In one of the last acts of a do-nothing agency, the State Elections Board has again failed the public.
At its September 12th meeting the board took up the cases of 27 wealthy contributors identified by the Democracy Campaign as having violated the $10,000 annual limit on campaign contributions to state and local candidates. These folks each contributed between $10,100 and $17,250 to candidates for statewide office and the Legislature in 2006.
But as has been the board's track record, many of them got off scot-free and the remainder virtually scot-free.
One batch of the violators was allowed to declare - after the fact - that half of their contributions actually came from their spouses because the contributions were drawn from a joint bank account. That means someone who signed contribution checks totaling $11,000 but didn't specifically say at the time that these are joint contributions can now split that total with their spouse and fall under the $10,000 legal limit.
Can you imagine how much drunken driving violations would fall if police let this happen when someone exceeded the .08 blood alcohol limit? "Hey officer, I know I blew a .14 blood alcohol, but I want to split that with my spouse, so I really only have a .07."
The other batch of violators falls into a category described in the legal counsel's memo to the board as "persons who were not aware of the $10,000 limit; (not having exceeded it before), would not have exceeded it had they known; and will not exceed it again." They were fined $100 plus 10 percent of the amount that exceeded the $10,000 limit.
One of those who used the "I-know-nothing" defense caught our eye - Michael W. Grebe, who contributed $10,100 in 2006.
Grebe has been a powerful player in both state and national Republican Party politics and a steady contributor to Wisconsin political candidates for a long time. Retired chairman and CEO of Foley & Lardner, the state's largest law firm, Grebe served on the Republican National Committee for 18 years and was one of its managers for two GOP presidential conventions. He was a close adviser to former four-term Republican Governor Tommy Thompson and has contributed $45,300 to Republican candidates in Wisconsin since 1993.
What's really going on - again - is this board of appointed political hacks is bending over backwards to avoid offending wealthy contributors and powerful special interests that make contributions to the politicians who appointed them. Thankfully, this board is on its way out.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
At Which Altar Will They Worship?
The state Judicial Commission got it right when it found that Annette Ziegler engaged in judicial misconduct. But the commission got it wrong when it recommended a mere reprimand as punishment. Members of the legal community who agree are exceedingly reluctant to say so publicly. So it's left to people like me and Bruce Murphy to say it for them.
Now a three-judge "Judicial Conduct Panel" will review the commission's decision before handing the case over to the state Supreme Court for final judgment. We're in uncharted territory here because never before has the state Supreme Court been in a position of having to discipline one of its own members for judicial misconduct.
If the recent remarks of two former Supreme Court justices are at all reflective of current members' thinking, the six who now serve with Ziegler on the high court can't be looking forward to this. Former Supreme Bill Bablitch said the other day that "sitting in judgment of one of their own is awkward to the extreme." Former Justice Janine Geske said it's "certainly nothing that any of them are happy to do."
Their discomfort is understandable. The other six members of the court have to decide cases with Ziegler, and surely hope to persuade Ziegler to sign on to opinions they write.
The big question is which impulse will prevail in the end. . . . The need to at least appear serious about enforcing judicial ethics standards? Or the personal and professional longing for collegiality?
Now a three-judge "Judicial Conduct Panel" will review the commission's decision before handing the case over to the state Supreme Court for final judgment. We're in uncharted territory here because never before has the state Supreme Court been in a position of having to discipline one of its own members for judicial misconduct.
If the recent remarks of two former Supreme Court justices are at all reflective of current members' thinking, the six who now serve with Ziegler on the high court can't be looking forward to this. Former Supreme Bill Bablitch said the other day that "sitting in judgment of one of their own is awkward to the extreme." Former Justice Janine Geske said it's "certainly nothing that any of them are happy to do."
Their discomfort is understandable. The other six members of the court have to decide cases with Ziegler, and surely hope to persuade Ziegler to sign on to opinions they write.
The big question is which impulse will prevail in the end. . . . The need to at least appear serious about enforcing judicial ethics standards? Or the personal and professional longing for collegiality?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Supreme Rule
Defending the reprimand recommended by the state Judicial Commission, Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler's lawyer says Ziegler deserves to be treated like any other judge guilty of judicial misconduct. Attorney Jon Axelrod notes that a municipal court judge was publicly reprimanded for ruling on cases involving relatives.
"I think the citizens of this state would be concerned if Judge Ziegler was treated better . . . or worse, " Axelrod said.
Actually, the public reaction to the news that Ziegler might get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for admitted violations of Wisconsin's conflict-of-interest rules for judges is so far running more along the lines of this.
In making his case for lenience for his client, Attorney Axelrod overlooked an enduring rule of accountability that has been articulated by everyone from comic strip characters to some of the world's greatest statesmen. It even is conspicuous in Scripture.
Winston Churchill said the "price of greatness is responsibility." Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a similar remark in his 1945 state of the union address: "In a democratic world, as in a democratic nation, power must be linked with responsibility. . . ." Thirty seven years earlier, Theodore Roosevelt struck an almost identical note: ". . . I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power. . . ."
John F. Kennedy famously said "to whom much is given, much is required." Even in Spider-Man, Peter Parker's uncle Ben memorably uttered these last words: "With great power comes great responsibility." Kennedy's and uncle Ben's thoughts weren't original. They were just a contemporary retelling of what Jesus Christ says in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 12, verse 48: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask more."
Should this particular Supreme Court justice really be treated exactly the same as a municipal judge? Of course not. Ziegler not only is a member of the state's highest court but also is like no other judge in that she is the first state Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin's long history to face disciplinary action for judicial misconduct. If punished, she will stand alone in wearing that badge of dishonor.
Because her case is unique, so should her punishment be. And because she is one to whom so much more has been given, much more should be required.
A reprimand won't do. At least a suspension is in order.
"I think the citizens of this state would be concerned if Judge Ziegler was treated better . . . or worse, " Axelrod said.
Actually, the public reaction to the news that Ziegler might get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for admitted violations of Wisconsin's conflict-of-interest rules for judges is so far running more along the lines of this.
In making his case for lenience for his client, Attorney Axelrod overlooked an enduring rule of accountability that has been articulated by everyone from comic strip characters to some of the world's greatest statesmen. It even is conspicuous in Scripture.
Winston Churchill said the "price of greatness is responsibility." Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a similar remark in his 1945 state of the union address: "In a democratic world, as in a democratic nation, power must be linked with responsibility. . . ." Thirty seven years earlier, Theodore Roosevelt struck an almost identical note: ". . . I believe in power; but I believe that responsibility should go with power. . . ."
John F. Kennedy famously said "to whom much is given, much is required." Even in Spider-Man, Peter Parker's uncle Ben memorably uttered these last words: "With great power comes great responsibility." Kennedy's and uncle Ben's thoughts weren't original. They were just a contemporary retelling of what Jesus Christ says in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 12, verse 48: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask more."
Should this particular Supreme Court justice really be treated exactly the same as a municipal judge? Of course not. Ziegler not only is a member of the state's highest court but also is like no other judge in that she is the first state Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin's long history to face disciplinary action for judicial misconduct. If punished, she will stand alone in wearing that badge of dishonor.
Because her case is unique, so should her punishment be. And because she is one to whom so much more has been given, much more should be required.
A reprimand won't do. At least a suspension is in order.
Friday, September 07, 2007
A Light Tap On The Wrist
It was not surprising in the least that the state Judicial Commission found that Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler engaged in judicial misconduct for ruling on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband sits on the board of directors. The rules are black and white, and her violations of those rules were clear cut. Ziegler accepted the commission's finding and admits she broke the rules. The commission has filed a formal complaint with the state Supreme Court, which is ultimately responsible for enforcing the state judicial ethics code.
When it comes to the rest of the story, I don't know whether to be surprised, but it is deeply disappointing that the commission is recommending only a public reprimand, the least severe punishment the commission could have suggested.
Also disappointing is the fact that on other cases Ziegler handled involving companies in which she owned stock worth $50,000 or more, the commission found "credible evidence" that Ziegler violated the ethics code, but did not file a complaint with the high court but rather let her off with a warning letter.
Ziegler's attorney told reporters a reprimand is consistent with precedent, citing the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to reprimand a former municipal judge for presiding over cases in which relatives of his were defendants.
The problem with following precedent is that up to now enforcement of the state judicial ethics code has been ineffective. Ziegler either was ignorant of the rules or lacked respect for them. And recent reports in the Green Bay Press-Gazette and Milwaukee Magazine indicate the problem extends well beyond Ziegler. It is a bad idea to follow precedent if that precedent represents failure.
The question of Ziegler's punishment is about more than holding her accountable. Whatever discipline the state Supreme Court ultimately settles on will send a message to judges throughout the state. Following the Judicial Commission's recommendation would send a very weak signal . . . one that would effectively tell judges that they are at liberty to disregard the ethics code because not much of anything will happen to them if they break the rules. If the court is at all concerned about public confidence in the integrity of our state court system, this is the worst possible message it could send.
When it comes to the rest of the story, I don't know whether to be surprised, but it is deeply disappointing that the commission is recommending only a public reprimand, the least severe punishment the commission could have suggested.
Also disappointing is the fact that on other cases Ziegler handled involving companies in which she owned stock worth $50,000 or more, the commission found "credible evidence" that Ziegler violated the ethics code, but did not file a complaint with the high court but rather let her off with a warning letter.
Ziegler's attorney told reporters a reprimand is consistent with precedent, citing the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to reprimand a former municipal judge for presiding over cases in which relatives of his were defendants.
The problem with following precedent is that up to now enforcement of the state judicial ethics code has been ineffective. Ziegler either was ignorant of the rules or lacked respect for them. And recent reports in the Green Bay Press-Gazette and Milwaukee Magazine indicate the problem extends well beyond Ziegler. It is a bad idea to follow precedent if that precedent represents failure.
