Vote Smart

When on election day an estimated 40 percent, or 90 million, of the 225 million voting-age Americans cast their ballots, one has to wonder how many will know enough to make informed choices. What have they learned about the candidates’ education, political experience, ideological orientation, and voting record? Or will a candidate’s good looks, pleasant demeanor, or impressive promises suffice to vote for him or her?

Americans who know how insufficiently prepared millions of voters arefor informed decisions at the ballot box have long felt the need for better voter education. In 1992, forty national leaders, including past Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, formed an organization to collect and publicizeessential background data on the candidates, as well as their positions on important issues, their voting records, their campaign finances, and their ratingsby major interest groups. Named Project Vote Smart (PVS) and financed with donations of money and time from its members (now more than 45,000), and with grants from private foundations, the organizers wanted “to make American politics more transparent.”

The Project devised what it called a National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asking candidates for election: “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?" In 1996, 72 percent of the candidates responded. This year, only 48 percent did so. Politicians from both parties claimed to be afraid that challengers would use their responses out of context in attack ads.

As an example of the information published by Project Vote Smart in its “Voter’s Self-Defense Manual,” it might be helpful to relate some of the data provided about Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois’ 18th Congressional District. He approved appropriations for the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Foreign Operations, the 2006 Budget, the Death/ Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the flag, the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill, a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill.

Rep. LaHood voted against overhauling the Endangered Species Act of 1973, against a bill implementing penalties to prevent gasoline suppliers from overcharging consumers, and against a bill supporting research that uses human embryonic cells. He did not vote on a bill that imposes a means test for individuals filing for bankruptcy.

Mr. LaHood received a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 92 percent from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Pro-Choice America rated him 0, Americans for Democratic Action 5, and the American Civil Liberties Union 6.

He received $599,000 in campaign contributions, of which $251,000 came from individuals and $220,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs). By comparison, Speaker Hastert’s take was $2,719,000, of which 1,510,000 came from individuals and $1,191,000 from PACs.

Project Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization led by former Arizona state legislator Richard Kimball who in 1987 ran for Barry Goldwater’s Senate seat against John McCain. In 1999, PVS established its headquarters and research center at the 150-acre Great Divide Ranch near Philipsburg, Montana. Members donate time by serving as interns for a two-week stay at the ranch. Each summer, some 40 college students are accepted as interns working 40 hours a week for 10 weeks.

PVS is collecting information on some 40,000 incumbents and newcomers and is now extending its coverage to city councils and judicial offices. It reported getting 16 million database hits a day during the 2004 election campaign.

Regrettably, too many politicians, albeit not all, are so eager to win that they show little interest in promoting the dissemination of relevant, accurate, and abundant facts to the voters. They are out to win, not to educate.

Ask yourself when you ponder your voting decision: Can I trust a candidate who finds it necessary to spend millions on attack ads rather than on truthful information about his own record and plans?

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	11-05-06
Vote Smart
When on election day an estimated 40 percent, or 90 million, of the 225 million voting-age Americans cast their ballots, one has to wonder how many will know enough to make informed choices. What have they learned about the candidates’ education, political experience, ideological orientation, and voting record? Or will a candidate’s good looks, pleasant demeanor, or impressive promises suffice to vote for him or her? Americans who know how insufficiently prepared millions of voters arefor informed decisions at the ballot box have long felt the need for better voter education. In 1992, forty national leaders, including past Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, formed an organization to collect and publicizeessential background data on the candidates, as well as their positions on important issues, their voting records, their campaign finances, and their ratingsby major interest groups. Named Project Vote Smart (PVS) and financed with donations of money and time from its members (now more than 45,000), and with grants from private foundations, the organizers wanted “to make American politics more transparent.” The Project devised what it called a National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asking candidates for election: “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?" In 1996, 72 percent of the candidates responded. This year, only 48 percent did so. Politicians from both parties claimed to be afraid that challengers would use their responses out of context in attack ads. As an example of the information published by Project Vote Smart in its “Voter’s Self-Defense Manual,” it might be helpful to relate some of the data provided about Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois’ 18th Congressional District. He approved appropriations for the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Foreign Operations, the 2006 Budget, the Death/ Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the flag, the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill, a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill. Rep. LaHood voted against overhauling the Endangered Species Act of 1973, against a bill implementing penalties to prevent gasoline suppliers from overcharging consumers, and against a bill supporting research that uses human embryonic cells. He did not vote on a bill that imposes a means test for individuals filing for bankruptcy. Mr. LaHood received a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 92 percent from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Pro-Choice America rated him 0, Americans for Democratic Action 5, and the American Civil Liberties Union 6. He received $599,000 in campaign contributions, of which $251,000 came from individuals and $220,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs). By comparison, Speaker Hastert’s take was $2,719,000, of which 1,510,000 came from individuals and $1,191,000 from PACs. Project Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization led by former Arizona state legislator Richard Kimball who in 1987 ran for Barry Goldwater’s Senate seat against John McCain. In 1999, PVS established its headquarters and research center at the 150-acre Great Divide Ranch near Philipsburg, Montana. Members donate time by serving as interns for a two-week stay at the ranch. Each summer, some 40 college students are accepted as interns working 40 hours a week for 10 weeks. PVS is collecting information on some 40,000 incumbents and newcomers and is now extending its coverage to city councils and judicial offices. It reported getting 16 million database hits a day during the 2004 election campaign. Regrettably, too many politicians, albeit not all, are so eager to win that they show little interest in promoting the dissemination of relevant, accurate, and abundant facts to the voters. They are out to win, not to educate. Ask yourself when you ponder your voting decision: Can I trust a candidate who finds it necessary to spend millions on attack ads rather than on truthful information about his own record and plans?

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

11-05-06

Vote Smart