Jan Schneider

Jan Schneider earned a high school diploma from Mamaroneck High School, a bachelor's degree from Brown University, a graduate degree from Columbia University, a law degree from Yale University, and a Ph.D. from Yale University. Her career experience includes working as an attorney, small business owner, adjunct professor, and author.[1][2]

Who are you? Tell us about yourself.

Jan Schneider fights for ALL the People.

Jan Schneider fights for ALL the People.

Our campaign is for: economic security beyond “affordability” – including living wages, quality public education, fair taxes and strong social safety nets; campaign finance and electoral reform to end our federal government being for sale; health care as a right, with Medicare for All and an improved Veterans Health Administration; opposing discrimination based on gender, race/ethnicity, orientation, disability, age, religion or national origin; environmental protection, including green energy; humane immigration and border protection policies; and an end to illegal killings and senseless wars. Above all, we are fighting for representative democracy against subversion of our Constitution by an unhinged president and groveling Congress.

This election is about our country and its future -- not about me. But be assured I am highly qualified to represent the people of Florida CD 16. A Yale Law School graduate with a doctorate in political science from Yale, I have practiced law from small claims courts to the International Court of Justice, worked with Congress, represented the United Nations Environment Programme and taught at a major law school. I currently practice law in this district, provide free legal services and manage a small corporation. I have also served on many public interest boards and have published a book and dozens of articles on vital legal and political issues.

Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?

ECONOMIC SECURITY

Too many in this country are desperately battling the high cost of living. They cannot afford burgeoning costs of energy/gas, owning or renting a home, food and basic necessities, healthcare and childcare.

In this crisis, the Jan Schneider campaign does NOT aim for “Affordability.” Affordability is essentially a transient concept, the current relationship between costs of goods and services and income available to pay for them.

Rather, in this wealthy country, the goal should be lasting “Economic Security.” This includes quality public education, jobs with living wages, fair taxes and retraining and transition funding as necessary. We think it must also encompass healthcare as a right and effective social safety nets.CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Our elections and federal governments are for sale. During the 2024 election cycle, 300 billionaires and their families poured $3 billion into federal elections, 19% of all campaign contributions.

Congress must enact campaign finance reform: to prohibit corporate PACs from contributing to federal candidates; ban lobbyists from donating, bundling and fundraising for candidates; close loopholes for single candidate Super PACs; set strict contribution limits and disclosure requirements for federal projects; require transparency, including disclosure of ultimate donors and closing "dark money" loopholes; and overturn Supreme Court equation of corporations with citizens in Citizens United v. FEC and other case.HEALTHCARE

The United States healthcare system is sick. We spend 18% of gross domestic product on health, the highest per capita spender at $14,885 annually. Still, the U.S. ranks worse than other developed countries on health indicators, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, prescription drug costs and number of health professionals.

Healthcare should be a right. Congress should: revive Affordable Care Act premium tax credits; transition to Medicare for All; restore cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; improve the Veterans Health Administration; allow government negotiation of drug prices and set out-of-pocket limits. After the Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case, Congress also needs to restore access to reproductive health care.

What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?

With an extensive background in international relations, that is an area I have long been passionate about. Recently, however, reversing hijacking of the Constitution in a movement toward autocracy has subsumed all else. Hence campaign finance and electoral reform are major issues for the Jan Schneider campaign. Believing healthcare should be a right explains our focus on the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration. Because our district has one of the oldest populations, add preserving Social Security and other social safety nets. And while not a policy area on which I have previously concentrated, in light of the gerrymandering of FL16, I am likely to become immersed in agricultural policy.

Who do you look up to? Whose example would you like to follow, and why?

Late Elliot Richardson, who refused to follow illegal orders

What characteristics or principles are most important for an elected official?

Integrity, knowledge, experience, caring, civility

What do you believe are the core responsibilities for someone elected to this office?

Put country, district and people before party; put country, district and people before self; represent ALL the people

What legacy would you like to leave?

Doing the best I can to restore our democratic republic

What was your very first job? How long did you have it?

First full-time job was law firm of Covington & Burling for six years; before that, part-time jobs to finance education

What is something that has been a struggle in your life?

