Profile Page

District #50 - Sheryl Albers (R)

Wisconsin State Representative

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

Sheryl Albers (R)

 Sheryl Albers Albers Personal Page Follow the Money

See the State Elections Board and new candidates HERE

2008 Challenger

 Challenger Website  

Contact

Tom Crofton (D)

    

16005 Crofton Drive
Richland Center, WI 53581

Ed Brooks (R)

    

S4311 Grote Hill Road
Reedsburg, WI 53959

 

On the issues - 2008 (See the legislator's 2006-2007 position on health care, ethics and campaign reform below)

F - Public funding of judicial campaigns

 (AB250) Incumbent voted AGAINST passage of public funding of campaigns for judges. In a recent study by Citizen Action, in 75% of the cases reaching the Supreme Court level there was a campaign contributor on one side or the other. Campaigns for judges are being financed by attorneys and business leaders. How's that for justice? ALL Supreme Court Judges came out in support of this bill.  2/27/08 Sequence No. 195 
 

On the issues - 2007 (See the legislator's 2006 position on health care, ethics and campaign reform below)

F - Healthy Wisconsin

 Incumbent OPPOSED the Healthy Wisconsin amendment to the state budget. All Democrats voted for it and all Republicans voted against it. Healthy Wisconsin was opposed by the insurance industry and business associations (though not the business members themselves). To understand your representatives vote see Follow the Money (upper right). For more on the benefits of Healthy Wisconsin see Sen. Joe Leean's article HERE
 

A+ Ethics Reform

 (SB1) Incumbent voted to pass an Ethics Reform bill (and also supported it in 2006).

F - Healthcare - HSAs

 Incumbent supports Health Savings Accounts, which as a tax subsidy benefit the wealthy. But they are detrimental to the low- and middle-income population who face high health care costs, or have them imposed by employers. See more HERE. HSAs are supported by the insurance industry, bankers, credit card companies and bankruptcy attorneys, all of whom have given campaigns significant contributions to this legislator. See Follow the Money (upper right)
 

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=BS021380

Ratings by Interest Groups:  http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS021380

Votes by Category:    

Wisconsin Conservation Voters

Rated Incumbent at 18% acceptance

Conservation Scorecard on your state assembly representative at:
http://www.conservationvoters.org/Public/scorecards/sc05-06.pdf
(Newly elected members will not be listed yet.)

Vote Tracker -- SB1 Ethics Bill
http://www.conservationvoters.org/Public/voteTracker.php?billID=47
(Includes 2007 session)

Past Scorecards:
2003-2004 http://www.conservationvoters.org/Public/scorecards/sc03-04.pdf
2001-2002 http://www.conservationvoters.org/Public/scorecards/sc01-02.pdf

 

2006 record below

_________________________________________________

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 50 Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6
Sheryl K. Albers (Republican) (I) *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** Convoluted answers

Albers:

1. Maybe. I support a bill that will achieve consistent and uniform enforcement but sought to modify bill presented last session, for I viewed it as flawed. Ellis was unwilling to modifications.
2. Bullet 1) That misrepresent their stance on issues - maybe Bullet 2) (no comment) Bullet 3) So people who operate a business don't get free speech or choice of supporting candidate? Bullet 4) So their is no leadership no cohesiveness? Bullet 5) Like from my aunts, uncles, siblings? Groups elsewhere? Who? Bullet 6) (no comment)
3. Maybe. Potentially - depends on how drafted. Must be constitutional.
4. Maybe. Not sure what is meant by your standard or how it is too be applied by Leg and Courts.
5. Maybe. Only if it is allowed opportunity for review and accept submittal by any group that has an interest, or directed to accept and review such proposals from others.
6. Felony convictions maybe not others. That would also preclude such persons from seeking employment with the state, even tho they’re knowledge may be vast it could be wasted. Pay is not now sufficient to warrant this type of prohibition. It’s comparable to suggesting an elected officials seeking higher official must return to private sector for a time.
7. I have interests in many areas - mostly ideas brought to my attention. Some ideas are district needs or localized. Others have statewide impact. My qualifications include a willingness to hear others points of view, willingness to seek compromise, and a strong desire to fully understand a problem prior to advancing an idea as a bill - so as to get it right.

 

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.

C - Campaign Finance Reform

 Incumbent has supported Ellis's SB46 or Freese's AB226 (a weak campaign reform bill that provides only partial 35% public funding of campaigns).

A+ Ethics Reform

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

Incumbent's record on Ethics Reform: Good

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

 

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.

+ + + + + + +

* Incumbent voted FOR bringing SB1 to the floor for a vote (this was the vote preferred by reform advocates)

+ + + + + + +

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.

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?)

 

 

 

 

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.