What sounds better: the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” or the “Ensuring Fairness Pay Act?” If they appear the same, that’s because they effectively are. While their content and names are nearly identical, opposing parties support them – and so we welcome you to American politics.

The Paycheck Fairness Act was rejected by a 52-40 vote on September 15, failing to reach the 60-vote mark it needed to overcome the Republican filibuster. This isn’t the first time this has happened. The bill has been rejected four times since its introduction in 2009, designed to fix the wage gap between men and women and make salary information public to employees. Women in the United States earn an average 77 cents to every dollar a man makes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That data isn’t perfect, we know, though the critical issue of negotiating salaries persists. Surely, this must mean the Grand Old Party does not care about women’s equal pay.

Why, then, would Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire create an amendment to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 titled Ensuring Fairness Pay Act that outlines almost exactly the same information as the Paycheck Fairness Act?

Ayotte criticizes that the Democrat-initiated bill jeopardizes merit-based pay. Her fellow Republican women senators have their own complaints. Deb Fischer of Nebraska claims it is a political stunt by Democrats to demonize the opposing party, while Susan Collins of Maine feels that the existing laws are adequate, and that the Paycheck Fairness Act would create “excessive litigation.”

Susan Collins made a point when she said the bill would create excessiveness, though not in the form of lawsuits; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 already makes gender-based wage discrimination illegal. The 51-year-old law is failing to do its job and desperately needs an update. Does amending the existing law leave less of an impact than passing a new bill? Possibly, the difference between creating an amendment and a new bill is insignificant when it comes to passing necessary legislation.

The actual text of the Paycheck Fairness Act states that “bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience” are exceptions to “wage rate differentials.” Ms. Ayotte need not fret over any vanishing of merit-based pay. The bill puts the legal legwork on the employer, who must demonstrate that these merit-based factors are accurate. If a boss is without proof and therefore discouraged from promoting certain employees, then maybe the bill would work…exactly the way it was intended to? The real issue here is not merit-based pay, women’s equal pay, or making salary information public; the root of the matter is bragging rights.

Ayotte’s legislation is nearly identical to the Paycheck Fairness Act, so we are to believe that she and the supporters of her proposal are in favor of fixing the wage gap issue – but only if it is their idea. When Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, a Democrat, initiated the Paycheck Fairness Act, every member of the GOP rejected the bill. The notion that Ayotte and other Republican Senators sincerely favor equal pay seems far-fetched when their legislation copycats a bill they refuse to pass.

Women deserve equal pay more than senators deserve another bullet point to tack onto a campaign. This childlike game of ownership is why the Paycheck Fairness Act has been dismissed four times. It’s why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has had to repeatedly oppose this bill he ardently favors, so that he may bring it to Congress again in the future, and why women will continue to make however-many cents to a man’s dollar.

Kristin LaFratta can be reached at [email protected].