Voice disability

What qualities does the U.S. House of Representatives possess that makes it unique as an institution?

Closest to the people; power of the purse

What do you perceive to be the United States' greatest challenges as a nation over the next decade?

Restore representative democracy; revive faith in our country; resume leadership in space and technology

Do you believe that compromise is necessary or desirable for policymaking?

Of course. Also civility

What was the first historical event that happened in your lifetime that you remember?

Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Who are you? Tell us about yourself.

Being socially liberal but fiscally conservative does not necessarily make one a walking oxymoron.

I believe in the famous statement by Vice President Hubert Humphrey: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” This requires difficult choices to avoid incurring huge deficits and burdening future generations with excessive debt.

One should be well informed to guide such balanced efforts. I have the education: BA summa cum laude from Brown University, MIA (International Affairs) from Columbia, and JD and PhD (Political Science) from Yale.

Long involvement in politics has also afforded me useful background. Besides practicing law, I authored a book and numerous articles on contemporary issues. Board memberships have included: nationally, American Society of International Law, Council on Ocean Law, Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies, International Law Association, Law of the Sea Institute and Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute; and locally, Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary, First Responders for Democracy, Gulf Coast Marine Institute South, Henry Lawrence Youth Foundation, Lemon Bay Conservancy, Protect Our Waters, Suncoast Commission on the Status of Women and Sarasota-Manatee National Organization for Women.

Called a wonk, I am a wonk with heart.

Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. A fervent advocate for women’s rights, I believe Congress should pass legislation restoring Roe v. Wade standards nationwide. Congress should also eliminate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions, which discriminates against those dependent on Medicaid and other government health insurance programs.

In contrast, our opponent espouses the anti-choice mantra “every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to life.” He has consistently voted against not only access to abortion, but also to contraception and other choice measures. Recently he has taken up the line that reproductive issues must be left to the states, but Arizona showed how disastrous that can be.SECURITY FOR SENIORS. Florida CD16 is distinctive in consistently rating so high in proportion of senior citizens.

Sustaining Medicare is crucial to our district and to seniors nationwide. Our campaign supports maintaining and enhancing coverage. In contrast, our opponent has repeatedly voted to privatize Medicare by converting to a “premium support”/voucher system.

We are also fighting to save Social Security. We oppose decreasing benefits or further elevating the retirement age, but support sustainability measures such as raising the taxable maximum or “cap”. In contrast, our opponent has embraced proposals that would make drastic cuts to Social Security, partially privatize it and gradually increase the normal retirement age to 70.DEMOCRACY. Our Constitution and democratic republic are threatened.

We abhor racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic notions and violence they provoke. Rejecting cooperation and civility, many politicians now indulge in hyper-partisanship.

We support equality for all, including in employment, marriage, housing, justice and credit. Accordingly, we oppose voter suppression, gerrymandering and election lies.

Big‐money interests are also corrupting our elections. Congress should strive to counteract the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, reversing longstanding campaign finance restrictions. As the dissent observed in a related case, “[w]here enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard."

What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?

Other areas of public policy about which I feel passionately:

BORDER/IMMIGRATION controls, including additional funding for border protection, better processing of asylum claims, strengthened bans on drug and human trafficking and humane treatment of asylum seekers

CLIMATE CHANGE, including increased tax credits for clean energy development and technology

ECONOMY prosperous for ALL, including fair taxes and trade

GUN SAFETY, including banning automatic weapons

HEALTH, including sustaining the Affordable Care Act

JOBS, including living wages

NATIONAL SECURITY, including aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

SPACE program, including enhancing research and defense.

VETERANS, including fighting for healthcare and benefits.

Why would anyone want to be a member of a do-nothing, contentious, highly-politicized body with historically low approval ratings? And in the circumstances, what characteristics or principles are most important for an elected official, in particular a member of Congress, to help improve this deplorable situation?

Several qualifications are obvious, albeit somewhat rare these days. Dedication, integrity and truthfulness first come to mind, contrary to the contemporary success of the “big lie.” Seeking public office should be about desire to serve, not about personal power, selfish interests or financial gain.

