Representative Randy (Duke) Cunningham
Republican of California, District 50

2350 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20155
Phone: 202-225-5452
Fax: 202-225-2558
Website: http://www.house.gov/cunningham/
E-mail Rep Cunningham
Cosponsorship and vote scores are brought to you by
Irregular Times

Other resources we offer include:

California political profile

Political information for all 50 states

Irregular News

That's My Congress

Progressive Bumper Stickers and Shirts

Liberal political buttons

Progressive Action Score: 6

A score of 6 means that Rep. Cunningham has acted to support 6% of a slate of progressive policies in the 109th Congress.
Progressive, forward-looking actions Rep. Cunningham has taken to merit a PAS of 6:
  • The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Although the Patriot Act reauthorization passed, Rep. Cunningham took a brave stand by voting NO, protecting traditional American liberties.


    Progressive political actions that Rep. Cunningham could have taken but unfortunately chose not to take:

    • Rep. Cunningham failed to vote "no" on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Cunningham swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Cunningham failed to oppose H.R. 6166, which is a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.

      Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.

      All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Cunningham betrayed the dream of America by allowing this bill to pass into law without a vote of opposition. It bears saying again: Rep. Cunningham has betrayed the dream of America.

    • By voting "no" on the Farr Amendment, Rep. Cunningham voted to keep Section 102 in H.R. 418, giving a Bush administration bureaucrat the ability to nullify any law without judicial review of that decision. Where I come from, they call that dictatorship.

    • By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Cunningham voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Cunningham has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.

    • To members of Congress, talk of patriotism comes easy. But what about action to preserve what is great about America? What about protecting the symbol of America, the bald eagle itself? On September 29, 2005, a slim majority of member of the United States House of Representatives voted for H.R. 3824, an attack upon the landmark law that brought the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Without the Endangered Species Act, the American bald eagle would probably not exist any more, except on the backs of our quarters and as a graphic on Republican web sites promoting corporate pollution.

      We've seen the American bald eagle fly, and we think that it is worth protecting. 229 members of the House of Representatives disagreed. They voted to seriously weaken the protection of endangered species like the American bald eagle. They did it for the sake of profits for big business. A NO vote would have represented a courageous stand for the Endangered Species Act. In a telling betrayal, Representative Cunningham failed to vote NO. For shame.

    • Rep. Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 2412, which would provide more information to the public about contacts between lobbyists and politicians, and which would slow down the revolving door of politics in which politicians move into cushy corporate jobs after they retire in exchange for favors. What is Representative Cunningham's problem with ethics?

    • Rep. Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 40, which would acknowledge the injustices of slavery and racial discrimination and establish a commission to study them.

    • Rep Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 63, which would make Election Day a federal holiday to make it easier to get out and vote.

    • Rep Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 759, which would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through market-based systems.

    • Rep. Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 550, a bill which would sensibly require the establishment of a backup paper record of votes for those times when electronic voting machines fail. Why is Rep. Cunningham unwilling to protect the bedrock of democracy, Americans' faith that every vote counts?

    • Rep. Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 952, which would put an end to the practice of "extraordinary rendition," in which Bush Administration officials send people into the custody of certain nations, knowing full well (some would say intending) that they will be tortured there. Extraordinary rendition is another stain on the moral clarity of the United States. It is a horrible irony that in a "War on Terror," the United States government would allow the use of terror as a tool. Why is Rep. Cunningham unwilling to stand against American complicity in the use of torture?

    • Randy (Duke) Cunningham has not yet signed on as a cosponsor to H.R. 1157, which would keep government agents from riffling through your bookstore receipts and library records without your permission or knowledge. Why is Rep. Cunningham standing against privacy, against individual liberty, and with Big Brother? That's not a rhetorical question.

    • Randy (Duke) Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 1440, which would keep members of the Federal Communication Commission from using their appointed positions to censor cable, satellite or internet programs they consider to be indecent. These "narrowcast" programs are accessed only by those who specifically request them, so why should the government make it their business to keep people from seeing what they want to see? Why has Rep Cunningham not yet lent support to this sensible, freedom-defending bill?

    • We may think we live in modern times, but the U.S. Constitution still does not guarantee that individual rights shall apply equally to men and women. Without such a constitutional guarantee, all it could take is a rogue judge or an emboldened conservative Congress to take women's rights away by a simple majority vote. On the other hand, this nation is still encumbered with unfair legal notions that, all other things being equal, give mothers custody advantages over fathers. The current state of unequal protection is unfair to both women and men, and devalues our common underlying humanity.

      Randy (Duke) Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.J. Res 37, which would amend the United States Constitution to simply state the following: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." It's simple, it's obvious, and it's about time something was done to enshrine this principle in the Constitution for men and women alike. When will Rep. Cunningham step out of the Stone Age and take this important stand for equality?

    • Rep. Cunningham has not yet cosponsored H.R. 567, which would preserve and protect the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from short-sighted, unnecessary development.

