Profile Page

District #17 - Dale Schultz (R)

Wisconsin State Senator

See the State Elections Board and new candidates HERE

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

A+ - Public funding of judicial campaigns

(SB171) 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. 2/19/08 Sequence No. 200

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.

Wisconsin Conservation Voters Rated Incumbent at 11% acceptance

Conservation Scorecard on your state senator 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.)

Senate, District 17	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4	Question 5	Question 6
Dale W. Schultz (Republican) (I)	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes

Schultz (Convoluted answers)

1. Yes.
2. No. I supported SB 46 when it passed the state senate earlier this year. I have concerns related to the constitutionality of limiting issue advocacy, out of state contributions and small organizations pooling their resources to exercise their free speech rights. I am open to any and all constitutional ideas to reform our campaign, elections and ethics laws.
3. No. I am in favor of full disclosure, but cannot support prohibiting legitimate organizations from exercising their free speech rights.
4. No. I support allowing an independent commission to redraw legislative districts (question #5) but do not believe the legislature should attempt to define legislative competitiveness.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Throughout my career, I have a consistent record of supporting campaign finance reform legislation and ethics and election reform. During the recent legislative session, I supported Senate Bill 1 when it passed the state senate. As Senate majority leader, I scheduled Senate Bill 46 relating to campaign finance reform for floor consideration. While this bill failed to pass the state senate, I personally cosponsored this legislation and voted for it. I am committed to passing meaningful campaign, elections and ethics reform legislation. I am open to any and all ideas that will bring accountability and transparency to our system of governance.

NOTES from Lohman:

Schultz's answer to #2 is ill-informed. A Clean Money system IS constitutional because it is voluntary; Issue ads are NOT limited, just matched by the public grant; and "limiting out-of-state contributions and small organizations pooling their resources to exercise their free speech rights" is also voluntary on the part of the candidate. He can opt out if he wishes.

Schultz's answer to #3 essentially says: It's okay for politicians to take bribes as long as they disclose who they are coming from.

Schultz supported "partial" public funding of campaigns which still left the special interests in control of the legislature.

Schultz has been part of the problem and has typically not supported meaningful reform.

On the issues

Incumbent's record on Ethics Reform: Good

Republicans voting against reform were Grothman, Lasee and Reynolds, Democrats voting against reform were Decker and Taylor