The question of Ziegler's punishment is about more than holding her accountable. Whatever discipline the state Supreme Court ultimately settles on will send a message to judges throughout the state. Following the Judicial Commission's recommendation would send a very weak signal . . . one that would effectively tell judges that they are at liberty to disregard the ethics code because not much of anything will happen to them if they break the rules. If the court is at all concerned about public confidence in the integrity of our state court system, this is the worst possible message it could send.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
WI Contributors Giving Big To Shadow Groups
Unregulated electioneering groups that often sponsor negative ads, mailings and auto calls against political candidates received $619,820 from Wisconsin businesses, labor unions and individuals in the first half of 2007, a Democracy Campaign review shows.
These so-called 527 groups are tax-exempt, political nonprofit organizations named for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service code that regulates them. The groups may raise and spend as much as they want on electioneerings activities. Some of the better known 527s are America Coming Together, GOPAC, Club for Growth and the Democratic Governors Association.
WDC's review of fundraising reports filed by the groups shows Wisconsin special interests are dolingout sharply more than in past, comparable periods and much of it is going to Democratic-leaning 527s.
The $619,820 in Wisconsin contributions in the first half of 2007 compares to $291,410 in the first six months of 2005, $282,544 in the first half of 2003 and $345,791 in the first six months of 2001.
Roughly $412,000 in contributions went to Democratic 527s and about $203,000 went to Republican groups.
Six groups got $50,000 or more from Wisconsin contributors. They include the Progressive Majority which accepted $182,425; the Republican Governors Association, $91,000; the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, $83,000; GOPAC, $71,936; the Laborers Political League Education Fund, $57,458; and the Democratic Governors Association, $50,375.
The top Wisconsin contributor to these groups in the first six months of 2007 was Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, heiress to the Schlitz Brewing and Allen-Bradley fortunes and a long time backer of Democratic and women's causes, who gave $218,000. Uihlein was followed by the Wisconsin Laborers District Council at $50,816 and Johnson Controls at $50,375.
These so-called 527 groups are tax-exempt, political nonprofit organizations named for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service code that regulates them. The groups may raise and spend as much as they want on electioneerings activities. Some of the better known 527s are America Coming Together, GOPAC, Club for Growth and the Democratic Governors Association.
WDC's review of fundraising reports filed by the groups shows Wisconsin special interests are dolingout sharply more than in past, comparable periods and much of it is going to Democratic-leaning 527s.
The $619,820 in Wisconsin contributions in the first half of 2007 compares to $291,410 in the first six months of 2005, $282,544 in the first half of 2003 and $345,791 in the first six months of 2001.
Roughly $412,000 in contributions went to Democratic 527s and about $203,000 went to Republican groups.
Six groups got $50,000 or more from Wisconsin contributors. They include the Progressive Majority which accepted $182,425; the Republican Governors Association, $91,000; the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, $83,000; GOPAC, $71,936; the Laborers Political League Education Fund, $57,458; and the Democratic Governors Association, $50,375.
The top Wisconsin contributor to these groups in the first six months of 2007 was Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, heiress to the Schlitz Brewing and Allen-Bradley fortunes and a long time backer of Democratic and women's causes, who gave $218,000. Uihlein was followed by the Wisconsin Laborers District Council at $50,816 and Johnson Controls at $50,375.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Clean Slate. Fresh Start.
Tomorrow is the first meeting of the new Government Accountability Board. The new board will meet at 10 a.m. in the Legislative Council conference room (Suite 401) at 1 East Main Street in Madison.
And not a moment too soon.
Created by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 – the Democracy Campaign-backed ethics reform legislation enacted into law during a January special session of the Legislature called by Governor Jim Doyle – the new nonpartisan board replaces the state Elections Board and Ethics Board and will be responsible for overseeing elections, ethics, lobbying and campaign finance in Wisconsin.
The first order of business will be to select a chairperson and attend to staffing and other administrative matters to establish the new politically independent agency. Specifically, the new board has to hire a director and two division administrators. Then, in addition to all of its other duties, the ethics reform law requires the board to review all of the existing internal operating procedures, guidelines, rules, orders and formal opinions issued by the Elections Board and Ethics Board. Within its first 12 months, the Government Accountability Board must review and reaffirm each of these items or they will terminate by law automatically.
That may sound like bureaucratic busywork, but the two boards that are being replaced left some real messes to clean up. None bigger than the Elections Board's disastrous contract with the global outsourcing firm Accenture to create a federally mandated statewide computerized voter registration system. New problems with the project became public this past weekend, which led to renewed calls for forceful action. The Elections Board and its director Kevin Kennedy appear paralyzed, as they have been for months, as if waiting for the Government Accountability Board to take this debacle off their hands.
The new board has its work cut out for it. Here are a few of the things that most need doing:
And not a moment too soon.
Created by 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 – the Democracy Campaign-backed ethics reform legislation enacted into law during a January special session of the Legislature called by Governor Jim Doyle – the new nonpartisan board replaces the state Elections Board and Ethics Board and will be responsible for overseeing elections, ethics, lobbying and campaign finance in Wisconsin.
The first order of business will be to select a chairperson and attend to staffing and other administrative matters to establish the new politically independent agency. Specifically, the new board has to hire a director and two division administrators. Then, in addition to all of its other duties, the ethics reform law requires the board to review all of the existing internal operating procedures, guidelines, rules, orders and formal opinions issued by the Elections Board and Ethics Board. Within its first 12 months, the Government Accountability Board must review and reaffirm each of these items or they will terminate by law automatically.
That may sound like bureaucratic busywork, but the two boards that are being replaced left some real messes to clean up. None bigger than the Elections Board's disastrous contract with the global outsourcing firm Accenture to create a federally mandated statewide computerized voter registration system. New problems with the project became public this past weekend, which led to renewed calls for forceful action. The Elections Board and its director Kevin Kennedy appear paralyzed, as they have been for months, as if waiting for the Government Accountability Board to take this debacle off their hands.
The new board has its work cut out for it. Here are a few of the things that most need doing:
- Take the bull by the horns on the voter registration project. The Elections Board and Kennedy have been in denial, and this project has become the state government's equivalent of the Iraq War. It's time to face facts, acknowledge mistakes, develop a sensible exit strategy and then execute a plan for cleaning up the mess and getting the work finished.
- Be proactive. Don't just react lamely like your predecessors. Just today we got yet another glimpse of how things have been done in recent years and what the new board should avoid doing. There's a story in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in which Kevin Kennedy is quoted saying he believes campaign finance laws may have been violated. But near the end of the story is this: "The Elections Board is not looking into the matter because it typically acts only if it receives a complaint, Kennedy said." That is so Elections Board. The old board had all the authority it needed to investigate and take enforcement action on its own initiative, but routinely would not lift a finger unless some citizen gathered all the evidence and filed a formal complaint. That's like a police officer witnessing a crime but refusing to do anything unless a bystander investigates the crime scene and swears out an arrest warrant. This is one internal operating procedure the new Government Accountability Board simply must change. If you have reason to believe laws may have been broken, do your job, gather the facts and take appropriate enforcement action if there's fire where you saw smoke.
- Get some fresh blood on the staff of the new agency. In replacing the state Elections Board and Ethics Board, the Government Accountability Board will be merging the staff and functions of the two agencies into one. The new board will only be able to initially hire three people – a legal counsel who will effectively act as director and two division administrators – so for the time being these three positions represent the board's opportunity to change the staff culture.
- Remember that consistent and rigorous law enforcement is the best educational tool. Speaking of changing the culture, the time-honored practice in both the Elections Board and Ethics Board of focusing on "educating" rather than punishing those who cross ethical lines or break election or campaign finance laws should be high on the Government Accountability Board's list of cultural practices that need changing. When wealthy donors were caught exceeding the legal limit for campaign contributions, the Elections Board would go to extreme lengths to avoid punishing the wrongdoing and instead would suggest ways the donor could be made to appear in compliance with the law – such as offering to assign excess donations to a spouse. In so doing, an unmistakable message was sent to big donors: Feel free to ignore these laws, because nothing will happen to you if you do. The result was more donors breaking the law, more flagrantly. If the new board truly wants to educate election participants about the law, swift and sure enforcement with stiff penalties is the only way.
Here's hoping that tomorrow's meeting produces tangible evidence that a new sheriff has truly come to town.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A Tommy In A Coal Mine
Tommy Thompson R.I.P. Lived by the sword and died by the sword.
The weapon to which I refer, of course, is the money that permeates and has taken over modern politics. And no one in this state has ever played the money game better than Tommy. Over a 34-year career in state politics, Tommy raised more campaign money than anyone in Wisconsin history, although Jim Doyle will almost certainly eclipse him eventually.
Yet despite his legendary fundraising prowess, Thompson – like über-insider Scott Walker, who ended his 2006 bid for the Republican nomination for governor before a single vote was cast – is now just another victim of the wealth primary. He didn't have the money to get his message out. Voters never got the chance to decide whether Tommy had a message worth getting out. The money decided for them.
Like Walker, Tommy is the proverbial canary in a coal mine. The fact that the race for president was too rich for Tommy's blood – just as last year's race for governor was too rich for Walker's – warns how toxic all the money in politics has become. If Tommy Thompson and Scott Walker don't have the wherewithal to be financially viable candidates for higher office, now that's saying something.
Which brings me to the final cruel irony that sealed Tommy's fate. He was forsaken by the elite Wisconsin donors who made him a four-term governor here. And he seemed genuinely surprised by that. He shouldn't be. Money flows to power, and now that Tommy is no longer in a position to do big donors in this state any favors, they have no use for him. If ever there were living proof that the incessant claims of the political class that campaign donations are benign is a load of crap, Tommy Thompson is it. His aspirations just died at the hands of this raging malignancy.
What is presumably the final chapter in Tommy's political career is a story of infidelity. He had a solid marriage with Wisconsin voters. But in the end, the mistress he jumped in bed with dumped him for a sexier, more accommodating and more generous lover.
It could be worse for Tommy. Such dalliances led one-time rival Chuck Chvala – who Tommy vanquished with ease in 1994 – to jail. Tommy was just left in the private sector.
