Interview by Alexandra Z Brates and Andrew Smith
Disclaimer: All interviews reflect the individual views of our guests. This interview has been edited for readability and clarity of speech
Scott Klug (R-WI-2) served in Congress during the 1990s as part of the "Gang of Seven," a group of freshman representatives who exposed the 1992 House Banking Scandal ('Rubbergate') and aided in bringing transparency to Capitol Hill. Whilst in Congress, he was also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Today, he hosts the Lost in the Middle podcast and serves as Director of Public Affairs for Foley & Lardner LLP.
As a member of the famous Gang of Seven, you played a key role in exposing the House banking scandal. Do you think this kind of accountability is present in today’s Congress? And how would you compare today’s political climate with the one you worked in during the 90s?
When I was in Congress, early on, my father-in-law walked in one day with a copy of USA Today—it was a big national newspaper in the States back then—and threw it at me. The headline was, ‘Members of Congress Bounced Checks,’ and he said, ‘Nice job.’ I thought, ‘I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about’.
When we got back to Washington we tried to figure out what was going on and faced a big battle over Congress refusing to release the names of the members who bounced checks. That seemed strange to us: it was an institution run by the U.S. Congress, and it was taxpayer-funded. We ended up in a big national fight over it. At the end of the day, they had to disclose it, and some members of Congress went to prison—not directly from the bank itself, but from where the investigation led, including the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax legislation.
I spent 14 years as a journalist before I got into politics through covering the House banking scandal. That was an issue we got wind behind our backs on and turned into a big national scandal. We were on the right side of history there. I’m passionate about the Freedom of Information Act, voters’ rights, and journalists’ rights to know what’s going on.
And in comparison to today’s climate, what would you say? Do you see any similar dynamics currently unfolding in Congress?
The climate today is different from the 90s. That whole banking scandal was strange, almost a one-off. The House bank existed because it was set up around the time of the Civil War, back when you had to send checks home by postal or Pony Express or keep an account in Washington and figure out a way to get money back to your household. It was almost like a credit union with money deposited by members. But there were a few people who took advantage of it, and since the government was paying to operate it, we thought that was wrong. Eventually, it got shut down, and in an era of instant money transfers, you don’t really need something like that.
But I’ll say this—it’s always the inclination of people in power not to fully share information, especially if it’s unflattering. As someone who believes strongly in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), I think it’s critical for all federal institutions to be subject to it—including Congress. Ironically, FOIA doesn’t apply to Congress, and Congress often exempts itself from laws it expects others to follow.
While serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, you worked on telecommunications, energy, and environmental issues. Could you talk about the National Environmental Education Amendments Act that you sponsored in 1998? How relevant are those efforts today, given the growing focus on climate change?
To be honest, I don’t remember that act very well! It was 26 years ago, and I voted on so many amendments and pieces of legislation over the years. But when I was on Energy and Commerce, I really focused on just a few things, like renewable energy. I actually co-chaired the Renewable Energy Caucus because even back then I believed it was important to transition to alternative energy sources; it just makes sense for the country and for the world. But I’ll tell you—while there’s a lot of will to shift to green energy now, we still don’t have all the science or infrastructure to make it work fully yet.
For instance, if you want to power the economy with solar energy, half the problem is we’d have to buy the panels from China. China being the primary manufacturer creates a dependency issue. Then there’s the sheer scope and size of solar fields required to produce enough power - it’s a daunting scale - and the biggest hurdle is storage: there’s no real technology yet to transfer solar energy across the country, and our grid simply isn’t prepared for it.
I’m a big fan of renewable energy. I think it’s the way we have to go, but we have to be realistic about its limitations. For now we need to focus on a balanced energy mix and invest in technologies that will make it possible to scale renewables effectively.
Given your experience as a politician and in public affairs, what do you believe are the key issues that will shape the outcome of the 2024 election? And how do you think Wisconsin, a key battleground state, will be impacted by these issues?
The economy is the biggest issue going into 2024. While economic indicators have improved in recent months, the reality for a lot of working-class families is that prices are too high, and it’s tough to make ends meet. For many, it’s not about whether the stock market’s up or down; it’s the cost of milk, bread, gas—all those basic goods people rely on.
