The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an editorial entitled “Tell them to clean up Congress” in the Sunday, July 2^nd 2006 edition.

In it, they write that: 

“In the House there were three key votes to gauge how serious members there have been about ethics reform.  A vote on April 27^th essentially dictated which amendments would be allowed.  Blocked amendments included those that would have set up an Office of Public Integrity, restricted the revolving door that allows former members to become lobbyists and made members pay higher charter rates – rather than first-class rates – for flying on those corporate jets.’ 

They go on to say that: 

“A “no” vote was a vote for stricter rules.  Voting that way were Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin, Ron Kind, Gwen Moore and David Obey and GOP Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Mark Green, who is running for Governor.  Voting “yes” were GOP Reps Paul Ryan and Tom Petri.  The measure passed 216-207. 

Another vote (213-216) on May 3 was for substituting that virtually meaningless bill with a stronger version.  Voting “yes” were Baldwin, Kind, Moore, Obey and Green.  Voting “no” were Ryan, Sensenbrenner and Petri. 

The vote (217-213) on the final bill occurred the same day.  Voting “yes” were Ryan and Petri.  Voting “no” was the rest of the House delegation.  Particular praise for Sensenbrenner and Green for bucking House GOP leadership.”

Let’s dissect the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s analysis: 

The Journal Sentinel claimed that in the first vote, a “no” was a vote for stricter rules.  That was true of the Democrats who voted against the weaker version which passed with the Republican Majority voting “yes” so that they wouldn’t have strong rules governing their behavior.  However, it certainly did not include Rep. Sensenbrenner who clearly voted NOT for stricter rules, but rather because he didn’t want any rules at all.  That should have been logically understood by the results of the second vote, when Sensenbrenner voted against the stronger version which would have replaced the “virtually meaningless bill” which Sensenbrenner also voted against.  If Sensenbrenner truly wanted stronger ethics reform in the House, he would have voted “yes” on the second vote. Had he and one other congressman voted “yes” on the second vote then stronger ethics reform would have passed.  Neither Ryan, Sensenbrenner nor Petri were willing to do so. 

Mark Green voted “no” on the first vote, not because he wanted stronger ethics enforcement, which is clearly evident by the way that he has consistently ignored ethics rules in our Wisconsin State Legislature, and in how he takes illegal campaign money from people like Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, but because he is running for Governor.  His voting “yes” on the second vote was also because he is running for Governor, but the vote didn’t pass, so it didn’t matter. 

As for voting for higher charter fees rather than first class fees, Sensenbrenner doesn’t care that other Congressmen pay higher fees for their travel, he doesn’t pay for his travel to begin with.  His costs are paid for by lobbyists so a bill dictating higher fees doesn’t affect him, but it does make him appear to be more “ethical” to those who aren’t paying attention. 

There is no praise that should be extended to Sensenbrenner or Green for their votes – only a clear recognition of their campaign posturing from those who have the intelligence to recognize the difference. 

Praise should be given to those who are courageous enough to do what is right all the time, regardless of the position of their party.  It should not be given to those who only occasionally take a stance when they know that a bill will pass without their support, and they can look good for the press for faking a stance “on principle.” 

Did this article intentionally mislead you regarding how Reps. Sensenbrenner and Green voted and why?  Or did the Journal Sentinel Editorial board just not recognize the difference in how and why Democrats voted against the first bill, and why Rep. Sensenbrenner did so, yet voted against a stronger ethics legislation? Or why Mark Green voted as he did?  You be the judge.