| Incumbent | Incumbent Web Page | Personal Web Page | Who funds the incumbent? |
Steve Kestell (R) |
Steve Kestell | Follow the Money |
|
2008 Challenger |
Challenger Website |
Contact |
|
| Bob Cox (D) |
4022 North 45th Street |
F - Public funding of judicial campaigns |
F - Healthy Wisconsin |
B - Ethics Reform |
|
F - Healthcare - HSAs |
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=CWI75891 Ratings by Interest Groups: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CWI75891 Votes by Category: |
Wisconsin Conservation VotersRated Incumbent at 18% acceptance |
Conservation Scorecard on your state
assembly representative
at:
Vote Tracker -- SB1 Ethics Bill Past Scorecards: |
2006 record below |
(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 27 | Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4 | Question 5 | Question 6 |
| No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply | No Reply |
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.
| Bill - SB1 (5/2/06 Sequence 662) aR- | The Issue | How Assembly Voted | Your Representative |
Senate Bill 1 - Establish a Government Accountability BoardIntroduced by Mike Ellis (R) in the Senate and
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 Voting for reform:
Voting to block reform:
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.