The weapon to which I refer, of course, is the money that permeates and has taken over modern politics. And no one in this state has ever played the money game better than Tommy. Over a 34-year career in state politics, Tommy raised more campaign money than anyone in Wisconsin history, although Jim Doyle will almost certainly eclipse him eventually.
Yet despite his legendary fundraising prowess, Thompson – like über-insider Scott Walker, who ended his 2006 bid for the Republican nomination for governor before a single vote was cast – is now just another victim of the wealth primary. He didn't have the money to get his message out. Voters never got the chance to decide whether Tommy had a message worth getting out. The money decided for them.
Like Walker, Tommy is the proverbial canary in a coal mine. The fact that the race for president was too rich for Tommy's blood – just as last year's race for governor was too rich for Walker's – warns how toxic all the money in politics has become. If Tommy Thompson and Scott Walker don't have the wherewithal to be financially viable candidates for higher office, now that's saying something.
Which brings me to the final cruel irony that sealed Tommy's fate. He was forsaken by the elite Wisconsin donors who made him a four-term governor here. And he seemed genuinely surprised by that. He shouldn't be. Money flows to power, and now that Tommy is no longer in a position to do big donors in this state any favors, they have no use for him. If ever there were living proof that the incessant claims of the political class that campaign donations are benign is a load of crap, Tommy Thompson is it. His aspirations just died at the hands of this raging malignancy.
What is presumably the final chapter in Tommy's political career is a story of infidelity. He had a solid marriage with Wisconsin voters. But in the end, the mistress he jumped in bed with dumped him for a sexier, more accommodating and more generous lover.
It could be worse for Tommy. Such dalliances led one-time rival Chuck Chvala – who Tommy vanquished with ease in 1994 – to jail. Tommy was just left in the private sector.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Does AT&T Have A Direct Line To God?
A Chicago-based group called the Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide (MAADD) held a press conference yesterday at the Capitol to voice support for the Wisconsin legislation creating statewide cable TV franchising that AT&T is pushing here.
A front group called TV4Us that AT&T finances already has been caught making fraudulent claims of public support for the company's cable legislation (for more on that, read this and this). Now men of the cloth are being enlisted in the battle over cable's future in our state. Clergymen who Capitol-watchers down in Illinois openly suggest are being paid to shill for AT&T (see this and this).
One thing is sure. MAADD claimed yesterday that AT&T's bill would save Wisconsin families over $400,000 a day and cited a study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies as proof. The Phoenix Center's director has admitted receiving financial support from AT&T.
A front group called TV4Us that AT&T finances already has been caught making fraudulent claims of public support for the company's cable legislation (for more on that, read this and this). Now men of the cloth are being enlisted in the battle over cable's future in our state. Clergymen who Capitol-watchers down in Illinois openly suggest are being paid to shill for AT&T (see this and this).
One thing is sure. MAADD claimed yesterday that AT&T's bill would save Wisconsin families over $400,000 a day and cited a study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies as proof. The Phoenix Center's director has admitted receiving financial support from AT&T.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Not So Invisible Hand
As the phenomenon of businesses writing legislation – like AT&T's cable bill this year or the "Job Creation Act" written by industry lobbyists a few years back – grows more commonplace in the State Capitol, it's worth reflecting on what the father of free-market economics had to say about the practice. His words are right here.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
487 Days And Counting
Monday, July 09, 2007
Catering To Delusion
Looks like radio shouter and neocon blogger Charlie Sykes is on to the ultimate Internet hoax – take a well-documented fact you just can't bear and indignantly claim it's nothing but an Internet hoax. Then get some soulmates on the airwaves and in the blogosphere to give your claim the appearance of credence by repeating it over and over again, and you're well on your way to erasing history.
The Democracy Campaign recently quoted Abraham Lincoln in our statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Wisconsin Right to Life's legal challenge to the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. Sykes accused us of using a bogus quote, citing snopes.com.
Our source for the Lincoln quote was The Lincoln Encyclopedia by Archer H. Shaw, published by Macmillan in 1950. Page 40. To get the book, go here. Another source is page 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait (volume 2) by Emanuel Hertz, published in 1931. Hertz published another pertinent book, The Hidden Lincoln; from the Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon, in 1938.
After hearing that some doubted the authenticity of the quote, University of California-Davis researcher Rick Crawford went digging and was willing to stake his academic reputation on his finding that the quote is authentic. In the course of his research on the subject, Crawford also found this on page 24 of Lincoln's Complete Works (volume 1), published in 1905: "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel." Lincoln uttered those words in a speech to the Illinois legislature in January 1837.
The likes of Charlie Sykes do not want to believe that the party of Lincoln's namesake may have had such concerns about corporate power. Even if it says so in exhaustively researched, well-documented and peer-reviewed books that have been in publication for more than a half century and have yet to be challenged by serious historians, it can't be true. So Sykes takes snopes.com's word for it. Even if some of the content on that online rumor mill is, well, less than confidence inspiring. Or downright weird.
Sykes has something in common with much of his audience. Those who hang on his every word want to be lied to. They don't want to believe in evolution. They want to believe the earth is really 6,000 years old, despite the preponderance of scientific evidence showing they are a few billion years off. They want to believe global warming is not happening or, if the earth's climate is indeed changing, human behavior has nothing to do with it. They need someone like Charlie Sykes to assure them they're right.
They support U.S. policy in Iraq even though it's easily one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history and they think the Geneva Conventions are an intolerable nuisance. They need a Bill O'Reilly to confirm that warped belief, even if twisting history and slandering dead American World War II soldiers is the only way he can think to do it. O'Reilly and Sykes and their ilk cater to an audience that wants reality to disappear when that reality offends them or makes them uncomfortable or just doesn't fit their world view. They need to be told that fantasy is reality.
Charlie Sykes and Bill O'Reilly and dozens of others just like them happily oblige because they make a handsome living indulging their audience's delusions.
The Democracy Campaign recently quoted Abraham Lincoln in our statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Wisconsin Right to Life's legal challenge to the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. Sykes accused us of using a bogus quote, citing snopes.com.
Our source for the Lincoln quote was The Lincoln Encyclopedia by Archer H. Shaw, published by Macmillan in 1950. Page 40. To get the book, go here. Another source is page 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait (volume 2) by Emanuel Hertz, published in 1931. Hertz published another pertinent book, The Hidden Lincoln; from the Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon, in 1938.
After hearing that some doubted the authenticity of the quote, University of California-Davis researcher Rick Crawford went digging and was willing to stake his academic reputation on his finding that the quote is authentic. In the course of his research on the subject, Crawford also found this on page 24 of Lincoln's Complete Works (volume 1), published in 1905: "These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel." Lincoln uttered those words in a speech to the Illinois legislature in January 1837.
The likes of Charlie Sykes do not want to believe that the party of Lincoln's namesake may have had such concerns about corporate power. Even if it says so in exhaustively researched, well-documented and peer-reviewed books that have been in publication for more than a half century and have yet to be challenged by serious historians, it can't be true. So Sykes takes snopes.com's word for it. Even if some of the content on that online rumor mill is, well, less than confidence inspiring. Or downright weird.
Sykes has something in common with much of his audience. Those who hang on his every word want to be lied to. They don't want to believe in evolution. They want to believe the earth is really 6,000 years old, despite the preponderance of scientific evidence showing they are a few billion years off. They want to believe global warming is not happening or, if the earth's climate is indeed changing, human behavior has nothing to do with it. They need someone like Charlie Sykes to assure them they're right.
They support U.S. policy in Iraq even though it's easily one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history and they think the Geneva Conventions are an intolerable nuisance. They need a Bill O'Reilly to confirm that warped belief, even if twisting history and slandering dead American World War II soldiers is the only way he can think to do it. O'Reilly and Sykes and their ilk cater to an audience that wants reality to disappear when that reality offends them or makes them uncomfortable or just doesn't fit their world view. They need to be told that fantasy is reality.
Charlie Sykes and Bill O'Reilly and dozens of others just like them happily oblige because they make a handsome living indulging their audience's delusions.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Potted Plants? Well...
The chairman of the outgoing State Elections Board has been grousing about the $467 per diem each of the six retired judges on the new Government Accountability Board will get for meetings. The new board, expected to start work this fall, will replace the existing Elections and Ethics boards.
Each of the Elections Board's eight partisan, political appointees is paid $25 per meeting.
John Savage, a Milwaukee attorney and GOP appointee to the board, recently told the Shepherd Express the GAB members don't deserve to be paid that much just because they are judges, and they alread get a state pension.
Referring to the present board, Savage asks, "Are we potted plants?"
Well, if you don't want to know the answer maybe you shouldn't ask the question.
The Elections Board's legacy will be one of helping foster the decrepit political and policymaking environment we have now because it refused to enforce Wisconsin's campaign finance laws and penalties. It helped create an atmosphere in which six former legislative leaders were charged and convicted on a variety of misdemeanor or felony misconduct and other ethics charges. The investigations, charges and convictions were courtesy of outside law enforcement and not the board.
The board's inaction also has emboldened wealthy special interest contributors to make more and bigger campaign contributions, sometimes exceeding the legal limit, and run vicious media campaigns to elect officials who will oblige them and not the public.
Each of the Elections Board's eight partisan, political appointees is paid $25 per meeting.
John Savage, a Milwaukee attorney and GOP appointee to the board, recently told the Shepherd Express the GAB members don't deserve to be paid that much just because they are judges, and they alread get a state pension.
Referring to the present board, Savage asks, "Are we potted plants?"
Well, if you don't want to know the answer maybe you shouldn't ask the question.
The Elections Board's legacy will be one of helping foster the decrepit political and policymaking environment we have now because it refused to enforce Wisconsin's campaign finance laws and penalties. It helped create an atmosphere in which six former legislative leaders were charged and convicted on a variety of misdemeanor or felony misconduct and other ethics charges. The investigations, charges and convictions were courtesy of outside law enforcement and not the board.
The board's inaction also has emboldened wealthy special interest contributors to make more and bigger campaign contributions, sometimes exceeding the legal limit, and run vicious media campaigns to elect officials who will oblige them and not the public.
