An index of floor votes is never a perfect gauge of a Senator or Representative’s record. This scorecard covers only a small percentage of roll call votes during the past two years and does not distinguish between members who simply voted one way or another, and those who took a leadership role in promoting or opposing legislation. Nor does it address crucial issues that never came to a floor vote. For example, consumer advocates and patient groups derailed a major industry drive to weaken the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to protect the public from unsafe and ineffective drugs and medical devices. Bills to weaken the FDA did not reach the floor of either the House or the Senate, despite a multimillion dollar industry-financed public relations and lobbying campaign.

Despite these limitations, the votes catalogued here reflect the concerns of a broad-based citizens’ movement fighting for government and corporate accountability, and offer a useful gauge of a member’s commitment to the public interest.

Except for "paired" absences, where two members on each side of an issue agree in advance not to vote, and cases where members vote "present" to avoid conflicts of interest, we count absences against the member because an empty chair cannot cast a vote in favor of consumer justice. Voters seeking to express opinions about a member’s voting record may contact the member’s office through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 225-3121.

Money, Money, Money

The scourge of interested money for political campaigns has reached epidemic proportions this election cycle. According to the Federal Election Commission, Republican House candidates raised $152.6 million through the first 18 months of the 1995-96 election cycle, a 50% increase over 1993-94, while Democrats raised $125.2 million, a slight increase over 1993-94. As important in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision expanding the role of political parties in campaigns, the Republican party raised an additional combined $264 million, either for direct spending on federal elections or as "soft" money, the unregulated slush fund for so-called "party-building" activities. The Democrats raised a combined $172.6 in federal and soft money over the same period—an 82.5% increase over 1993-94 for the G.O.P. and an 89.5% increase for the Democrats.

Although necessarily an inexact picture of the influence of interested money on legislation, we include three contribution numbers for each Member of Congress: (1) total contributions; (2) contributions from PACs; (3) contributions from individuals who gave $200 or more. The latter two categories are the primary vehicles through which monied interests influence the political process. A word of caution: wealthy candidates who self-fund their campaigns may have low totals for contributions from PACs and large individual contributors. Senate figures cover a six year cycle to permit comparisons between Senators elected in different years.