Scorecards that influence elections and contribute to gridlock

WASHINGTON -- When Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., voted against a bill last week extending and expanding the Violence Against Women Act, he cited several reasons -- including objections raised by the conservative Family Research Council.  The council, like many other advocacy groups, both liberal and conservative, keep sympathetic congressional members aware of their positions and let them know what...

WASHINGTON -- When Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., voted against a bill last week extending and expanding the Violence Against Women Act, he cited several reasons -- including objections raised by the conservative Family Research Council.

 The council, like many other advocacy groups, both liberal and conservative, keep sympathetic congressional members aware of their positions and let them know what bills will be part of its 2013 scorecard. The scorecards, which evaluate members' votes on an annual basis, are distributed to members and others, including the news media.

The advocacy groups argue that their scorecards help the public determine how their own members of Congress are voting. But the votes also add to the growing gridlock on Capitol Hill, with some members reluctant to compromise, particularly on hot button issues like taxes and gun control, for fear of getting a negative score from an important advocacy group.

A less than stellar rating can be used against an incumbent by a political opponent, and a good score can generate positive publicity with voters who share the rating group's point of view, not to mention generate significant campaign donations.

"These vote scoring groups can be very influential," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Some of the bigger (ones on right and left) even claim their members' offices will call and ask whether a particular upcoming vote will be included in the group's scorecard. The legislators don't want to take a chance on being downgraded and losing backing to a rival in the party primary - which is the real election in most districts today."

A compilation by the Sunlight Foundation found over 350 groups do scorecards. The vote evaluators range from the Family Research Council, National Right to Life, The Club for Growth, Heritage Action and the National Rifle Association on the right to the League of Conservation Voters , AFL-CIO, and Planned Parenthood on the left.

"These ratings work both ways," said Brian Brox, a political scientist at Tulane University. "Looking at the grassroots, the ratings can be used to mobilize members to vote for or contribute to a specific candidate. Looking at Congress, interest groups can use the threat of bad ratings (or the promise of good ones) to lobby a member to vote for a certain provision or to amend a bill in a way the group favors."

In a letter to members on Feb. 27, the Family Research Council wrote that the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act is badly flawed because it gives Indian tribes jurisdiction over non-Indians for some crimes against women, expands visa opportunities to undocumented workers victimized by crimes covered by the act and limits funding for anti-human trafficking crimes for groups that refuse to perform abortions or "may have religious objections to homosexuality."

After the vote, Scalise said that as a father and a husband he was happy to vote for a House Republican version of the bill that didn't included additions he considered part of an "extreme liberal social agenda." That version failed, and the House eventually approved the Senate version, which President Barack Obama signed into law today.

In a statement, Scalise noted that groups like the Family Research Council said the Senate version put more "focus on weakening laws and denying grants to some of the organizations" best equipped "to fight human trafficking."

Some groups heavily promote their scorecards.

For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued individual press releases for recipients of the Chamber's "Spirit of Enterprise" award, which goes to members who voted with the chamber position at least 80 percent of the time.

In 2010, the last year for which the chamber has released data, over 250 members received the honor. The individual press releases, generally sent to the member's local newspapers and TV news stations, don't mention that dozens of other members also got the same award.

The League of Conservation Voters tells members looking for support of environmentally conscious voters that its scorecard is influential, or as it puts it, "the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health, and energy issues."

Some groups extend their efforts not only to promoting positions on particular bills, but to warn members even considering compromise.

Less than 14 hours after Wednesday night's dinner between President Barack Obama and 12 Republican senators broke up, Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage Action, a conservative group, dashed out an email warning about any deficit reduction deal that included new tax revenues.

"Republican senators who are feeling optimistic about the possibility of a deficit reduction deal after dining with President Obama last night should explain their enthusiasm," Needham wrote in his email. "The only reason for optimism is if the president promised that tax increases are completely off the table. A fine dining experience with the President of the United States may be enjoyable, but until he jettisons his flawed, economically damaging approach to deficit reduction, there is little reason for excitement."

The interest groups are so polarizing in their views that you can read the ratings for one group knowing that ratings from a group with differing views will be almost reversed.

For example, Americans for Prosperity, which is dedicated to fighting what it calls excessive government regulations, gave out the following grades, reflecting the percentage of votes the member cast in support of the group's position during the 2012 congressional session: Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., 25 percent; Sen. David Vitter, R-La., 75 percent; Scalise, 100 percent; Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, 0 percent.

The League of Conservation Voters, which favors strong environmental regulations to combat global warming, gave Landrieu, a 50 percent grade; Vitter, 25 percent; Scalise, 8 percent, and Richmond, 71 percent.