    Contact Rep Cunningham by E-mail, Phone (at 202-225-5452), or Fax (at 202-225-2558) to ask why they have chosen not to take the progressive path in these matters.
  • Regressive Conservative Score: 62

    A score of 62 means that Rep. Cunningham has acted to support 62% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 109th Congress.
    Regressive, destructive, and downright unAmerican actions Rep. Cunningham has taken that contribute to a RCS of 62:

  • Rep. Cunningham voted YES on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Cunningham swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Cunningham voted for H.R. 6166, a bill that makes a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution makes an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.

    Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.

    All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Cunningham betrayed the dream of America by helping to push this bill into law. It bears saying again: Rep. Cunningham has betrayed the dream of America.

  • To members of Congress, talk of patriotism comes easy. But what about action to preserve what is great about America? What about protecting the symbol of America, the bald eagle itself? On September 29, 2005, a slim majority of member of the United States House of Representatives voted for H.R. 3824, an attack upon the landmark law that brought the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Without the Endangered Species Act, the American bald eagle would probably not exist any more, except on the backs of our quarters and as a graphic on Republican web sites promoting corporate pollution.

    We've seen the American bald eagle fly, and we think that it is worth protecting. 229 members of the House of Representatives disagreed. They voted to seriously weaken the protection of endangered species like the American bald eagle. They did it for the sake of profits for big business. A NO vote would have represented a courageous stand for the Endangered Species Act. In a telling betrayal, Representative Cunningham voted YES for the gutting of the Endangered Species Act. For shame.

  • Section 102 of H.R. 418 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to nullify any law she or he deems necessary to build roads and fences in the vicinity of a national border. Furthermore, Section 102 of H.R. 418 makes it legally impossible for any court or agency of the government to review the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to nullify any law. In short, Section 102 places the Bush administration untouchably above the law.

    The Farr Amendment would have stricken this language, and only this language, from H.R. 418, making a vote against the Farr Amendment a vote against the rule of law. Shame on you, Representative Cunningham, for voting "no" on the Farr Amendment. You stand in disgraceful historical company among those who favor arbitrary dictatorship. That's downright unAmerican.

  • By voting for the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, Rep. Cunningham voted to keep a ruling of a federal court from being enforced. Why? Because a judge decided that a religious monument on the grounds of the Gibson county courthouse was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over others. Rep. Cunningham has apparently decided that any personally distasteful court ruling can be overturned, just because. That's not the rule of law. That's an arbitrary violation of the separation of powers. And, in this case, it allows pushy and vocal religious groups to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's not just wrong, it is downright unAmerican.

  • The way that U.S. citizenship works is pretty simple when you get down to it: if you are born in this country, you are a citizen. Leave it to Representative Randy (Duke) Cunningham to come up with a way to change that. Representative Cunningham has thrown support behind H.R. 698, which would deny citizenship to American-born babies if their parents arenít themselves citizens. Such a change would move us toward the German model of citizenship, in which families who have lived in Germany for generations were denied citizenship because they lacked the so-called "virtue" of a German bloodline.

    Even more bizarrely under this bill, if a baby is born in America of a father who is a citizen and a mother who is not, the baby is denied American citizenship if the father and mother are not married. Yes, you are reading that right ó the Republicans even want to deny babies citizenship when the father is himself a citizen. How extreme. How xenophobic. How simply unacceptable.

  • By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Cunningham voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Cunningham has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.

  • One of the more purely nationalist pieces of legislation to enter the U.S. Congress so far this year is House Joint Resolution 10, which would amend the United States Constitution so that "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

    The amendment would transform the American flag from a symbol of liberty into a nationalist idol to be worshipped in the cult of the Homeland. Just consider the language used in the amendment. The amendment proposes to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the American flag. Let's be clear: to desecrate something means to demean its sacred status.

    Sacred status? Sacred? In traditional American democracy, the American flag is not sacred. There is no official cult of flag worship. Flag worshipping cults, like the Boy Scouts, have been private organizations. However, this amendment would elevate a physical object, the American flag, into a special religious realm of untouchability and spiritual transcendence. The amendment would insert the notion of sacred idols into the United States Constitution for the first time.

    In supporting House Joint Resolution 10, Representative Cunningham stands against good sense and with the nationalist mob. We need fewer, not more, demagogues like Cunningham in the Congress.

  • At a time when our budget deficit is soaring, George W. Bush and the Congress should be finding ways for the American people to fulfill their responsibilities to future generations. That means that we must pay our way: when Bush and the Congress propose and pass large budgets, they must provide for their payment as well. Yes, this means taxes. But while the Republican-controlled Congress is allowing the government's budget to spiral wildly higher, it irresponsibly suggests that we ought to cut taxes. And to make matters worse, the taxes they propose to cut are taxes paid by those who can by definition afford to pay them: the wealthy. Nobody has to pay a penny for anything up to a million dollars they get in income when a relative dies. But H.R. 8 would permanently eliminate income taxes on any unearned money over a million bucks that people receive as part of an inheritance. You and I won't get that kind of inheritance: it's the already filthy rich who will benefit. At this time of budget deficits, we shouldn't be cutting away these sorts of taxes. It's not fiscally prudent. It's radically regressive. By supporting this legislation, Representative Cunningham has decided to act in an irresponsible manner that is fiscally dangerous to us all.