One must also have an understanding of the basic nature of our representative democracy. This includes deep familiarity with the characteristics and needs of constituents, the structure and functioning of the federal government and major issues before Congress. Leadership, communication and negotiation skills are essential to achieving compromise and building consensus.

Further, compassion and civility are surely highly desirable traits, although too little practiced in contemporary government. In these divisive and troubled times, one should probably add a thick skin relatively impervious to lies, manipulations and insults.

Tell us your favorite joke.

What organizations or individuals have endorsed your campaign?

Please see our website at www.VoteJan.com.

Campaign website

Schneider's campaign website stated the following:

ABORTION / REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

Jan Schneider is pro-choice and a fervent advocate of women regaining reproductive freedom and control of our bodies. She believes that Congress should immediately pass legislation restoring the standards of Roe v. Wade nationwide. She also believes that Congress should eliminate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions, which among other things discriminates against those dependent on Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs. Opponent Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) believes “every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to life.” His repeated votes against ensuring access to abortion, rights to contraception, and other measures to improve women’s reproductive health consistently earn him an A+ on the National Pro-Life Scorecard.

BORDER / IMMIGRATION

Jan Schneider favors a comprehensive immigration bill containing additional funding for border protection agencies and officers; an efficient and fair process for considering asylum claims; a clearer standard for qualifying for asylum; strengthened provisions against trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs, human trafficking and currency smuggling; and assurances of humane treatment of asylum seekers. While she finds some provisions and some omissions objectionable, Jan would have voted for the early 2024 bipartisan Border Bill as a valuable step toward stemming the chaos at our southern border. Opponent Vern Buchanan has summarized his position on immigration/border issues as “No Amnesty. Secure the Border. Enforce the Rule of Law. Respect the Constitution.”

BUDGET

Jan Schneider, although socially progressive, is fiscally conservative. While steadfastly supporting balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, she opposes a Balanced Budget Amendment. Such a constitutional amendment would deprive federal policymakers of essential flexibility to address national security, economic and natural disaster emergencies and would give dangerous additional power to congressional extremists. Opponent Vern Buchanan has repeatedly fought for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Nevertheless, he was willing to plunge the federal government into default and financial chaos, voting with a minority of Republicans against the most recent bipartisan debt ceiling and spending cuts bill.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Jan Schneider recognizes that our federal and state governments are for sale – at huge price tags. She believes that Congress should undertake to reverse the Citizens United case and could support an amendment to make clear that the Constitution does not restrict the ability of Congress or states to propose reasonable limits on private campaign contributions and independent expenditures. Opponent Vern Buchanan has voted against campaign finance reform proposals and for making permanent the Trump tax cuts for the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Jan Schneider has worked for the United Nations Environment Programme and will continue to fight for legislation to curb climate change. She supports a wide range of measures, starting with increased tax credits to encourage development of clean energy resources and technology to capture and store carbon emissions. Opponent Vern Buchanan has consistently opposed bills to control climate change. This included voting against the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the most far-reaching United States legislation to reduce greenhouse gases pollution to date. His latest rating was 0% on the League of Conservation Voters Congressional Scorecard.

ECONOMY

Jan Schneider opposes making permanent the disproportionate boons for the wealthiest few in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Instead, Jan wants fair taxes with no increases for the middle class; supports raising the federal minimum wage to a living wage; seeks greater security for working families; and favors fair trade measures protecting American industry, workers and the economy. Opponent Vern Buchanan has a net worth calculated to be as high as $160 million and is self-serving. He has repeatedly championed bills to make the Trump Tax Cuts permanent; sought and enjoyed forgiveness of over $2.3 million in 2020 Paycheck Protection Act loans; and consistently voted for policies and engaged in practices advantaging himself and other ultra-rich Americans.

GUNS

Jan Schneider believes the 2023 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act represented an important step forward in improving firearms safety. Opponent Vern Buchanan voted Nay on that bill. He also voted against the 2021 Enhanced Background Checks Act, despite having previously backed a more expansive version.

