Profile Page

District #97 - Ann Nischke (R)

Wisconsin State Representative

Incumbent Incumbent Web Page Personal Web Page Who funds the incumbent?

Ann Nischke (R)

(Not a candidate)

Ann Nischke Nischke's Personal Page Follow the Money

 

Challenger Challenger Web Page Occupation Contact
Steven D. Schmuki (D) www.SteveSchmukiForAssembly.com Attorney

Waukesha, Wisconsin
262-542-7929
candidate@schmukiforassembly.org


Bill Kramer (R)
   

Citizens for Kramer
2005 Cliff Alex Court South #3
Waukesha, WI 53189
262-751-8785
kramer@kfmfinancial.com

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 97 Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6
Steven D. Schmuki (Democrat) No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply
Bill Kramer (Republican) No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply

 

On the issues

F - Universal Health Care

Incumbent has not been supportive of universal health care, and receives significant campaign contributions from the health care community.

F - Campaign Finance Reform

Incumbent has done nothing to move campaign reform forward.

F - Ethics Reform

Incumbent voted to BLOCK an Ethics Reform bill (SB1).

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

Bill - SB1 (5/2/06 Sequence 662) aR- The Issue How Assembly Voted Your Representative

Senate Bill 1 - Establish a Government Accountability Board

Introduced by Mike Ellis (R) in the Senate and
Terri McCormick (R) in the Assembly

 

It was killed by the Assembly Republicans.

This was a vote on whether to bring the ethics bill to the floor and allow a complete up-or-down vote. By voting against an open floor vote the legislators effectively killed the bill and did not have to go on record as officially opposing ethics reform.

Media coverage at MSP, Milwaukee, Madison, Madison

Caveat: Some Republicans were allowed to vote in favor of this reform bill because their vote was not needed to kill it and they were in unsafe seats with a challenger.

Proponents claim: This bill would establish an independent ethics commission to oversee the state legislature and governor.

 

See www.wisdc.org

 

Defeated by a vote of 51 to 45
(2 not voting).

Voting for reform:

R = 7

D = 38

Voting to block reform:

R = 51*

D =  1

 

See entire assembly roll call vote here and the senate roll call here.

 

Opponents claim: It is too intrusive, requiring the disclosure of personal finances.

 

(Isn't that what ethics is all about? How can they legitimately vote on an issue without disclosing any conflicts of interest?)

 

 

* Incumbent voted Against bringing SB1 to the floor for a vote (this was NOT the vote preferred by the reform community)

 

 

Republicans voting to pass to the floor for a vote: Almers, Davis, Hines, Lasee, McCormick (sponsor), Ott, and Pettis

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.

Project Vote-Smart Rating

INCUMBENT TOOK THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST at http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MWI86053

Ratings by Interest Groups:  http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=MWI86053

Votes by Category:    

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/