Profile Page

District #78 - Mark Pocan (D)

Wisconsin State Representative

Pocan has been an excellent advocate of ethics, campaign and health care reform.
See: Ethics training not required for pols, Pocan calls rule 'height of hypocrisy'

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

Mark Pocan (D)

 Mark Pocan
Pocan's Personal Page

Pocan's Blog
 Follow the Money

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.

Project Vote-Smart Rating

 INCUMBENT TOOK THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST at http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CWI05615

Ratings by Interest Groups:  http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CWI05615

Votes by Category:    

Wisconsin Conservation Voters

Rated Incumbent at 100% 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 78 Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6
Mark Pocan (Democrat) (I) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pocan:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes, but only offenses related to their official capacities; not sure on misdemeanors (always vote against bills that ban employment options to people with criminal history if not substantially related to job, ie someone convicted of a felony for stealing cable can still be a teacher in a school)
7. There is no question that the State Capitol is in need of a good housecleaning and serious reform. I can help that process by continuing the work I have started in the legislature. I fought hard for 100 percent public funding of political campaigns like in Maine and Arizona, a bill authored by myself and Senator Fred Risser. Leveling the playing field with special interests and the public is a must. I also lead the fight to pull SB-1, the Ethics Reform bill, for a vote in the State Assembly. Unfortunately, legislative Republicans voted against taking up the bill.

On the issues

A+ Universal Health Care

 Incumbent has been supportive of universal health care (Miller's AB 807)

A+ Campaign Finance Reform

 Incumbent has supported campaign finance reform (Pocan's AB626 and Risser's SB479).

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)  aD+ 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.

+ + + + + + +

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

+ + + + + + +

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.