Profile Page

District #54 - Gregg Underheim (R)

Wisconsin State Representative

Challenger	Challenger Web Page	Occupation	Contact
Gordon Hintz (D)	www.hintzforassembly.com		P.O. Box 1424 Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903 (920) 279-1870 info@hintzforassembly.com
Julie Pung Leschke (R)	www.julieforoshkosh.org		justjulie@julieforoshkosh.org 920.230.VOTE (8683)
John Daggett (I)			John Daggett 717 Bowen St. Oshkosh, WI 54901

For a list of all candidates for state office go the State Elections Board and click on "All Candidates Registered."

_________________________________________________

Who won the Fall 2006 Government Ethics Voter Guide Questionnaire distributed by League of Women Voters, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Common Cause? See all survey questions at the WDC web site. (I) = Incumbent

(Many of those who did not reply simply do not want to go on record as supporting reforms they know they will vote against, and do not want to be held to their word. Others will say Yes and not mean it, or will vote as dictated by their party. It is up to constituents to hold their representatives to their word.)

Assembly, District 54	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4	Question 5	Question 6
Gordon N. Hintz (Democrat)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Julie Pung Leschke (Republican)	***	***	***	***	***	***

Hintz: Priorities/qualifications: Support initiatives to increase cooperation between state and local government. Legislators must rethink restrictions placed on municipalities to guarantee local service provision and encourage a competitive economic climate. Support health care plans that extend coverage and lower costs for businesses, government, and individuals. End the politics of division in Madison. Too much effort is expended on controversial social issues. We need to focus on economic development, education, health care, and the environment. Qualifications: UW-Madison Master’s degree in public policy and administration. Currently a municipal consultant. Former municipal management assistant and budget analyst and legislative staff for Senator Herb Kohl.

Leschke:

1. Yes, assuming a non-partisan, politically independent board can be confidently identified.
2. Bullet 1 - I have concerns with requiring taxpayers to fund political campaigns. Bullet 2 - Full disclosure is essential. I’m not sure what types of regulation are being referred to. Bullet 3 - Yes. Bullet 4 - I am not certain of the intended consequences of this action. It would seem that by eliminating the leadership-controlled legislative campaign committees, that power would naturally shift to the state parties (Republican Party of Wisconsin & Democratic Party of Wisconsin). However, I would be interested in learning more details. Bullet 5 - Free speech is an issue. Bullet 6 - I am not familiar with this practice, but I believe that conduit contributions from individuals lend more transparency to campaigns[…]
3. I wholeheartedly support more effort toward total transparency and less effort toward limiting political speech, which is a guaranteed right in the U.S. Constitution. The producers of “issue ads” should be required to fully disclose the names, occupations, employers of their contributors, and contribution amounts.
4. This sounds like a very well-intentioned proposal, but I would need to know the processes involved. Gerrymandering must be avoided and sensible city/town/country relationships should be considered.
5. Yes, but I would need to learn more about the steps involved to ensure that the commission or authority is truly independent.
6. Yes. This would be similar to the private sector and the necessary non-compete clauses that are often part of employment agreements. This would be helpful in restoring public faith in the integrity of the political system.
7. I believe the single, most effective way to ensure ethical legislating in Madison is to elect honest, ethical legislators to serve their individual districts. I will lead by example by serving with honesty, integrity, and a commitment to finding the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund 7 facts for any issues on the table. I will be an advocate for the taxpayers of my district. My priorities will include working for: responsible budgeting through controlling taxes and spending; and improved climate for attracting employers and good jobs; excellence and accountability in education; and health care solutions that include affordability, accessibility, quality, and patient choice. Qualifications: Personal integrity[…]

Incumbent: On the issues

Note that during this same week, the majority and in some cases all, legislators voted yes on three no-brainer minor ethics bills -- and some even sent out newsletters proclaiming how great the act was. But what really mattered was SB1, the mother of all ethics reform which would have established an ethics commission independent of the state legislature it would be overseeing. Your representative voted AGAINST this more conclusive bill, which meant that even violations of the three no-brainers would not have faced tough scrutiny. Those voting against SB1 like things just as they are, requiring virtually zero accountability on the part of politicians.

In another action, the Assembly approved by a 96-0 vote identical measures to [shorten] the legislative session -- to July 12, from December. The end of the session is significant because state law bars lawmakers from accepting donations during the session. Lawmakers also cannot ask lobbyists to bundle donations from their clients during that period. Now they can do both beginning July 13.  

 

Incumbent's record on Ethics Reform: Bad

From WDC: What's most notable about the three roll call votes is that several Republican members – including two considered politically vulnerable and likely facing tough reelection fights, Brett Davis of Monroe and Mark Pettis of Hertel, who originally voted to take up SB 1 – voted three times against making SB 1 part of the GOP "ethics reform" bills. Pettis is one of the Jensen 10 who were implicated during the former Assembly speaker's trial. All of the Jensen 10 voted consistently to block approval of SB 1.

Many politicians refuse to answer the questions in the Project Vote-Smart solicitation because they don't want voters knowing where they stand on the issues! They like being able to fudge and evade when being asked about an issue, and having it on record and posted on the web is the last thing they want. Especially when it can be compared to their voting record while in session.

Wisconsin Conservation Voters Rated Incumbent at 18% acceptance

Conservation Scorecard on your state representative at: http://www.conservationvoters.org/scorecard/sc04_asm_name.shtml    See also incumbent's committee scorecard at: http://www.conservationvoters.org/votetracker/