HEALTH

Jan Schneider believes that not only the wealthy deserve to be healthy. She supports strengthening the Affordable Care Act and transitioning to Medicare for All. Opponent Vern Buchanan and his GOP cohorts, in contrast, seek to undermine the United States healthcare system still further. They want to dismantle Obamacare, turn Medicare into a “premium support”/vouchers system and drastically cut Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’, children’s and other healthcare funding.

JOBS

Jan Schneider will fight against joblessness and for jobs with living wages. In particular, she supports raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over a period of three or four years and thereafter indexing it to inflation. Opponent Vern Buchanan voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 back in 2007, but he has thereafter opposed further increases, including in the pandemic relief package. The two also disagree on related issues, including tax policies, gender gaps and healthcare.

MEDICARE

Jan Schneider is committed to sustaining Medicare and phasing in dental, hearing and vision coverage. She also supports transitioning to offering Medicare for All. Opponent Vern Buchanan has, in contrast, repeatedly voted effectually to privatize Medicare by converting to a voucher system devastating to seniors. Meanwhile, he represents a congressional district regularly ranked in the top ten or even five in terms of age and with nearly a quarter of its residents over 65.

PORT MANATEE

Jan Schneider will energetically advocate in Congress for all available assistance to Port Manatee. Opponent Vern Buchanan has shown considerable interest in Port Manatee, but he voted against both the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (a/k/a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) and American Rescue Plan Act.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Jan Schneider supports raising the Social Security taxable maximum or “cap”, ceasing raiding the Trust Funds and implementing other financial measures to sustain the system. She opposes decreasing benefits or further raising the retirement age. Opponent Vern Buchanan, for his part, has repeatedly embraced proposals to make drastic cuts to Social Security, partially privatize the system and gradually increase the normal retirement age to 70.

SPACE

Jan Schneider believes it crucial for the United States federal government, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in particular, to reexamine, redefine and balance U.S. priorities and activities in space. Opponent Vern Buchanan is not known to have opined much about space (or cyberspace) policies.

VETERANS

Jan Schneider will continue to fight for veterans and military families, including for: full funding of veterans’ healthcare, with mental health and women’s reproductive health coverage; veterans’ benefits, including under the 2022 Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT Act); additional assistance to homeless, unemployed and addicted vets; and assistance to military victims of sexual assault. Opponent Vern Buchanan has generally supported veterans and routinely stages photo opportunities with them. Surprisingly, however, he voted against the PACT Act.[5]

—Jan Schneider's campaign website (2024)[6]

Jan Schneider did not complete [the profile publisher]'s 2022 Candidate Connection survey.

Campaign website

Schneider's campaign website stated the following:

Campaign Finance

Our federal and state governments are for sale – at huge price tags. Jan Schneider supports revival of reasonable campaign finance limits to restore democracy.

The situation was exacerbated by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC, both 5 to 4 decisions by the United States Supreme Court. The Senate and House of Representatives should vote for a Constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions and restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules that prevent billionaires and corporations from buying elections.

In the 2010 decision in Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“McCain-Feingold”). The Court held that the §203 prohibition on contributions by corporations and unions violated First Amendment free speech. Citizens United led to use of Super PACS to circumvent limits on individual donors.

Four years later, in the 2014 decision in McCutcheon, the Supreme Court struck down the limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors can give to federal candidates and political committees in a two-year period. The limit was enacted in the wake of Watergate, and for 2013- 14, the cap was $123,200 (including $74,600 to political parties and PACs and $48,600 to candidates).

These decisions aggravate the vicious cycle of concentrations of wealth and political power in this country. Donors making huge campaign contributions may buy politicians and elections; many elected officials in turn support reducing taxes on the wealthy and deregulating and bailing out their businesses; and the richest few get even richer. As the dissent pointed out in McCutcheon, “[w]here enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”

Economy

Budget

Currently Under Revision

Jobs

Jan Schneider supports a transition to a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour indexed for inflation. The current federal minimum of $7.25 per hour (and the Florida minimum of $8.25) does not allow working families, even with two full-time wage earners, adequately to support themselves and one or more

children. This is not only a financial, but also a moral issue.

In other words, the current issue is not jobs. The United States is at near-full employment, with a jobless rate under 4 percent. The issue is jobs that pay living wage.

