In this portal, there are links to sites providing information on voting records, campaign contributions, and the environmental and anti-environmental voting records of our senators and representatives.

From now until election day in November of the year 2000, the Mainstream Media will be attempting to rehabilitate the political reputations of politicians who caved in to the radical right wing of the Republican Party during the impeachment crisis of 1998-1999. In the San Francisco Bay area, one of these politicians was Tom Campbell, a self-described moderate Republican who represents a congressional district which has a majority of Democrats. Many of these same Democrats voted for Campbell in the belief he represented moderation in a political party moving to the radical right wing of the political spectrum.

The Mainstream Media has been quite successful in convincing the Democrats in Campbell's district of his "moderation" by pointing out (again, and again, and again!) that he voted against Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. Yet, Campbell's anti-environmental votes are not noted, nor are any of his votes in a number of political issues.

What is needed is a series of political scorecards where our Senators and Representatives in Washington are evaluated in the light of their total record and are compared to the total records of other legislators.

The Environment and Conservation Issues. For example, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave Campbell a rating of 55% for his environmental votes in the 105th Congress. Compared to the other Republicans in California, that was a pretty good score, given that most of them had

Stated another way, most California Republicans had

Moreover, when Campbell's pro-environment 55% is compared with his Democratic colleagues in the Bay Area, we discover that their votes range from a pro-environmental high of 100% to a pro-environmental low of 83%, which is still almost thirty percentage points above Campbell's rating.

Even so, there are two problems with the League of Conservation Voter's Scorecard. During the 105th Congress, there were over fifty bills and riders to bills which were anti-environment in nature. This is based upon information from the National Resources Defense Committee (the NRDC). The first problem and one the League cannot do anything about is that the bills and riders to bills are combined into larger bills and these are the bills actually voted on. The pro-environment forces in this country need to force the House and the Senate to separate out the pro-environmental and anti-environmental votes in the legislative record. This needs to be done so the environmental records of each Representative and Senator in each Congress can be measured.

The other problem is one the LCV and the NRDC can work. I spent many hours trying to track down the legislative record of the fifty-plus anti-environment bills and riders to bills in the 105th Congress. Rather than bury us with the legislative minutiae of a bill's movement from its origins to either becoming a law and being thrown out, the LCV and the NRDC should concentrate on the substance of each bill or rider, using the simple guide:

The names and political affiliation of the House members or Senators who proposed the language of the bill or rider should be included. As the bill or rider moves through the House or Senate, the changes should noted (pro-environment, anti-environment, neutral) and the people responsible for the changes should be named in the anti-enviromental case. The votes on the bills or riders in both the Senate and the House should then be noted as they are presently. Although I applaud the present efforts of the LCV and the NRDC, I believe that both organizations would be much more effective if they keep it simple and if they would identify the culprits all along the line. HINT: Most anti-environmentalists in the House are Democrats from agricultural districts and Republicans from any kind of district.

Campaign Finance Reform. In examining the Common Cause voting record of Campbell with respect to political campaign reform, the scorecard shows Campbell's votes agreeing with the Common Cause position in almost every case. Translated, this means he voted with his Democratic colleagues most of the time. Yet Campbell forms part of the Republican Majority in the House, and ALMOST ALL of the Republicans supporting their Majority voted AGAIN campaign finance reform. This is the problem with voting for so-called Moderate Republicans, they have allowed the right-wing nuts in their party to take over control and to determine the agenda. Does anyone doubt that if there was a Democratic Majority in the House that a campaign finance reform bill with teeth in it WOULD BE passed and that NO anti-environmental riders or bills would become the law of the land?

Right now in the 106th Congress, we continue to play Russian Roulette with the environment because we continue to have Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate. We also have a stalemate on campaign finance reform precisely because Democrats, Independents, and "real" moderate Republicans continue to vote for candidates whom they are told are moderate Republicans.

A Failure in Reporting on ALL Other Issues. One of the failures of the current efforts to monitor the voting records of our Senators and Representatives is that the various advocacy groups are only monitoring those issues they are concerned with. Conservation, campaign reform, etc. Somewhere and somehow, all of these need to be brought together so that we common American citizens can figure out our candidates. The Vote-Smart effort is moving in this direction but has a long way to go.

(This is probably the most complete and the most correct compilation available)