Profile Page

District #70 - Amy Sue Vruwink (D)

Wisconsin State Representative

See the State Elections Board and new candidates HERE

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

A+ - Public funding of judicial campaigns

(AB250) Incumbent voted FOR 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)

A+ Healthy Wisconsin

Incumbent SUPPORTED 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). 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).

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 64% 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

_________________________________________________

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 70	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4	Question 5	Question 6
Amy Sue Vruwink (Democrat)(I)	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply
Dennis Juncer (Republican)	** See Below	** See Below	** See Below	** See Below	** See Below	** See Below

Juncer:

1. Yes, to the extent the political playing field can be leveled by providing an independent, nonpartisan board and commission do deal with ethical issues and redistricting, I would support these positions.
2. I would support campaign finance reform which gives underfunded candidates an opportunity to compete more effectively with a well-funded opponent. On the other hand, I question the constitutionality of limiting political speech of interest groups or individuals who have sincere political beliefs as to any political issue. I also question holding a candidate liable for the activities of groups which he or she cannot control. For example, I consider myself “pro life” in regard to abortions. A Government does not have the competence to decide if abortion is right or wrong, although it does have the competence to decide if supporting or funding abortions is in the public interest.
3. Yes and no. You have combined two issues on one question, which really isn’t fair. I do think that “independent” groups running issue ads should own up to who they are, where they get their funding and where they are coming from. I do not agree that, in our pluralistic society, they can be prohibited from having their say. And again, I feel very strongly that an individual candidate cannot be held responsible for any group who can be seen as supporting him or her, whether or not the candidate wants their support.
4. “Electoral competitiveness” sounds like a value laden term without any real definition. If it means that you have to break up districts where one party or group has a clear majority, I disagree with the concept. Legislative boundaries should be set with the intent of establishing cohesive geographical areas with the required number of voters. Neither partisan politics or a fuzzy notion like “electoral competitiveness” should come into play. Districting should be kept as objective as possible, since any subjective elements can only lead to actual or perceived corruption.
5. Yes, to the extent the political playing field can be leveled by providing an independent, nonpartisan board and commission do deal with ethical issues and redistricting, I would support these positions.
6. Yes, but with very little background on the issues, it just sounded like a good idea.
7. My priorities would be to cut State Government spending, with an emphasis on identifying and evaluating all the grants given by the State. As far as I can tell, the State has so many give-away programs that they are difficult to identify, much less quantify. What were or are they intended to do and are they doing it? Here I doubt my ability to make much impact, as the legislative seems to be controlled by the professional politicians who feel an obligation to “bring home the bacon.” The problem is, bacon is pork, and a staple in our current government environment.

 

On the issues