Democrats have “Raise the Wage” bills pending both in the Senate and the House of Representatives (S.1242 & H.R.15). The bills would phase in a $15/hour minimum wage over a

seven-year period and would also improve the situations of tipped workers and individuals with disabilities. The Senate bill has 31 cosponsors and the House version 171. Considering that there are currently 49 Senators who caucus with the Democrats 193 Democrats in the House, the policy has gone mainstream.

In Jan’s view, a country that can afford to give $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the richest Americans and wealthy corporations can and should ensure living wages for its workers. It has now become clear that the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have not “trickled down” or resulted in substantial increases in worker salaries and wages. Moreover, increasing the minimum wage may be the biggest stimulus for the economy – and it will certainly afford working families greater security and better living standards.

The U.S. Debt Clock

Environment

Climate Change and Clean Energy

Climate Change is real and immediate. The Paris Agreement adopted on December 12, 2015 is a great step forward in committing countries to pursue efforts to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the Paris Agreement is a beginning rather than a solution. It consists more of aspirations than firm commitments and lacks effective enforcement mechanisms.

Jan is a strong advocate for accelerated transitions to clean and renewable energy sources, reduced American and global dependence on fossil fuels and consistent implementation of the “polluter pays” principle. It is past time to stop new offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Six years after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Gulf is still suffering grave environmental aftereffects. Jan has for decades opposed drilling in the Arctic, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), one of the last pristine wildernesses. She continues to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, Phase IV of the Canada-U.S. Keystone Pipeline system, which was rejected by the Obama Administration in late 2015.

Jan opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for its lack of environmental as well as labor protections. In the 6,000 pages of the TPP, neither “climate change” nor “global warming” is mentioned. Worse, the TPP has the potential to add fuel to the climate crisis. The Sierra Club has pointed out several problems in this regard. The TP would, among other problems, allow companies to attack climate policies in private tribunals, require the U.S. Department of Energy to approve all exports of liquefied natural gas and thereby increase dependence on a fuel with high greenhouse emissions, increase emissions that cause global warming and even restrict government efforts to combat climate change.

Particularly for Floridians, it is important to add that Jan is a staunch opponent of fracking (hydraulic fracturing). Fracking involves pumping a toxic cocktail of water and potent chemicals (some known carcinogens) underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. It poses grave risks to human and animal health and water supplies. Jan seeks early repeal of the “Halliburton loophole” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempts fracking fluids from the Safe Drinking Water Act. More generally, she urges an immediate halt to fracking on public lands and would support a nationwide fracking ban by Congress.

Manatees

Protection of manatees or “sea cows” is sacred to our congressional district. We especially loved, and mourn the loss of, Snooty.

Manatees were among the first species to be classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered back in 1967. There are practical consequences to the different classifications in terms of required degrees of protection. Manatees should continue benefit from, among other things, special speed limits in boating zones and restrictions on dredging and other disruptive activities.

Guns

Jan Schneider believes in sensible gun control/safety measures to abate gun violence. Weapons of war, and particularly AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, have no place in civilian hands.

On February 14, 2018, a gunman identified as Nikolas Cruz opened fire in Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. He killed 17 people and wounded 14 others. Cruz was armed with at least one AR-15 and “countless magazines.”

The Parkland incident followed a horrible pattern. Most mass shootings in the United States in recent years have involved the AR-15. These include: Newtown, Connecticut (2012); San Bernardino, California (2015); Orlando, Florida (2016); Las Vegas, Nevada (2017); and Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017).

While respecting the Second Amendment, Jan favors the following measures: universal background checks; closing the internet, gun show and “Charleston” (3-day) loopholes; bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks; and restrictions on ownership by the seriously mentally ill, suspected terrorists (no-fly-no-buy) and persons under 21. Jan opposes concealed-carry reciprocity.

Such ideas are scarcely new or startling. There was a federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) — in effect between September 13, 1994 and September 13, 2004. It included limits on magazines holding more than ten rounds. The law survived several legal challenges, but Congress allowed the10-year ban to expire.

A renewed assault weapons ban could have an impact in reducing horrendous tragedies in schools and elsewhere. It would, however be the beginning rather than the end of measures to reduce gun violence. Accord