Fifteen Questions for Rep. Kind

Involvement in illegal campaign activities

On July 3, 2002 the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel printed a story reporting a compliant by former Democrat Party employee Don Fish alleges that you and the other Democrat Congressional Representatives from Wisconsin were at meetings in 1998 and 2000 where it was discussed using state-payrolled legislative caucus employees to help develop voter information files for the state Democratic Party. In one of those meetings in June of 2000 it was so obvious that this type of illegal activity was being sanctioned that a representative of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore asked sarcastically, 'Will state taxpayers be getting a credit next year for supplying the data?'"

This story broke in early July, in August your opponent, Congressional Candidate Bill Arndt called on you to explain "What did Ron Kind know? What should he have known? What has he done about it?" and yet you have made no public statement on your involvement. Congressman Kind, don't you feel your constituents have a right to know the answers to these questions? Will you answer them now?

2. In a August 22, 2002 press release by former Democrat Party employee Donald Fish, he stated, "Under oath I told the State of Wisconsin Elections Board there was a significant problem with using Congressional staff for campaign purposes" he goes on to say that he believes this to be a particular problem in several offices including Rep. Ron Kind. He then urged "government investigators, the media and the people to look further" and called on "Wisconsin's entire Democrat Congressional delegation to release all information from the past five years on how their congressional staff used their official time, where they traveled on the people's dime and how congressional office resources were allocated." Congressman Kind are you willing to make these documents public?

Partial Birth Abortion Flip-Flop

In July 2002 you voted against a ban on Partial-birth abortion (HR 4965), yet in April 2000 you voted to for a ban on this procedure (House Roll Call Vote #104, 106 Congress, 2nd Session). Some, including your opponent, Congressional Candidate Bill Arndt have called on you to explain this "flip-flop" on your position suggesting that you possibly only voted for the ban in 2000 knowing that Clinton would veto it anyway. Others have said you are now simply bending to political pressures of the pro-abortion lobby. Congressman Kind, can you explain your change of heart?

4. Studies have shown that two-thirds of the American public agree this inhumane procedure performed late in the pregnancy in cases where both the mother and child are healthy and where the baby is pulled out by the feet leaving only the baby's head still inside (so that they can claim it is not yet born) when a doctor inserts an instrument to either crush the skull or suck out the baby's brain should be banned. Congressman Kind, I am not asking that you change your overall pro-abortion stance, but will you join the vast majority of citizens now and pledge to vote to ban this procedure in the future?

Corporate and Government Accountability

Robert Rubin, former Clinton Treasury Secretary, appears to have played a direct role in concealing Enron's financial condition from credit rating agencies and has not been called to testify before Congress by Senator Joe Lieberman. Congressman Kind will you publicly urge Senator Lieberman to call Robert Rubin to testify?

6. A report by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs says the Department of Education reported in financial statements that it had 7.5 billion in the bank when it actually owed that money to the U.S. Treasury. This means their books are off by 15 Billion Dollars. Congressman Kind you have served on two education committees, aren't you equally concerned about government accountability? Will you publicly ask for an Enron type investigation into the Department of Education wrong doing?

Farm Policy

In a July 12, 2002 press release titled "Kind Questions USDA: Agency Won't Meet July 13th Dairy Payment Deadline to Nation's Farmers" your office intentionally tries to give voters the impression that you are the champion of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 which ended up passing 280 to 141 despite your opposition. In fact, in a May 2, 2002 press release you are quoted as saying, "Today's passage of the Farm bill preserves bad policy and the status quo." That release further quotes you as stating, "In addition, increasing subsidy payments will also make it more difficult when the U.S. enters into negotiations with our international trading partners under WTO rules." Congressman Kind, isn't this type of political grandstanding just what is wrong with Congress today?

8. In October 2001, you proposed the "Kind Amendment" to the farm bill which would have moved billions of dollars earmarked for ag producers to conservation programs. Many farm groups were actively working to defeat your amendment that would have placed over-inflated amounts of money into conservation programs and at the same time would place stipulations on those programs to keep many growers from participating.

For example, in an October 5, 2001press release titled "Corn and Sorghum Growers Win with Defeat of Kind Amendment", Kansas Corn Growers Association (KCGA) and Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association (KGSPA) Executive Director Jere White is quoted as saying, "We don't need monstrous government programs to idle land. We need a strong farm bill. And if we want any farm bill to work, we need to level the playing field to allow our growers to compete in foreign trade."

In an October 1, 2001 news release, Illinois Corn Growers Association President Ron Fitchhorn stated in his opposition, "Farmers are facing tough economic times so conservation programs should not replace income support programs. Significant increases in conservation programs have already been addressed so increasing conservation-related spending by 75 percent over baseline spending is counter-productive."

The October 2001 issue of the "Crop Insurance Insider" newsletter is quoted as saying, "This amendment, known as the Kind amendment, has the strong support of several powerful environmental groups who don't like farm programs."

Congressman Kind, the Third Congressional District is proud of our ag industry. In fact many of us brag that the 3rd District has more cows than people. Would you please explain why your pandering to extreme environmental groups such as the Sierra Club must take precedence over the working men and women of your own district?

Tax Policy

Congressman Kind, you continue to brag in your literature about receiving "awards" from supposedly non-partisan groups for holding the line on spending. One group which gave you such an award, Taxpayers for Common Sense, does not appear non-partisan at all. Of the 76 U.S. Senators and Representatives received "Treasury Guardian" status from Taxpayers for Common Sense, there were 58 Democrats, 17 Republicans, and 1 Independent so "honored." In the U.S. House alone, 87.7% of the recipients were Democrats. Wouldn't it be better to be honest and say these awards are from Democrat front groups?