Monday, July 02, 2007
The Last Welfare Queens
A two-story series by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the state's welfare programs for business echoed findings in a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign report released in March 2005 and an August 2006 state audit.
All three reviews found the state's business welfare programs hand out millions of dollars a year in cheap loans, grants and tax breaks, but don't know if many of the companies are meeting job creation and other economic development goals. In other cases, the state waives some of the goals and requirements when it hands out the money.
The WDC report explored the level of state welfare to businesses that made campaign contributions. Those who made contributions got substantially higher state aid than those who did not.
Three investigations by three different organizations in three different years all find these programs give away millions in state tax dollars to wealthy corporations that kept the cash, but not their promises.
All three reviews found the state's business welfare programs hand out millions of dollars a year in cheap loans, grants and tax breaks, but don't know if many of the companies are meeting job creation and other economic development goals. In other cases, the state waives some of the goals and requirements when it hands out the money.
The WDC report explored the level of state welfare to businesses that made campaign contributions. Those who made contributions got substantially higher state aid than those who did not.
Three investigations by three different organizations in three different years all find these programs give away millions in state tax dollars to wealthy corporations that kept the cash, but not their promises.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Consistently Inconsistent
On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling putting new limits on enforcement of the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, the court ruled that schools may censor the speech of students, even when the speech occurs off school property.
Writing for the narrow majority of a split U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts leaned heavily on free speech arguments to carve out an exception to disclosure requirements and restrictions on campaign money. While not striking down McCain-Feingold as unconstitutional, the majority opinion invites special interests to play word games in their advertisements to get around the law.
The court ruled that advertisements targeting candidates for federal office and run in the days before an election may be funded with unlimited corporate or union funds unless the ads are the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and only if the ads are "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
By shielding ad sponsors from disclosure requirements and campaign contribution limitations if an ad has "content . . . consistent with that of a genuine issue ad" and "lacks indicia of express advocacy," the Court essentially revived the so-called magic words test that it found "functionally meaningless" less than four years ago in McConnell v. FEC. And made the nation's campaign finance laws prone to easy manipulation.
Roberts justified this result by saying the First Amendment "requires us to err on the side of protecting . . . speech rather than suppressing it." His majority opinion goes on to say: "We give the benefit to speech, not censorship."
Roberts saw things differently on the student speech case. Again writing for the majority, Roberts ruled that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, even though Roberts acknowledged that the message at issue in the case – a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" unfurled by a student outside of school – was "cryptic."
Cryptic? Hell, it was inane . . . even by the student's estimation. But no more inane than most of the campaign ads we are doomed to watch.
The irony is that, contrary to popular mischaracterization, the McCain-Feingold law does not prevent any group from airing a political ad at any time, all the way up to Election Day. It merely prevents groups from using corporate or labor union treasury funds to pay for ads run within 60 days of an election. And groups have to disclose their funding sources to the public. But there is no censorship. Yet disclosure and campaign money restrictions ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections in the collective mind of the Roberts court, while outright censorship of student speech did not.
This may seem wildly inconsistent. But if you look closely at the trends in recent Supreme Court rulings, the powerful are served time and again. Weaker elements of our society are not. When you look at who's winning and who's losing in recent cases, this court is scrupulously consistent.
Writing for the narrow majority of a split U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts leaned heavily on free speech arguments to carve out an exception to disclosure requirements and restrictions on campaign money. While not striking down McCain-Feingold as unconstitutional, the majority opinion invites special interests to play word games in their advertisements to get around the law.
The court ruled that advertisements targeting candidates for federal office and run in the days before an election may be funded with unlimited corporate or union funds unless the ads are the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and only if the ads are "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
By shielding ad sponsors from disclosure requirements and campaign contribution limitations if an ad has "content . . . consistent with that of a genuine issue ad" and "lacks indicia of express advocacy," the Court essentially revived the so-called magic words test that it found "functionally meaningless" less than four years ago in McConnell v. FEC. And made the nation's campaign finance laws prone to easy manipulation.
Roberts justified this result by saying the First Amendment "requires us to err on the side of protecting . . . speech rather than suppressing it." His majority opinion goes on to say: "We give the benefit to speech, not censorship."
Roberts saw things differently on the student speech case. Again writing for the majority, Roberts ruled that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, even though Roberts acknowledged that the message at issue in the case – a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" unfurled by a student outside of school – was "cryptic."
Cryptic? Hell, it was inane . . . even by the student's estimation. But no more inane than most of the campaign ads we are doomed to watch.
The irony is that, contrary to popular mischaracterization, the McCain-Feingold law does not prevent any group from airing a political ad at any time, all the way up to Election Day. It merely prevents groups from using corporate or labor union treasury funds to pay for ads run within 60 days of an election. And groups have to disclose their funding sources to the public. But there is no censorship. Yet disclosure and campaign money restrictions ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections in the collective mind of the Roberts court, while outright censorship of student speech did not.
This may seem wildly inconsistent. But if you look closely at the trends in recent Supreme Court rulings, the powerful are served time and again. Weaker elements of our society are not. When you look at who's winning and who's losing in recent cases, this court is scrupulously consistent.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Couldn't They Just Join Softball Leagues?
James Buchen, vice president of government relations at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, was quoted recently defending state lawmakers' habit of campaign fundraising during the state budget process. He said fundraisers help break the tension that builds during a legislative session. Sort of like a spa.
"More than anything it's a social outlet that this process sorely needs," Buchen said.
He went on to say fundraisers are a "setting where you can get to know people." And buy a tax break or two.
"More than anything it's a social outlet that this process sorely needs," Buchen said.
He went on to say fundraisers are a "setting where you can get to know people." And buy a tax break or two.
Monday, June 11, 2007
No Cable Subscriber Left Behind
If Wisconsin's experience is anything like what is happening in other states, the so-called Video Competition Act being pushed by AT&T and put on a fast track to passage by eager-to-please state lawmakers will end up deserving a place right next to No Child Left Behind and the federal Clear Skies and Healthy Forests initiatives in the Doublespeak Hall of Fame.
Legislative sponsors, AT&T's lobbyists and its PR machine all are chirping about how the legislation will lower cable TV rates in Wisconsin. Sounds a lot like the hype for No Child Left Behind before it became evident how many children are being left behind. For starters, only one in five students eligible for the tutoring the law promised are getting it.
As sure as Clear Skies allowed more air pollution and Healthy Forests gave timber companies the green light to more aggressively harvest trees on public lands, it's a safe bet that cable bills will go up under the Video Competition Act. Just look at Texas, where legislation virtually identical to AT&T's bill in Wisconsin has done the opposite of what was promised.
George Orwell's got to be doing double axels and triple toe loops in his grave.
Legislative sponsors, AT&T's lobbyists and its PR machine all are chirping about how the legislation will lower cable TV rates in Wisconsin. Sounds a lot like the hype for No Child Left Behind before it became evident how many children are being left behind. For starters, only one in five students eligible for the tutoring the law promised are getting it.
As sure as Clear Skies allowed more air pollution and Healthy Forests gave timber companies the green light to more aggressively harvest trees on public lands, it's a safe bet that cable bills will go up under the Video Competition Act. Just look at Texas, where legislation virtually identical to AT&T's bill in Wisconsin has done the opposite of what was promised.
George Orwell's got to be doing double axels and triple toe loops in his grave.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Lincoln's Warning
On the surface, the commentary of mine that was posted today on our Web site deals with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Wisconsin Right to Life's legal challenge to the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Just beneath the surface is anxiety about corporate immortality and plutocracy.
The piece quotes Thomas Jefferson warning of the growing threat to the infant republic posed by the "aristocracy of our monied corporations." The better part of a century later, President Abraham Lincoln echoed Jefferson's fear.
In a November 21, 1864 letter to Colonel William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
The warnings of both Jefferson and Lincoln ring truer than ever today.
The piece quotes Thomas Jefferson warning of the growing threat to the infant republic posed by the "aristocracy of our monied corporations." The better part of a century later, President Abraham Lincoln echoed Jefferson's fear.
In a November 21, 1864 letter to Colonel William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
The warnings of both Jefferson and Lincoln ring truer than ever today.
Monday, June 04, 2007
A Queen Bee In A Dying Hive
Most mainstream news coverage of election campaigns is based on the widely accepted assumption that business and labor are political equals. They are not in the same league. Not even close.
A recently released Democracy Campaign study shows that over the last 12 years business interests have made $12 in campaign contributions for every $1 labor unions have given to candidates for state office in Wisconsin.
The old political orthodoxy that business bankrolls Republicans while unions fund the Democrats is a myth. Corporate interests are indeed the GOP’s major benefactors, but the Democrats have changed teams. They get five times more campaign money from business than labor is giving them.
If you wonder why Jim Doyle agreed to a business tax break – so-called single factor taxation – that even Tommy Thompson wouldn’t support, or if you wonder why Joe Wineke works as a lobbyist for AT&T when he’s not tending to his duties as chair of the state Democratic Party, all you have to do is follow the money.
And it’s not just campaign donations to candidates where the rise of corporate influence within the Democratic Party is plainly visible. The Democrats’ leading “issue advocacy” group in Wisconsin is being sustained by a feeding tube through which major corporate donations flow.
The bottom line is that the labor unions are getting their heads handed to them. Corporate interests have a firm financial grip on both major parties. Labor is losing political clout by the day.
So why is organized labor reticent at best and at times even openly hostile toward campaign finance reform? Since unions have people and corporations have capital, why does organized labor seem content competing on a money playing field . . . even when they are so hopelessly outgunned? Why do they actively and sometimes even openly work to thwart efforts to change that playing field?
The head of the biggest of the big labor players – Wisconsin Education Association Council – recently told the lobbying trade publication Capitol Report Wisconsin that “WEAC has never lobbied to kill campaign finance reform.”
It’s true that WEAC usually takes great care to disclose nothing about its position on campaign reform legislation, registering neither in favor of nor in opposition to reform bills, so as to maintain plausible deniability about their efforts to undermine reform efforts.
