Please note: As Rep. Kirk makes subseqent filings, more data will be available. This article was written with data available on December 23, 2004.
What is stunning about Mark Kirk’s recent reelection is the number of district voters who voted for John Kerry over George Bush and Barack Obama over Alan Keyes, but voted for Kirk. This means that many who were concerned about the Iraq War, the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court, tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, dangers to our environment and the largest deficit in American history, voted for Mark Kirk. Many district voters are moderate and party-independent, and believe Mark Kirk to be a Republican for whom they can vote without compromising their moderate values. However, a thorough examination of the political contributions from Kirk’s campaign fund indicate that these moderate voters may not be getting exactly what they are buying from Rep. Kirk.
A search on the Federal Election Commission website (www.fec.gov) shows that Kirk make several contributions to congressional incumbents with voting records that are far from moderate, especially on key district issues. To limit the size of this article, I examined 2 key issues, choice and the environment and limited the discussion to the ten congressional incumbents who received $1000 or more from Kirk for the 2004 election: Kevin Brady of Texas, Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Phil Crane of Illinois, Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Todd R. Platts of Pennsylvania, Richard Renzi of Arizona, Chris Shays of Connecticut, Pete Sessions of Texas, and Wilbert Tauzin of Louisiana.District voters often say that they vote for Kirk because he is pro-choice.
One example of a pro-choice vote but anti-choice contributions is the vote on Bush’s global gag rule withholding US aid to clinics overseas that provide family planning counseling. US health care aid is important to women in developing countries and often, provides the only available health and AIDs prevention counseling. Recognizing this, Congress reversed the gag rule, but House Bill 1646 removed the reversal language. Mark Kirk voted against House Bill 1646 and has consistently holds himself out as a pro-choice candidate. In a July 2004 interview with Planned Parenthood, Mark Kirk made the following comment:
"Republicans stand for freedom and for a person to control their own destiny…. We should look for win-win solutions, like voluntary family planning, so that women are educated, have better health, and space their births farther apart, which is particularly important in the developing world. When children are planned, there is no need for abortions."
Despite his words and endorsement by Planned Parenthood, seven of the ten incumbent contribution recipients voted in favor of the gag rule. Two of the three others, Ginny Brown-Waite and Richard Renzi, were elected to Congress after the vote. Their position on choice issues are not unclear, however, as both have voted anti-choice on every choice vote that has come up during their terms, both earning a 0% rating from NARAL. Chris Shays, who voted against the gag rule with Kirk, has a 30% rating from NARAL. So, Mark Kirk cancelled out his vote and cancelled out Chris Shay’s vote against the global gag rule and supported nine strong anti-choice candidates who will be available to cancel out their future pro-choice votes.
The Bush Administration National Energy policy contained within House Bill 4503 grants tax breaks for oil and gas production and guarantees loans for oil drilling in Alaska. The League of Conservation Voters, an organization that endorsed Kirk based upon his “efforts to protect families from the harmful effects of toxic pollution and his defense of America’s wilderness”, called the bill, “a collection of subsidies, tax breaks, and loopholes that would threaten our air, drinking water, and public lands and cost ratepayers and taxpayers billions of dollars.” They went on to say, “This bill may be the most anti-environment piece of legislation in modern history.” (emphasis theirs). Mark Kirk and Chris Shays voted against House Bill 4503, but nine of the ten recipients of Kirk campaign money voted for it. Mark Kirk cancelled out his vote and Chris Shay’s votes with plenty of room to spare.
Thirty-three Republican Congressmen voted with Kirk against the global gag rule and twenty-five voted with him against the Bush energy bill, but for some reason, he contributed to the campaign of only one of them. So, district residents are left wondering if Rep. Kirk is as moderate as he portrays himself or votes to stay in office while spreading his wealth around to ensure neutralization of his moderate votes. As district voters have reelected Kirk for the second time, they need to understand that the safer Rep. Kirk’s congressional seat becomes, the freer he is to spread around campaign contributions to other candidates who do not share the values of the district.
