Report: Cox, Rohrabacher have poor voting habits

Alex Coolman

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

(R-Huntington Beach) are among the legislators from California with the

worst voting records on issues of “public interest,” according to a

report released by a nonprofit advocacy group.

The report, a “congressional scorecard” of votes cast during the 106th

Congress, was prepared by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and

released late last week.

The organization compared the voting habits of representatives on 20

pieces of legislation -- ranging from environmental issues to health care

to consumer protection -- it considered matters of “public interest,”

said Kim Delfino, legislative director for the California branch of the

group.

“We just want to inform members of the public as to the voting record on

public interest issues,” she said. “We’re trying to inform the

electorate.”

Both Cox and Rohrabacher strongly disagree with the group’s

interpretation of their votes.

The study showed that Cox supported legislation the group considered to

be of public interest only 5% of the time. Rohrabacher’s numbers were

slightly better, with 10% of his votes meeting the group’s approval.

Of the state’s 52 representatives, only four had worse voting records

than Cox, according to the study. Only nine had worse voting records than

Rohrabacher.

In order to satisfy the group that a vote was in “the public interest,”

it had to produce a result that “was going to be the greatest benefit for

the greatest number of people,” Delfino said.

“For example, if there’s a vote for logging in our national forests, we

tend to take the broader view that it’s better to preserve public lands

as opposed to [supporting the interest of] one company that might be

making money off it,” she said.

In one case analyzed in the study, the group tallied the votes on a

proposal to cut a government subsidy for the timber industry. In that

instance, both Cox and Rohrabacher voted to slash the subsidy and

received good marks in the study.

Cox, however, said he strongly disputed the group’s interpretation of

what constituted a vote for the public interest.

“I would disagree with not only their position on each of the votes, but

also their characterization of what the vote was about,” he said. “What

they have really done is misdescribed the legislation and made it seem as

if it was an easy vote.”

Ricardo Bernal, press secretary for Rohrabacher, said the dispute over

what exactly constitutes public interest comes down to “a difference of

philosophy.”

“We’re not surprised that a liberal organization like U.S. PIRG would

give a conservative member like Mr. Rohrabacher a low score,” he said.

“Most of these votes [analyzed in the study] were for increased

government regulation, and the congressman is a very strong advocate for

limited government.”