10. As a follow up to the previous question about your "treasury guardian" status Congressman, please allow me to ask you about some awards you fail to mention in your literature. In 1999 you received a lifetime rating of 36% and was in the "Unfriendly to Taxpayers" category from Citizens Against Government Waste. In 2001 you did even worse, according to this non-partisan group, receiving just a rating of 15% and a "Hostile to Taxpayer" rating. In 1999, you received a "F" grade from the National Taxpayers Union. In 2000 raised that up to a "D" grade. However, in 2001 you were back down to a grade of "F".

There seems to be some discrepancy here. So let's look at actual spending. That should tell us how frugal you are with our money. According to NTU, and this information is available on their website, you sponsored or cosponsored bills that would have spent almost 66 ½ million dollars this past year. This amount was the second highest spending proposed in the entire Wisconsin Congressional delegation; only Tammy Baldwin wanted to spend more! At the same time the NTU reports you introduced bills proposing budget cuts that if passed would have amounted to saving only $626,000. Congressman Kind, how can you brag about being a "treasury guardian" when you want to spend so much? Don't you realize that the public is so tired of professional politicians like you trying to "spin the truth" on us? Don't you realize that our taxes are high enough and the people of Western Wisconsin demand that government cut spending and lower taxes.

Campaign Finance

Congressman Kind, we know that you have made many speeches on the floor of the U.S. House stating that we need campaign finance reform. Yet your campaign is sucking up money at unprecedented rates. According to the Federal Election Commission report you started this election season with a balance of over $200,000 left over from 2000. Between then and June 2002, your campaign machine spent almost all of that money and raised an additional half a million dollars for a cash balance on hand of $505, 234 as of June 30, 2002. It also shows that $234,400 or 46% of the money you raised this campaign season thus far was from Special Interest Group PACs. Even though your opponent, Congressional Candidate Bill Arndt, had yet to raise a dime at that point you felt you needed the $200,000 plus $500,000 plus whatever additional dollars you can scoop up between June and November. Even though your 2000 and 1998 opponents combined only spent about $130,000 combined to try and unseat you, you continue to hold fundraisers outside the district (e.g. one in Madison on May 28, one in Milwaukee on August 27) taking money from whomever you can arrange it from.

Congressman Kind, how much money is enough? Do you really need more than 10 times the average amount of money that gets spent in attempts to unseat you? Do you really need to continue to hold fundraisers for donors you do not even represent? Or do you mistakenly believe Milwaukee and Madison have been added to the Third District? Why do you need to be lining your pockets with huge amounts of special interest money? Shouldn't this campaign be about ideas and not just about special interests and raking in cash with an awesome a fundraising machine?

12. Also according to the FEC report which you submitted, it shows that up to June you have spent over $76,000 in "Fundraising Services" all from 3 professional Democrat fundraising services, one in Madison (the same firm which employed the staffer who sank Democrat Gary George's hopes for being on the ballot for Governor), one in Missouri, and one in Washington DC. It is likely, based on knowing how much was spent against you in the last 2 elections, and knowing how much your opponent has raised to this point, that you will easily spend more to secure these out-of-district hired-gun professional fundraisers alone, than your opponent will spend on everything he does to campaign against you. Congressman Kind, are these kinds of expenditures really necessary? Are you incapable of showing any restraint or judgment when it comes to spending other people's money?

Local Economic Issues

There is no question that most areas in the Third Congressional District are hurting economically. The U.S. Census shows that 4 of bottom 10 poorest Wisconsin communities are in 3rd District. It also shows that the 3rd congressional district still in the bottom 1/3 of state for income; same as it was when you took office. Wisconsin is the 3rd highest taxed state, yet we rank only 37th in getting dollars back from the Federal government. Congressman Kind, are you aware of these facts? What do you intend to do about it? And why haven't you done anything about it in the past?

14. Many jobs are being taken out of Wisconsin and the district. We need to not only keep the jobs we have but attract more employers to the district - federal jobs as well! This must be a priority for all of our elected officials. The Amery Free Press, published a story from the AP Newswire on July 30, 2002 titled "Save Ft. McCoy" detailing a proposed move to reduce or destroy Ft. McCoy. There is also talk of the DOD killing Volk Field/Camp Williams by decreasing their support. Yet, we have not seen any public statements from you these proposals. Congressman Kind, what if anything have you done. What can you say to the hard working people of the district who's livelihood is dependent on these military bases? Particularly in light of the fact that we get less than our fair share of dollars back from the federal government, don't you agree that the Great State of Wisconsin deserves better treatment and consideration by the Congress, the DOD and the Secretary of the Army when it comes to allocating resources within our state?

15. Congressman Kind, you say you support the elimination of the marriage tax penalty which unfairly taxes thousands of married couples right here in your district. Yet, on July 12, 2000 when the U.S. House passed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act by a vote of 269 to 159 you voted "NO". On March 29, 2001, the House again passed the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act by a vote of 282 to 144 and again you voted NO.

In June 2002, your staff issued a press release titled "Kind Favors Permanent Repeal of Marriage Penalty." This is an odd title as again you voted "No" on the vote. You try and cover yourself in the press release by stating that the legislation he would have supported, which was voted down before the vote on the primary legislation, "would have made the marriage penalty provisions permanent only if the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) certifies in 2010 that there would be sufficient non-Social Security surpluses to finance the bill without using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses." Come on Congressman, 2010? If you are still in office you might support it in 8 years ONLY IF we have enough money by then? And yet despite the fact that you continue to vote against elimination of this unfair tax, you have the gall to issue a press release that says you favor its elimination. Can you even try to explain yourself on this one? Please tell us straight, you have no intention of supporting the elimination of this unfair tax do you?

Click here to return to press release

15 Questions to ask Rep. Ron Kind