But I personally saw a WEAC lawyer appear numerous times before the state Elections Board in opposition to full disclosure and regulation of so-called “issue ads” – campaign advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy that plainly support the election or defeat of a candidate. In other words, WEAC was lobbying to keep a loophole open that is allowing millions of dollars in corporate donations to flow into Wisconsin election campaigns.
If you won’t take my word for it, clear evidence of WEAC’s lobbying against this campaign reform can be found on page one of the official minutes of the state Elections Board’s September 1, 2004 meeting and also on page three of the minutes of the board’s March 10, 2004 meeting. This is rare documentation of WEAC’s activities in opposition to campaign finance reform. Like I said, most times the teachers union has carefully maintained plausible deniability.
Why is WEAC working to keep open a loophole that its presumed nemesis, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, is exploiting to buy elections? An especially good question considering that WEAC has rarely if ever taken advantage of this loophole, preferring instead to fund its campaign ads with regulated PAC funds.
One is tempted to conclude that unions like WEAC and organized labor generally are dumb as shovels. At the risk of giving an undeserved benefit of the doubt, I don’t think stupidity is the answer, or even lack of imagination. I suspect it’s that most of the unions would rather be a queen bee in a dying hive than a drone in a thriving one.
When unions were in their heyday, Democrats controlled government and organized labor controlled the Democrats. Today, if not for the Iraq War, Republicans would be the clear majority party in America. Before public opinion about the war started turning sour, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, not to mention most statehouses. Not only has labor’s party been largely out of power, it’s not even labor’s party anymore. Even in a comparatively strong union state like Wisconsin, Democrats are getting five times more campaign money from business than from labor.
So the unions’ money is only enough for them to retain a controlling stake in an ever-shrinking contingent of a minority political coalition. And they lose on issue after issue.
Despite declining membership and waning influence, labor’s aging leadership clings to old practices that put the working class at a profound disadvantage in the modern public arena. Whether it’s done out of stupidity, or lack of imagination, or out of a misguided belief that it’s better to wholly own a few powerless politicians than be one of many stakeholders in a thriving political enterprise, it can’t get much worse for working people.
A recently released Democracy Campaign study shows that over the last 12 years business interests have made $12 in campaign contributions for every $1 labor unions have given to candidates for state office in Wisconsin.
The old political orthodoxy that business bankrolls Republicans while unions fund the Democrats is a myth. Corporate interests are indeed the GOP’s major benefactors, but the Democrats have changed teams. They get five times more campaign money from business than labor is giving them.
If you wonder why Jim Doyle agreed to a business tax break – so-called single factor taxation – that even Tommy Thompson wouldn’t support, or if you wonder why Joe Wineke works as a lobbyist for AT&T when he’s not tending to his duties as chair of the state Democratic Party, all you have to do is follow the money.
And it’s not just campaign donations to candidates where the rise of corporate influence within the Democratic Party is plainly visible. The Democrats’ leading “issue advocacy” group in Wisconsin is being sustained by a feeding tube through which major corporate donations flow.
The bottom line is that the labor unions are getting their heads handed to them. Corporate interests have a firm financial grip on both major parties. Labor is losing political clout by the day.
So why is organized labor reticent at best and at times even openly hostile toward campaign finance reform? Since unions have people and corporations have capital, why does organized labor seem content competing on a money playing field . . . even when they are so hopelessly outgunned? Why do they actively and sometimes even openly work to thwart efforts to change that playing field?
The head of the biggest of the big labor players – Wisconsin Education Association Council – recently told the lobbying trade publication Capitol Report Wisconsin that “WEAC has never lobbied to kill campaign finance reform.”
It’s true that WEAC usually takes great care to disclose nothing about its position on campaign reform legislation, registering neither in favor of nor in opposition to reform bills, so as to maintain plausible deniability about their efforts to undermine reform efforts.
But I personally saw a WEAC lawyer appear numerous times before the state Elections Board in opposition to full disclosure and regulation of so-called “issue ads” – campaign advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy that plainly support the election or defeat of a candidate. In other words, WEAC was lobbying to keep a loophole open that is allowing millions of dollars in corporate donations to flow into Wisconsin election campaigns.
If you won’t take my word for it, clear evidence of WEAC’s lobbying against this campaign reform can be found on page one of the official minutes of the state Elections Board’s September 1, 2004 meeting and also on page three of the minutes of the board’s March 10, 2004 meeting. This is rare documentation of WEAC’s activities in opposition to campaign finance reform. Like I said, most times the teachers union has carefully maintained plausible deniability.
Why is WEAC working to keep open a loophole that its presumed nemesis, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, is exploiting to buy elections? An especially good question considering that WEAC has rarely if ever taken advantage of this loophole, preferring instead to fund its campaign ads with regulated PAC funds.
One is tempted to conclude that unions like WEAC and organized labor generally are dumb as shovels. At the risk of giving an undeserved benefit of the doubt, I don’t think stupidity is the answer, or even lack of imagination. I suspect it’s that most of the unions would rather be a queen bee in a dying hive than a drone in a thriving one.
When unions were in their heyday, Democrats controlled government and organized labor controlled the Democrats. Today, if not for the Iraq War, Republicans would be the clear majority party in America. Before public opinion about the war started turning sour, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, not to mention most statehouses. Not only has labor’s party been largely out of power, it’s not even labor’s party anymore. Even in a comparatively strong union state like Wisconsin, Democrats are getting five times more campaign money from business than from labor.
So the unions’ money is only enough for them to retain a controlling stake in an ever-shrinking contingent of a minority political coalition. And they lose on issue after issue.
Despite declining membership and waning influence, labor’s aging leadership clings to old practices that put the working class at a profound disadvantage in the modern public arena. Whether it’s done out of stupidity, or lack of imagination, or out of a misguided belief that it’s better to wholly own a few powerless politicians than be one of many stakeholders in a thriving political enterprise, it can’t get much worse for working people.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Listen To Your Elders
Two of Wisconsin's elder statesmen – former Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus and former legislator and state school superintendent Bert Grover – sounded off recently about the nature of modern politics and the state of our democracy. One a Republican, the other a Democrat. Both worth listening to. To read Grover's piece, go here. The Dreyfus commentary is here.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Shadowy Is As Shadowy Does
Democratic campaign operative Bill Christofferson took exception recently to a commentary of mine that referred to his Greater Wisconsin Committee as a "shadowy outfit."
In his letter to the editor, Christofferson claims the Greater Wisconsin Committee "operates exactly the same way" as the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. GWC is an electioneering group. It is a receptacle for special interest donations that cannot be legally given directly to candidates, and it uses that extralegal money to pay for campaign ads that plainly aim to influence the outcome of elections. The Democracy Campaign is a watchdog group and does no election campaign advertising whatsoever. Equating these two nonprofit groups is like saying night and day operate exactly the same way.
Christofferson goes on to say I imply Greater Wisconsin Committee is spending corporate money but have no way of knowing. He says "given the progressive, pro-consumer positions Greater Wisconsin takes, corporate dollars are not likely to flow its way."
Internal Revenue Service records show that one of GWC's biggest sources of funds is the Democratic Governors Association, a nonprofit corporation. In 2005 and 2006, the DGA gave Christofferson's group nearly $1.1 million. Where did DGA get the money it then funneled to outfits like Greater Wisconsin Committee? Wisconsin donors included Johnson Bank, Johnson Controls, Madison Gas & Electric, Miller Brewing, Northwestern Mutual Life, S.C Johnson and Son, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and three Indian tribes. And, oh yes, indicted casino developer Dennis Troha, who appears to have figured out a little too late that he could make use of groups like DGA and GWC to get around legal limits on campaign donations.
The list of out-of-state donors to Greater Wisconsin Committee's sugar daddy reads like a who's who of corporate America – AT&T, Coca Cola, Goodrich Tires, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Toyota, Union Pacific and Verizon Communications, just to name a few.
Documents filed with the IRS also show that another national nonprofit corporation, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, supplied Greater Wisconsin Committee with over $800,000 in 2006. Among the Wisconsin donors who filled the DAGA's coffers were Miller Brewing and Wisconsin Energy Corporation. National contributors included Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), AT&T, Dow Chemical, GlaxoSmithKline and Hewlett Packard.
In his letter to the editor, Christofferson claims the Greater Wisconsin Committee "operates exactly the same way" as the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. GWC is an electioneering group. It is a receptacle for special interest donations that cannot be legally given directly to candidates, and it uses that extralegal money to pay for campaign ads that plainly aim to influence the outcome of elections. The Democracy Campaign is a watchdog group and does no election campaign advertising whatsoever. Equating these two nonprofit groups is like saying night and day operate exactly the same way.
Christofferson goes on to say I imply Greater Wisconsin Committee is spending corporate money but have no way of knowing. He says "given the progressive, pro-consumer positions Greater Wisconsin takes, corporate dollars are not likely to flow its way."
Internal Revenue Service records show that one of GWC's biggest sources of funds is the Democratic Governors Association, a nonprofit corporation. In 2005 and 2006, the DGA gave Christofferson's group nearly $1.1 million. Where did DGA get the money it then funneled to outfits like Greater Wisconsin Committee? Wisconsin donors included Johnson Bank, Johnson Controls, Madison Gas & Electric, Miller Brewing, Northwestern Mutual Life, S.C Johnson and Son, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and three Indian tribes. And, oh yes, indicted casino developer Dennis Troha, who appears to have figured out a little too late that he could make use of groups like DGA and GWC to get around legal limits on campaign donations.
The list of out-of-state donors to Greater Wisconsin Committee's sugar daddy reads like a who's who of corporate America – AT&T, Coca Cola, Goodrich Tires, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Toyota, Union Pacific and Verizon Communications, just to name a few.
Documents filed with the IRS also show that another national nonprofit corporation, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, supplied Greater Wisconsin Committee with over $800,000 in 2006. Among the Wisconsin donors who filled the DAGA's coffers were Miller Brewing and Wisconsin Energy Corporation. National contributors included Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), AT&T, Dow Chemical, GlaxoSmithKline and Hewlett Packard.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Squeezing Georgia Thompson
If you've been following the state travel contract saga, or if you're just interested in peering through a window into our criminal justice system, this is must reading. And damn good journalism.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Sweet Deal Turns Sour
News that a top executive with a Chicago-based real estate company was charged yesterday in federal court with soliciting a kickback on the sale of a state building had a ring of familiarity to it.