I’m also seeing a shift in certain demographics. Take Latino voters, for instance. They’re leaning more Republican these days, and there are a couple of reasons. Part of it is cultural –– many are Catholic or evangelical and don’t align with the Democrats on certain social issues. The economic side matters too: many Latinos hold blue-collar jobs and were hit hard by the pandemic shutdowns. That experience has stayed with them. You’re seeing economic and cultural issues drive change, and it’s particularly visible in places like Wisconsin.
You previously advocated for state autonomy on issues such as the drinking age, pushing back against federal mandates. With today’s polarisation and debates over state versus federal authority, do you think decentralisation is feasible?
“I’ve always been a pro-choice Republican. For me, it’s about keeping the government out of people’s lives—their personal lives, their businesses, their homes. That’s why I’ve always been in favour of states having autonomy on these kinds of issues. States are great laboratories for experimenting with policy.
I wouldn’t call my stance progressive, though. Progressive government usually implies more activism and more regulations, which is diametrically opposed to where I’m coming from. I think the government is too big and spends far too much money. With an issue like abortion, for example, I believe each state should decide what’s right. If Congress wants to legislate on it, that’s within their right, but for now, I think it’s fine as a state-by-state issue.
With shifting demographics and the growing influence of younger, more diverse voters, what do you think Republicans can do to expand their appeal without alienating their traditional base? How do you see the party addressing issues like migration, social policy, and economic inequality?
There’s a big misconception about who’s voting where. Young men under 30 are actually trending Republican, while young women in that same age group lean Democrat. There’s a clear gender gap, but it’s not just about Republicans having a ‘problem with women’—Democrats have a problem with men.
Traditional ethnic voting blocs are changing too: Hispanic voters are leaning more conservative. Many of them are family-oriented, working blue-collar jobs, and don’t see eye-to-eye with Democrats on some issues. You’re also seeing more people identify as multiracial, which is starting to blur racial voting lines. We might be moving toward a day when it’s harder to talk about voting based on race alone. More and more, voters are casting ballots based on economic and cultural factors.
Take Kamala Harris, for example—she’s both Indian and Black. Barack Obama is Black and White - why do we call him half Black and not half White? These things are going to be challenging for both political parties because people aren’t as clearly defined by ethnicity as they once were. It used to be that certain groups, like the Irish in Boston or Italians in New York, held strong influence. Now someone might be part Italian, part Puerto Rican, part Black, and part New Yorker. So, who do they identify with most?
I think Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else need to start considering how to appeal to people beyond just ethnicity. It’s more about culture and personal identity now: where do people fit economically? Did they go to graduate school? We have to think in these broader terms if we want to connect with voters today.
What’s your view on American foreign policy? Given the current global situation with Russia and China, do you think America can afford to take a more isolationist approach?
I believe the world is best when the U.S. is involved. We spent a lot of time after World War II building out institutions to reduce conflict. But we’re in a different world now, with Russia and China aggressively asserting themselves. While I understand why some Americans want us to step back, especially after two decades in Afghanistan and the Middle East, I believe the U.S. still needs to lead.
Take NATO as an example: the U.S. has bankrolled European defence for 75 years. It’s time for its European allies to step up, especially since they’re closer to the threats. People misconstrue foreign aid as just the dumping of money when it really is not: it’s often tied to strategic needs like defence and humanitarian aid. I understand the desire to focus on domestic issues, but nobody else can lead like the U.S.
What would you say was your greatest legislative accomplishment in Congress? And what do you hope your political and professional legacy will be, both in Wisconsin and nationally?
People always ask what my greatest legislative accomplishment was, and I often say I disagree with the premise of the question. My greatest accomplishment in eight years in Congress was stopping legislation: stopping bad bills from getting passed and keeping the government from expanding unnecessarily. I’ve never been someone who wanted the government to grow just for the sake of growing.
This is one reason I left Congress after eight years; I saw my time there as a period of public service, like someone who graduates from West Point and serves six years in the Army. I felt I owed it to my community to spend some time championing their interests and working to get the government off their backs. That’s why I’m a fan of term limits, meaning members of Congress and the Senate could only serve limited terms and then have to walk away. It’s a principle I believe in strongly.
When I left office voluntarily, someone wrote me a note saying, ‘Nice job. Always leave the stage while they’re still applauding.’ I think that’s a pretty good metaphor for politics and for life. So, if there’s a legacy I want to leave—both in Wisconsin and on a national level—it’s one of service, of protecting my constituents, and ultimately, of stepping back gracefully.
Comments