This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
WASHINGTON - By voting for a lobbyist reform bill last week, Rep. Jim Matheson broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues but avoided giving his opponents political fodder for the coming election.
Matheson, Utah's only Democrat in Congress, and seven of his party colleagues - who went against a plea by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to vote against the lobbyist reform bill - tipped the vote to passage, 217-213.
Utah's two Republican House members, Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon, voted for the bill as well, but because 20 other Republicans opposed it, the measure needed Democrats to get a majority.
Matheson says his vote wasn't about politics, but about getting some reform on rules covering lobbyists in the wake of corruption scandals on Capitol Hill.
While noting he wished the bill “did more” to reform the laws, Matheson said in an interview, “I think what plays into the decision is, something is better than nothing.”
“If we were less partisan around here we would accomplish more,” he added, But “if there's an opportunity to vote on something, I'm going to vote for it.”
And Matheson denied that his vote had anything to do with fear that opposition to the lobby reform bill could have brought on ads from opponents in this year's election race.
“It's not about what Republicans are going to say,” Matheson said. With the spate of scandals lately, he wants the public “to feel that Congress is policing itself well.”
Matheson also went against his party leadership in voting for the Central America Free Trade Act, and earned the scorn of unions that say they will pull monetary support from the congressman.
Most of the Democrats who supported the reform measure are in difficult races this year.
Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, says by Matheson's own admission, he believes this measure is a starting point and it's better to get some reform than get nothing.
But, “It certainly isn't a bad vote from an election viewpoint,” Jowers added. “He can't be singled out in an unfair advertisement saying he voted against lobbyist reform.”