Just over a year ago, the Democracy Campaign pointed out large contributions from Equis Corporation executives to Governor Jim Doyle's reelection campaign right around the time the company landed an eyebrow-raising contract to sell state property. That prompted media scrutiny of the terms of the deal.
It looked like a sweetheart deal then, and it certainly doesn't look any better now.
Just over a year ago, the Democracy Campaign pointed out large contributions from Equis Corporation executives to Governor Jim Doyle's reelection campaign right around the time the company landed an eyebrow-raising contract to sell state property. That prompted media scrutiny of the terms of the deal.
It looked like a sweetheart deal then, and it certainly doesn't look any better now.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Senate Passes 3 Reform Bills
The state Senate this afternoon passed three reform proposals supported by the Democracy Campaign including Senate Bill 77, truth-in-campaigning legislation requiring full disclosure of special interest electioneering. SB 77 was approved on a 26-7 vote.
The Senate also passed Senate Bill 23, which addresses the revolving door between lawmaking and lobbying by requiring a one-year cooling off period before state lawmakers who leave the Legislature may start working as lobbyists at the Capitol. SB 23 passed on a 30-3 vote.
A third WDC-backed bill, Senate Bill 170, known as the Judicial Right to Know bill, was passed this afternoon on a 19-14 vote.
The Senate also passed Senate Bill 23, which addresses the revolving door between lawmaking and lobbying by requiring a one-year cooling off period before state lawmakers who leave the Legislature may start working as lobbyists at the Capitol. SB 23 passed on a 30-3 vote.
A third WDC-backed bill, Senate Bill 170, known as the Judicial Right to Know bill, was passed this afternoon on a 19-14 vote.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Your Party. Delivered.
So the head of the state Democratic Party is a lobbyist for AT&T. Talk about your metaphors.
The news that Joe Wineke has joined the telecommunication giant's stable of hired guns evokes memories of the reaction to a shameful and scandalous episode in another time and place. As they said then, "say it ain't so, Joe."
The news that Joe Wineke has joined the telecommunication giant's stable of hired guns evokes memories of the reaction to a shameful and scandalous episode in another time and place. As they said then, "say it ain't so, Joe."
Friday, April 27, 2007
Disorder In The Court
"I have exercised my right under the law. I'm entitled to do that, and it doesn't disqualify me from sitting as a judge."
That's what Supreme Court Justice David Prosser had to say when asked by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about whether he thinks he could rule on cases involving ethics complaints leveled against Annette Ziegler after contributing to Ziegler's campaign to replace retiring Justice Jon Wilcox.
Earth to Prosser! Maybe the money you gave doesn't disqualify you from sitting as a judge. But it sure as hell disqualifies you from sitting in judgment of Annette Ziegler.
By the way, this is the same Justice Prosser who had no misgivings about being a character witness for Scott Jensen at the former Assembly speaker's criminal trial and was even prepared to testify that Jensen had not done anything that Prosser didn't do when he was speaker, even though the state Supreme Court has final say over Jensen's case.
"Circuit judges are not above the law and may be investigated by the Judicial Commission, prosecuted and disciplined by this Court when appropriate. However, under the doctrine of separation of powers and this Court's superintending authority, circuit judges cannot be regulated and disciplined by an Executive Branch agency."
That's how Ziegler's legal team expressed her belief that no one but Supreme Court justices should be able to sit in judgment of her. She has asked the high court to block a conflict-of-interest complaint filed against her by the state Ethics Board. Ziegler is arguing the separation of powers between the branches of government should prevent an executive branch agency, namely the Ethics Board, from seeking to hold an official in the judicial branch, namely her, accountable for obeying state ethics laws. State law bars public officials from acting on matters in which their immediate family has a substantial financial interest. Each violation is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.
Um, Judge Ziegler, your honor, just one question. . . . If the separation of powers doctrine means what you say it means – that the executive or legislative branches of government have no authority whatsoever over you and your colleagues in the judicial branch – does that mean you will not pass judgment on the actions of officials in the other two branches of government or hold them accountable for legal trespasses if you ever make it to the Supreme Court?
Can't wait to hear your answer.
That's what Supreme Court Justice David Prosser had to say when asked by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about whether he thinks he could rule on cases involving ethics complaints leveled against Annette Ziegler after contributing to Ziegler's campaign to replace retiring Justice Jon Wilcox.
Earth to Prosser! Maybe the money you gave doesn't disqualify you from sitting as a judge. But it sure as hell disqualifies you from sitting in judgment of Annette Ziegler.
By the way, this is the same Justice Prosser who had no misgivings about being a character witness for Scott Jensen at the former Assembly speaker's criminal trial and was even prepared to testify that Jensen had not done anything that Prosser didn't do when he was speaker, even though the state Supreme Court has final say over Jensen's case.
"Circuit judges are not above the law and may be investigated by the Judicial Commission, prosecuted and disciplined by this Court when appropriate. However, under the doctrine of separation of powers and this Court's superintending authority, circuit judges cannot be regulated and disciplined by an Executive Branch agency."
That's how Ziegler's legal team expressed her belief that no one but Supreme Court justices should be able to sit in judgment of her. She has asked the high court to block a conflict-of-interest complaint filed against her by the state Ethics Board. Ziegler is arguing the separation of powers between the branches of government should prevent an executive branch agency, namely the Ethics Board, from seeking to hold an official in the judicial branch, namely her, accountable for obeying state ethics laws. State law bars public officials from acting on matters in which their immediate family has a substantial financial interest. Each violation is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.
Um, Judge Ziegler, your honor, just one question. . . . If the separation of powers doctrine means what you say it means – that the executive or legislative branches of government have no authority whatsoever over you and your colleagues in the judicial branch – does that mean you will not pass judgment on the actions of officials in the other two branches of government or hold them accountable for legal trespasses if you ever make it to the Supreme Court?
Can't wait to hear your answer.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wearing The 1st Amendment
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in Wisconsin Right to Life's challenge of the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. The nation's high court decided back in January to review the case. At issue is whether the law's disclosure requirements and restrictions on campaign money apply to special interest groups when they sponsor so-called "issue ads" identifying a candidate for federal office within 60 days of an election.
Interest group-sponsored issue ads are a sham, a thinly veiled attempt to evade legal and constitutional limits on campaign contributions. They pretend to discuss issues but unmistakably aim to elect or defeat candidates. Before the McCain-Feingold law put an end to this phony game on the national level, most of the money for issue ads in federal races came from corporate and labor union treasuries, as is still the case at the state level. Yet corporations and unions have been banned by law from contributing money in connection with federal elections since 1907 and 1947, respectively, and past Supreme Court rulings upheld these bans.
Expect to hear lots of high-minded rhetoric about free speech Wednesday as opponents of McCain-Feingold wrap themselves in the First Amendment to defend their practice of keeping the public in the dark about who is paying for their electioneering in order to sidestep the federal ban on corporate and union donations.
For all the talk of free speech, this legal debate is really about the boundaries of paid speech – namely whether monied interest groups should be able to use their vast treasuries to monopolize political debate and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. Another critical question before the court is whether interest groups should be free to do their talking under a cloak of secrecy.
Finally, underneath the arcane legal arguments looms the core philosophical question of ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court at one time embraced the repugnant notion that people can be property, setting the stage for the Civil War that commenced less than four years later. An infamous footnote to a high court ruling in a late-19th Century case advanced the similarly ridiculous proposition that property can be a person. That set the stage for citizen revolts like those led by Fighting Bob La Follette in Wisconsin around the turn of the century that ultimately resulted in the banning of corporate and union treasury donations nationally and here in our state.
Wisconsin Right to Life's challenge to McCain-Feingold raises anew the question of corporate ownership of democracy. Whether the Supreme Court will answer this question – or even think about it – is another matter.
Interest group-sponsored issue ads are a sham, a thinly veiled attempt to evade legal and constitutional limits on campaign contributions. They pretend to discuss issues but unmistakably aim to elect or defeat candidates. Before the McCain-Feingold law put an end to this phony game on the national level, most of the money for issue ads in federal races came from corporate and labor union treasuries, as is still the case at the state level. Yet corporations and unions have been banned by law from contributing money in connection with federal elections since 1907 and 1947, respectively, and past Supreme Court rulings upheld these bans.
Expect to hear lots of high-minded rhetoric about free speech Wednesday as opponents of McCain-Feingold wrap themselves in the First Amendment to defend their practice of keeping the public in the dark about who is paying for their electioneering in order to sidestep the federal ban on corporate and union donations.
For all the talk of free speech, this legal debate is really about the boundaries of paid speech – namely whether monied interest groups should be able to use their vast treasuries to monopolize political debate and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. Another critical question before the court is whether interest groups should be free to do their talking under a cloak of secrecy.
Finally, underneath the arcane legal arguments looms the core philosophical question of ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court at one time embraced the repugnant notion that people can be property, setting the stage for the Civil War that commenced less than four years later. An infamous footnote to a high court ruling in a late-19th Century case advanced the similarly ridiculous proposition that property can be a person. That set the stage for citizen revolts like those led by Fighting Bob La Follette in Wisconsin around the turn of the century that ultimately resulted in the banning of corporate and union treasury donations nationally and here in our state.
Wisconsin Right to Life's challenge to McCain-Feingold raises anew the question of corporate ownership of democracy. Whether the Supreme Court will answer this question – or even think about it – is another matter.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Special Interests Gave Generously To Shadow Groups
Wisconsin residents, businesses and unions contributed $2.49 million in 2005-06 to unregulated electioneering groups, most of whom use negative broadcast advertising and mailings to influence state and national elections, a WDC analysis shows.
The total is about $81,000 shy of the record $2.57 million Wisconsin contributors gave to so-called 527 groups in the 2001-02 election cycle.
