emergency package. That should start with at least $100 billion of immediate rental assistance to help low-income Americans and those who have been hit hardest with lost jobs and incomes. We should design this assistance based on our bipartisan Eviction Crisis Act by providing the funding to local governments and nonprofits, which can then use the money to pay the landlords or utility companies directly to cover expenses like unpaid rent and utility bills. For people who have suffered the most severe economic pain from the crisis, we should also provide short-term assistance for at least three months, and for families facing ongoing difficulties, longer-term support for up to two years. At the same time, we should provide at least $20 billion to fight homelessness and expand housing vouchers for those in greatest need, so people can have a stable roof over their heads and can socially distance as the pandemic continues. Finally, we have to do more for state and local governments confronting massive budget shortfalls so they can maintain and expand critical, frontline human services. Making sure the most vulnerable have a stable roof over their heads is not only the right thing to do, it is also critical to protecting our safety and our economy. The last thing our hospitals and communities need is a new wave of families who become needlessly sick because they are forced from their homes and exposed. The last thing our economy needs is a wave of defaults from small landlords and businesses buckling from unpaid rent. As Congress debates the next emergency relief package, we must have the wisdom to see that tackling the housing crisis and the pandemic are not distinct efforts -- they go hand-in-hand.

Still a Chance? 2020 Longshots Insist Race Is up for Grabs

Nov. 11, 2019

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Bernie Sanders rallied hundreds of supporters outside the New Hampshire capital when the senator formally filed to compete in the state’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary. A howling crowd cheered South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg as he walked through the statehouse to file his paperwork. When it was Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s turn, he wound up with about a dozen supporters and a pep talk from Secretary of State Bill Gardner, the dean of the New Hampshire primary. “Giving the little guy a chance, that’s what it’s about,” Gardner assured Bennet, who sits at about 1% in most polls. Voters cast ballots in less than three months, and the Democratic primary is still crowded with little guys. Roughly a half-dozen candidates in the very bottom tier of the Democratic presidential primary are soldiering on, hoping that even after months of campaigning without catching fire that there’s still a chance. Their resolve reflects, in part, some Democrats’ insistence that the lineup of top contenders is deeply flawed and the race is primed for some late twists and turns. “I truly believe that that person is as likely to be someone polling at 1% today as it is to be the people that are leading in the race today,” Bennet told reporters after filing his paperwork. “Stranger things have happened than that.” Candidates like Bennet have some reason for optimism. Polls show many Democratic voters, even in early-voting states, have not made up their minds. In Iowa, the first state to weigh in, the front of the pack is crowded, another sign of ambiguity, some argue. Worries about the strength of the front-runners prompted Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor, to move toward a bid, threatening to expand the field just as the party thought it would be winnowing. Some higher-profile aspirants, including New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand or former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, weren’t able to stick it out, after months of poor polling and lackluster fundraising. Some middle-tier candidates, meanwhile, have had to scale back their operations. California Sen. Kamala Harris pulled staff from New Hampshire this past week, while former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro cut positions there and in early-voting South Carolina. But Bennet and others seemed to have prepared for a long, very slow burn. Bennet and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock never expected to raise much money and built small-scale operations that could carry them until the first part of February, when Iowa and then New Hampshire vote. “Everybody goes up and down, and what I need to be is organizing and catching fire as voting starts,” said Bullock, another candidate mired in the bottom tier who has announced an initial $500,000 advertising campaign in Iowa. Bennet and Bullock stand out in the crowded bottom tier as two well-regarded moderate politicians who got into the race late — in May — and appear to have the same strategy: wait for former Vice President Joe Biden’s support to collapse and hope they’re the best centrist standing. A Bloomberg bid would immediately add another contender — and millions of dollars — to the competition on that front, though the former mayor’s team says he will likely stay out of early states. Other perennial 1% polling candidates have plans that are far less clear. They include spiritualist and best-selling author Marianne Williamson, who moved from Los Angeles to Iowa for the race; former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, who just concluded a walk across New Hampshire to attempt to draw attention to his campaign; and former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, a wealthy businessman who is self-funding much of his race. Delaney explained his continued campaign with a “why not?” rationale. After millions spent and countless hours of time, “it just seems kind of crazy for me to get out before the caucus,” he said. Looking for hope, Bennet has clung to the example of Gary Hart, a U.S. senator from Colorado who was considered a longshot White House hopeful in 1984 when he stunned the political world by winning New Hampshire. Hart, whose picture is on the wall of Gardner’s office, has endorsed Bennet and recently wrote an opinion piece for USA Today urging people not to write off his younger protege. Hart, however, was not shut out of most of the primary debates, as Bennet and Bullock have been this year. The Democratic National Committee’s increasingly rigorous polling and fundraising criteria are a new attempt to shrink a historically large field. And Hart, in the end, found there were limits to what an underdog can achieve in a presidential primary. He ultimately lost his bid for the nomination to Walter Mondale, the party’s former vice president and heir apparent. (Hart’s 1988 campaign for the nomination was undone by a sex scandal.) Still, Bennet’s team notes that there has been no dominating political presence in their party’s primary, like Mondale or Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in 2008. “This is the most unsettled field ever,” said Craig Hughes, a top Bennet strategist. “The dynamics are unlike anything we’ve ever seen.” Hughes proudly noted the one sign of movement in the race: The Bennet campaign is shopping for new office space as it expands in New Hampshire. One of the spots it toured last week had just been vacated by the formerly top-tier Harris campaign. __ Riccardi reported from Denver. (c) Associated PressSource: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Debate Field Reflects Democrats’ Disdain for Business Success

