Wisconsin - U.S. Senate and House Candidate Endorsements based on drug war policy reform Note: This is an old Voting Guide. Go to the New Drug WarRant.net Voting Guide Make a difference in Wisconsin Drug WarRant is providing information to help you make decisions on voting and supporting candidates. Be aware that the information provided here ONLY relates to drug policy reform, and there are other reasons to vote for a candidate. However, drug policy reform is a critical issue, and one that is too often neglected by candidates, unless the voters make it critical. Below each candidate, you will see information about their drug policy reform views and/or voting record. (see the criteria at right for definitions). A red check mark is a Drug WarRant endorsement. A vote for them will be a vote for drug policy reform. In some cases there may be multiple good options. In other cases, there just isn't a good candidate. More endorsements will come as the election nears. If you have additional information about a candidate's drug policy positions, please contact Drug WarRant. If you don't know your district, go to Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code to find out your district and detailed information on all the candidates. Note: See the comments at the bottom of the page for some great additional analysis by Ben Masel. Criteria 1. The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. Not all candidates have answered the questionaire. For the purposes of Drug WarRant's endorsements, we have focused on the following specific items from the NPAT: NPAT Drugs: Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding drugs. Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. Expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs. Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes. Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Eliminate federal funding for programs associated with the "war on drugs." Other or expanded principles For the purposes of endorsement, clearly the most important areas are "c, d, and f." A candidate with all three is gold. Selection "a" is a negative factor (although some consider this only for violent or major drug dealers). Selection "e" should be negative, but is confusing. There are some candidates who have an enlightened view of drug policy, who still choose "e" simply because of the heightened border concerns since 9/11, so there may be more involved in that response. At a minimum, a candidate should have chosen "d." The choice of "c" and/or "f" add greatly to their attractiveness. NPAT Colombia funding: Should the United States increase its financial support to Colombia to combat "the war on drugs"? "No" is the preferred answer here (at a minimum -- in fact, the answer should be to reduce funding, rather than just not increasing it). It is possible that someone could claim they are for increased funding to Colombia, but not for spraying or military purposes, but rather humanitarian purposes -- this seems a stretch, however, so I am looking for a solid "No" here. 2. The Hinchey Amendment. The incumbents have had two opportunities (2003/2004) to vote on an amendment that would stop the federal government from interfering with medical marijuana in states where it is legal. There was no legitimate reason to vote against this (and it was a bipartisan amendment), so a "no" vote is generally an indication of ignorance, or being in the pocket of the drug warriors. The proper response is: "Hinchey: Yes/Yes." 3. Other criteria. Where there is useful information from campaign web sites or news reports, those details are added here. If you have additional information (preferably with links), please let me know. US Senate Russell D. Feingold (D) Incumbent No NPAT Eugene A. Hem (I) NPAT drugs: a,e ; NPAT Colombia funding: No Arif Khan (L) NPAT drugs: c,d,f,g The war on drugs just like any other war by Federal Government is a closal waste and should be eliminated; NPAT Colombia funding: No Tim Michels (R) No NPAT Feingold's a mixed bag. (Note: See comments at the bottom of the page for much more information on Feingold) US House 1 Norman Aulabaugh (I) NPAT drugs: a,b; NPAT Colombia funding: No Don Bernau (L) No NPAT Paul D. Ryan (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Jeffrey Chapman Thomas (D) No NPAT Ryan's got to go, but it's hard to imagine that Thomas could do it (I tried to listen to Jeff Thomas speak and fell asleep). Bernau is the closest you've got to reasonable policy. US House 2 Tammy Baldwin (D) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: Yes/Yes Dave R. Magnum (R) No NPAT Keep Tammy Baldwin in the House US House 3 Ronald James 'Ron' Kind (D) Incumbent NPAT drugs: b,e,g Maintain an effective balance between combatting both the supply and demand of drugs.; NPAT Colombia funding: No; Hinchey: Yes/Yes Dale W. Schultz (R) No NPAT Another clear choice. US House 4 Colin Hudson (Constitution) No NPAT Gwendolynne S. 'Gwen' Moore (D) No NPAT Gerald H. Boyle (R) No NPAT Tim Johnson (I) No NPAT Robert R. Raymond (I) No NPAT Pathetic. 5 candidates and none of them care enough to fill out an information form. Anybody have a information or a suggestion here? Any candidates' staffs want to make a case? US House 5 Bryan Kennedy (D) NPAT drugs: b,d,e; NPAT Colombia funding: No Tim C. Peterson (L) NPAT drugs: c,d,f,g Stop all funding for the FDA and privitize this service for full accountability and accuracy; NPAT Colombia funding: No F. James Sensenbrenner (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Senselessbrenner is one of the worst and moronic drug warriors in the House. Vote him out if you can. Either Peterson or Kennedy would be a far better choice. US House 6 Jef C. Hall (D) NPAT drugs: b,c,d,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes Thomas E. 'Tom' Petri (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Carol Anne Rittenhouse (Wisconsin Green) No NPAT Hall needs some education (particularly on Colombia), but he's at least better than Petri. US House 7 David Ross Obey (D) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: Yes/Yes Larry Oftedahl (Constitution) NPAT drugs: a,e; NPAT Colombia funding: No Mike R. Miles (Wisconsin Green) NPAT drugs: b,c,d; NPAT Colombia funding: No US House 8 Mark A. Green (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Dottie LeClair (D) NPAT drugs: b,c,d; NPAT Colombia funding: Undecided Back to main voting guide page.