These 527 organizations, which are tax-exempt political nonprofit groups named after the U.S. Internal Revenue Service code that governs them, include the well-known Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, GOPAC, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org. The groups can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money, including corporate contributions that are illegal to make directly to candidates in Wisconsin, to pay for negative ads, mailings, auto calls and other outside electioneering activities.
The leading recipient of special interest cash from Wisconsin was the Democratic Governors Association, which received nearly $528,000. That money was among nearly $1.1 million the group gave to the Greater Wisconsin Committee, an unregulated issue ad group that spent more than $4 million on mostly negative broadcast ads in the November 2006 elections to benefit Democratic candidates, particularly Governor Jim Doyle.
The Republican Governors Association, which directly spent more than $2 million on negative ads and mailings attacking Doyle, accepted $341,825 from Wisconsin contributors in 2005-06.
Six other 527 groups each received more than $100,000 in Wisconsin contributions, including the Progressive Majority, $274,300; Club for Growth, $169,390; Democratic Attorneys General Association, $167,000; GOPAC, $157,541; Emily's List, $147,380; and the Laborers Political League Education Fund, $107,937.
Democratic-leaning 527s received substantially more than Republican-leaning groups from Wisconsin contributors in 2005-06. Democratic 527s got $1.68 million and Republican 527s got $785,968.
Leading the list of Wisconsin contributors to 527s was Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, an heir to the Schlitz Brewing and Allen-Bradley family fortunes and a longtime supporter of Democratic and women's causes. She contributed $563,000 to 527 groups in 2005-06, followed by Johnson Controls which gave $145,500 and the Wisconsin Laborers District Council which gave $107,937.
Following those contributors were three who each gave $100,000 to 527s including the Wisconsin Builders Association; Daniel Bader with the Helen Bader Foundation in Milwaukee; and Kenosha millionaire Dennis Troha. Troha, Doyle's biggest contributor and a long time backer of an $808 million tribal casino in Kenosha, was charged in federal court earlier this year with illegally funneling campaign contributions through family members to Doyle and other political committees, and then lying to the FBI about it.
The total is about $81,000 shy of the record $2.57 million Wisconsin contributors gave to so-called 527 groups in the 2001-02 election cycle.
These 527 organizations, which are tax-exempt political nonprofit groups named after the U.S. Internal Revenue Service code that governs them, include the well-known Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, GOPAC, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org. The groups can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money, including corporate contributions that are illegal to make directly to candidates in Wisconsin, to pay for negative ads, mailings, auto calls and other outside electioneering activities.
The leading recipient of special interest cash from Wisconsin was the Democratic Governors Association, which received nearly $528,000. That money was among nearly $1.1 million the group gave to the Greater Wisconsin Committee, an unregulated issue ad group that spent more than $4 million on mostly negative broadcast ads in the November 2006 elections to benefit Democratic candidates, particularly Governor Jim Doyle.
The Republican Governors Association, which directly spent more than $2 million on negative ads and mailings attacking Doyle, accepted $341,825 from Wisconsin contributors in 2005-06.
Six other 527 groups each received more than $100,000 in Wisconsin contributions, including the Progressive Majority, $274,300; Club for Growth, $169,390; Democratic Attorneys General Association, $167,000; GOPAC, $157,541; Emily's List, $147,380; and the Laborers Political League Education Fund, $107,937.
Democratic-leaning 527s received substantially more than Republican-leaning groups from Wisconsin contributors in 2005-06. Democratic 527s got $1.68 million and Republican 527s got $785,968.
Leading the list of Wisconsin contributors to 527s was Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, an heir to the Schlitz Brewing and Allen-Bradley family fortunes and a longtime supporter of Democratic and women's causes. She contributed $563,000 to 527 groups in 2005-06, followed by Johnson Controls which gave $145,500 and the Wisconsin Laborers District Council which gave $107,937.
Following those contributors were three who each gave $100,000 to 527s including the Wisconsin Builders Association; Daniel Bader with the Helen Bader Foundation in Milwaukee; and Kenosha millionaire Dennis Troha. Troha, Doyle's biggest contributor and a long time backer of an $808 million tribal casino in Kenosha, was charged in federal court earlier this year with illegally funneling campaign contributions through family members to Doyle and other political committees, and then lying to the FBI about it.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Most Successful 'Abject Failure' Ever
At Tuesday's public hearing on campaign finance reform, only one speaker testified in opposition to reform – James Buchen of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. In his testimony, Buchen told more than a few tall tales, none taller than his claim that public financing of election campaigns has proven to be an "abject failure."
Abject failure?
Elected officials from both parties and citizens alike sing the praises of public financing programs that have been put in place in states like Arizona and Maine. A judge from North Carolina, where there is now full public financing of judicial races, feels so strongly about the benefits of her state's campaign financing system that she went to the trouble of sending a guest column to a Seattle newspaper when she learned the state of Washington is thinking of reforming the way it finances judicial elections.
A report entitled "Keeping It Clean" by the California-based Center for Governmental Studies spends 154 pages detailing the finer points of public financing of elections in states across the country and chronicling the successes of these programs.
Go here, here, here and here for even more evidence of how well public financing is working in states from one end of America to the other.
Of course, it's obvious why Buchen and WMC choose to ignore all this evidence and conclude that publicly financed elections represent a failed policy. Under the current system of privately funded elections in Wisconsin, WMC gets to do far more than its fair share of the talking during campaigns. The big business lobby spent $2.5 million in last fall's race for state attorney general and just dropped at least another $2 million on the April 3 state Supreme Court election.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson made it clear in her testimony at Tuesday's hearing what she thinks of such special interest influence in races for a seat on the state's highest court, and was unequivocal in her support for publicly financed elections.
Reform creating voter-owned, clean elections would level the playing field and force WMC and Buchen to do something they want no part of – participate in a debate without monopolizing the floor. It also would stop them from buying elections and thereby purchasing one tax break after another that have shifted the tax burden in Wisconsin from corporations to working families.
As this story makes clear, WMC doesn't speak for a united business community on the subject of taxes. And not everyone in the business world is towing the WMC party line on campaign finance reform, either, as this recent guest column by a retired medical industry executive illustrates. Moreover, the Small Business Times was so taken by the Democracy Campaign's pro-reform testimony that the trade journal featured it on its Milwaukee Biz Blog.
Abject failure?
Elected officials from both parties and citizens alike sing the praises of public financing programs that have been put in place in states like Arizona and Maine. A judge from North Carolina, where there is now full public financing of judicial races, feels so strongly about the benefits of her state's campaign financing system that she went to the trouble of sending a guest column to a Seattle newspaper when she learned the state of Washington is thinking of reforming the way it finances judicial elections.
A report entitled "Keeping It Clean" by the California-based Center for Governmental Studies spends 154 pages detailing the finer points of public financing of elections in states across the country and chronicling the successes of these programs.
Go here, here, here and here for even more evidence of how well public financing is working in states from one end of America to the other.
Of course, it's obvious why Buchen and WMC choose to ignore all this evidence and conclude that publicly financed elections represent a failed policy. Under the current system of privately funded elections in Wisconsin, WMC gets to do far more than its fair share of the talking during campaigns. The big business lobby spent $2.5 million in last fall's race for state attorney general and just dropped at least another $2 million on the April 3 state Supreme Court election.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson made it clear in her testimony at Tuesday's hearing what she thinks of such special interest influence in races for a seat on the state's highest court, and was unequivocal in her support for publicly financed elections.
Reform creating voter-owned, clean elections would level the playing field and force WMC and Buchen to do something they want no part of – participate in a debate without monopolizing the floor. It also would stop them from buying elections and thereby purchasing one tax break after another that have shifted the tax burden in Wisconsin from corporations to working families.
As this story makes clear, WMC doesn't speak for a united business community on the subject of taxes. And not everyone in the business world is towing the WMC party line on campaign finance reform, either, as this recent guest column by a retired medical industry executive illustrates. Moreover, the Small Business Times was so taken by the Democracy Campaign's pro-reform testimony that the trade journal featured it on its Milwaukee Biz Blog.
Big Brother Bullies PEG
An April 5 blog posting dealt with the advertising blitz by an outfit called TV4US pushing what one communications industry expert calls cable "un-regulation" legislation introduced in Wisconsin's Legislature as Assembly Bill 207 and Senate Bill 107. The advertising focuses on spiraling cable bills and the need for relief for consumers.
Wisconsin State Journal columnist Susan Lampert Smith pointed out yesterday one of the dark sides of the proposed legislation. She wrote that the "cable bill, which is streaking a greased track through the Legislature, will, in its current form, kill city government and cable access channels across Wisconsin."
At stake is the future of community Public, Educational and Government (PEG) channels. They are to local government and community affairs what C-SPAN is on the national scene and WisconsinEye is supposed to become at the state level.
PEG channels from Oshkosh to Madison are raising red flags and trying to mobilize citizens to fight to preserve this vitally important outlet for local democracy. The Wisconsin Association of PEG Access Channels is trying to raise awareness statewide of the threat AB 207 and SB 107 pose to public access television. A central clearinghouse of information about the threat to PEG is SaveAccessWisconsin.org.
For still more information, go here.
Wisconsin State Journal columnist Susan Lampert Smith pointed out yesterday one of the dark sides of the proposed legislation. She wrote that the "cable bill, which is streaking a greased track through the Legislature, will, in its current form, kill city government and cable access channels across Wisconsin."
At stake is the future of community Public, Educational and Government (PEG) channels. They are to local government and community affairs what C-SPAN is on the national scene and WisconsinEye is supposed to become at the state level.
PEG channels from Oshkosh to Madison are raising red flags and trying to mobilize citizens to fight to preserve this vitally important outlet for local democracy. The Wisconsin Association of PEG Access Channels is trying to raise awareness statewide of the threat AB 207 and SB 107 pose to public access television. A central clearinghouse of information about the threat to PEG is SaveAccessWisconsin.org.
For still more information, go here.
Friday, April 06, 2007
More On AT&T....