Sep. 12, 2019

The 2020 Democrats again take the debate stage Thursday, filling millions of family rooms across America with their faces and voices. With the field of presidential contenders essentially cut in half, it will be a very different event than the previous two sessions. For the first time, all the front-runners will be on the stage the same evening. Pundits have already started to handicap the event and create the narratives that will invariably dominate the post-debate news coverage. The composition of the field tells us a great deal about what Democrats value. The number of candidates on the stage who have ever run a business has fallen from four to one. The field is dominated by the three A’s – academics, attorneys, and activists. The three White House aspirants with business experience who failed to make the cut -- John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet, and John Delaney -- are too practical to make the big policy promises that capture the hearts of the liberal base of the Democratic Party. They comprehend the unintended consequences of these sweeping agendas and were unwilling to fully embrace them. They equivocated when it came to eliminating private health insurance, making college “free,” and imposing a new “wealth tax” on the richest Americans. Their reluctance to participate in this attack on the free market system rendered them irrelevant inside their own political party.   This isn’t surprising. There appears to be a fundamental disdain for successful business people among Democrats. In 2016, Michael Bloomberg was greeted with chants of “one-percenter” as he stood up to support Hillary Clinton at the party’s convention. Howard Schultz was accused by Democrats of being a billionaire egomaniac – despite providing tens of thousands of jobs to returning soldiers, and health care, tuition reimbursement, and stock options to hundreds of thousands of employees. Some of the attacks on Schultz were motivated by fears that he would run as an independent and possibly compromise Democrats’ 2020 chances of defeating President Trump. Yet Tom Steyer, who along with Bloomberg has been one of the most dedicated financial supporters of Democrats, received similar treatment when he decided to run as a Democrat. The ridicule with which his campaign has been met should send an unmistakable message: “We love your money, but not you.”  Some will argue that this isn’t news. Arnold Schwarzenegger often pointed out the Democrats’ institutional confusion by suggesting that “you can’t love jobs and hate the people who create them.” Once upon a time, the party of Franklin Roosevelt accepted this as a tenet of the faith. Over the last three decades, however, party elites have been steering their brethren in a different direction. Since Michael Dukakis’ disastrous 1988 campaign, Democrats have tried to argue that they support the private sector and economic growth. With this campaign they are amending that stance. The new credo is: “We support economic growth, provided it’s driven by government programs.” With all due respect to Bill Clinton, “the era of big government,” which never really went away, is back with a vengeance. This approach carries consequences both electorally and from a governance perspective. The Democrats are effectively working for President Trump by rejecting the private sector. He wants to position this race as a choice between socialism and capitalism; they are beating him to the punch. Instead of a referendum on Trumpism, the election could turn on the relative merits of two competing economic systems. While polls differ on the number of voters who prefer socialism, the average is less than a third of Americans. Those tend to be younger citizens who vote less frequently. From a governance perspective, it also likely means any new administration would be long on big government programs. If this is the direction our country takes, I hope Democrats take a moment to evaluate prior big government engineering. Yes, Medicare has helped take care of our most vulnerable citizens, but it’s also helped usher in four decades of runaway health care inflation. Medicare Part D has enabled many Americans to afford their prescription drugs, while simultaneously driving up the costs for millions of others. Likewise, the $150 billion we’ve spent every year trying to make higher education accessible to more Americans hasn’t led to affordability; rather, it’s led to inflation. Democrats would be wise to involve some of those business people they so easily cast aside -- the ones who understand how markets work. Otherwise, they may win the White House while designing a future filled with unintended consequences, further antagonizing an already alienated American electorate. Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Events

2020

Feb. 11
Concord Sign Wave

Tue 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM EST

Corner of Main St. and Center St. Concord, NH 03301

Feb. 11
Sign Wave in Nashua

Tue 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM EST

Corner of Main St. and Amherst St. Nashua, NH 03064

Feb. 11
Sign Wave in Dover

Tue 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM EST

83 Washington St, Dover, NH 03820, United States