WDC recently posted two blogs about AT&T contributions to legislators and a controversial bill it is strongly pushing to let the state license cable providers instead of letting local communities continue to pick their provider. One of the blogs talked about the sudden surge in AT&T campaign contributions to Republican Representative Phil Montgomery, the bill's Assembly sponsor, and Republican Assembly Speaker Michael Huebsch.
We've since learned the bill's primary Senate sponsor, Democrat Jeff Plale, accepted a $1,000 contribution from the phone giant on March 15, a week before he introduced the proposal.
A campaign finance report filed March 26 by one of AT&T's political action committees also showed AT&T contributed $4,800 to the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee about a month before the bill was introduced. This committee is controlled by Huebsch. It is one of four committees that Democratic and Republican legislative leaders in the Senate and Assembly use to shake down large special interest contributions.
In Plale's case, it's curious timing for a hefty campaign contribution. Last year when Plale was up for election, he received only $150 from AT&T, and he won't face reelection until 2010.
Between 2000 and 2005, Plale received a total of $2,150 from AT&T PACs.
We've since learned the bill's primary Senate sponsor, Democrat Jeff Plale, accepted a $1,000 contribution from the phone giant on March 15, a week before he introduced the proposal.
A campaign finance report filed March 26 by one of AT&T's political action committees also showed AT&T contributed $4,800 to the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee about a month before the bill was introduced. This committee is controlled by Huebsch. It is one of four committees that Democratic and Republican legislative leaders in the Senate and Assembly use to shake down large special interest contributions.
In Plale's case, it's curious timing for a hefty campaign contribution. Last year when Plale was up for election, he received only $150 from AT&T, and he won't face reelection until 2010.
Between 2000 and 2005, Plale received a total of $2,150 from AT&T PACs.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
TV 4 Them
In a blog posting last week, we pointed out AT&T's sudden interest in making campaign contributions to certain state lawmakers who will play key roles in deciding the fate of cable TV deregulation legislation the company sorely wants passed. The March 29 blog also highlighted the involvement of a Washington, D.C.-based bill mill in the development of the cable franchising proposal.
Campaign contributions are only one way AT&T is seeking to influence the outcome of the debate over this controversial legislation seeking to take decisions about community cable TV service out of the hands of local elected officials. The telecommunications giant also has 15 lobbyists working the halls of the State Capitol, and is leading a coalition called TV4US that is doing heavy television advertising across Wisconsin to build public support for the bill.
Our friends at the Center for Media and Democracy recently posted an item on their excellent SourceWatch site about TV4US.
Campaign contributions are only one way AT&T is seeking to influence the outcome of the debate over this controversial legislation seeking to take decisions about community cable TV service out of the hands of local elected officials. The telecommunications giant also has 15 lobbyists working the halls of the State Capitol, and is leading a coalition called TV4US that is doing heavy television advertising across Wisconsin to build public support for the bill.
Our friends at the Center for Media and Democracy recently posted an item on their excellent SourceWatch site about TV4US.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Chipping In
For anyone who still doesn't believe special interest money flows to power, check out the difference in contributions the Senate Democrats are commanding for a round of golf with them this May now that they hold the majority, versus last year when they were in the minority.
In May 2006, the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee's golf fundraiser at the House on the Rock Resort in Spring Green cost $250 per golfer, or $975 per foursome.
Enter the November 2006 general election. The Senate Dems went from being down 19-14 to winning an 18-15 majority until at least 2008. Lots of important stuff going on until then, particularly passage of the proposed 2007-09 state budget which legislators will be doing most of their work on in May and June.
The committee's May 18, 2007 fundraiser at the Grand Geneva Resort in Lake Geneva costs $700 per golfer, or $2,500 per foursome. But that's not all. The Senate Dems have a whole list of options - at a cost - for those who can't golf worth a crap but want the Senate Dems to know they are with them.
You can be a "hole sponsor" for $750 per person or $3,000 per foursome. Hole sponsors are for people who are playing or unable to attend. The sponsors will be thanked in the event's program and on signs at the hole they sponsor. Nice, eh?
Now if you want to golf and eat breakfast with Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson and Senator Russ Decker, co-chair of the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee, that's $900 per person, or $3,250 per foursome.
In addition to getting to chit-chat about your favorite policy, perk, program or pork with the party in control, you get free stuff - an embroidered State Senate Democrats golf towel, a sleeve of logo balls, tees, range balls and a 5-by-7 group photo. Whoaa.
If you don't want anything to do with golf and you're on a tight budget, just eating breakfast with Robson and Decker is the best option at $250. Must be quite an omelet.
In May 2006, the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee's golf fundraiser at the House on the Rock Resort in Spring Green cost $250 per golfer, or $975 per foursome.
Enter the November 2006 general election. The Senate Dems went from being down 19-14 to winning an 18-15 majority until at least 2008. Lots of important stuff going on until then, particularly passage of the proposed 2007-09 state budget which legislators will be doing most of their work on in May and June.
The committee's May 18, 2007 fundraiser at the Grand Geneva Resort in Lake Geneva costs $700 per golfer, or $2,500 per foursome. But that's not all. The Senate Dems have a whole list of options - at a cost - for those who can't golf worth a crap but want the Senate Dems to know they are with them.
You can be a "hole sponsor" for $750 per person or $3,000 per foursome. Hole sponsors are for people who are playing or unable to attend. The sponsors will be thanked in the event's program and on signs at the hole they sponsor. Nice, eh?
Now if you want to golf and eat breakfast with Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson and Senator Russ Decker, co-chair of the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee, that's $900 per person, or $3,250 per foursome.
In addition to getting to chit-chat about your favorite policy, perk, program or pork with the party in control, you get free stuff - an embroidered State Senate Democrats golf towel, a sleeve of logo balls, tees, range balls and a 5-by-7 group photo. Whoaa.
If you don't want anything to do with golf and you're on a tight budget, just eating breakfast with Robson and Decker is the best option at $250. Must be quite an omelet.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Phone Friends
Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and Representative Phil Montgomery have a lot in common, and as of late they have both become fast friends with AT&T.
AT&T badly wants legislative approval of a controversial proposal to let the state license cable and data providers instead of letting local communities continue to pick their cable provider. The phone giant wants to break into the cable market in Wisconsin and this proposal would let AT&T go wherever it wants much faster than having to deal with all those pesky local communities, one by one.
Montgomery is one the bill's lead sponsors and the measure must have Huebsch's OK to pass the Assembly. Huebsch and his Republican colleagues control the Assembly 52-47.
Turns out AT&T barely knew Montgomery and Huebsch existed until last year. From 1998 through 2005, AT&T employees or political action committees had contributed only $300 to Montgomery and $800 to Huebsch.
In 2006 when the proposal was being developed, AT&T contributed $2,250 to Montgomery's campaign and $1,225 to Huebsch, and a few months later out pops the bill AT&T wants.
It also turns out Montgomery's proposal is not exactly homegrown. It comes from a group called ALEC, which stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. This Washington-based conservative think tank is a bill mill, penning numerous anti-regulatory, anti-tax and pro-business proposals and encouraging state legislators around the country to offer them up at home.
And critics say the problems don't stop there. Like a lot of plans to deregulate or preempt local communities, consumer protections are weakened. Unlike now, the bill does not require advanced notice of rate increases or that customer bills are credited when service is interrupted for four hours or more. Customers also lose the right to have service repaired within 72 hours, among other things. Others say it would reduce or end locally made cable programs for kids and others, and the state could not deny a license to a company even if it looks like the provider could go belly up the next day.
Montgomery and other supporters say the bill is intended to spur competition and reduce the price of cable. Be that as it may, we're curious to see how often AT&T pops up on campaign finance reports filed later this year and early next year by the legislators who support the proposal.
And let's not forget about Democratic Governor Jim Doyle if this proposal passes the legislature and gets to him. Doyle says he has problems with the bill as is because of the diminished consumer protections. But Doyle has seen a lot of proposals he likes that take away power from local communities and give it to the state.
Doyle has received $36,157 in contributions since 1998 from employees and PACs of AT&T, one of his most generous corporate backers. In addition, AT&T was among seven companies that gave $25,000 each to help pay for Doyle's 2007 inaugural party.
AT&T badly wants legislative approval of a controversial proposal to let the state license cable and data providers instead of letting local communities continue to pick their cable provider. The phone giant wants to break into the cable market in Wisconsin and this proposal would let AT&T go wherever it wants much faster than having to deal with all those pesky local communities, one by one.
Montgomery is one the bill's lead sponsors and the measure must have Huebsch's OK to pass the Assembly. Huebsch and his Republican colleagues control the Assembly 52-47.
Turns out AT&T barely knew Montgomery and Huebsch existed until last year. From 1998 through 2005, AT&T employees or political action committees had contributed only $300 to Montgomery and $800 to Huebsch.
In 2006 when the proposal was being developed, AT&T contributed $2,250 to Montgomery's campaign and $1,225 to Huebsch, and a few months later out pops the bill AT&T wants.
It also turns out Montgomery's proposal is not exactly homegrown. It comes from a group called ALEC, which stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. This Washington-based conservative think tank is a bill mill, penning numerous anti-regulatory, anti-tax and pro-business proposals and encouraging state legislators around the country to offer them up at home.
And critics say the problems don't stop there. Like a lot of plans to deregulate or preempt local communities, consumer protections are weakened. Unlike now, the bill does not require advanced notice of rate increases or that customer bills are credited when service is interrupted for four hours or more. Customers also lose the right to have service repaired within 72 hours, among other things. Others say it would reduce or end locally made cable programs for kids and others, and the state could not deny a license to a company even if it looks like the provider could go belly up the next day.
Montgomery and other supporters say the bill is intended to spur competition and reduce the price of cable. Be that as it may, we're curious to see how often AT&T pops up on campaign finance reports filed later this year and early next year by the legislators who support the proposal.
And let's not forget about Democratic Governor Jim Doyle if this proposal passes the legislature and gets to him. Doyle says he has problems with the bill as is because of the diminished consumer protections. But Doyle has seen a lot of proposals he likes that take away power from local communities and give it to the state.
Doyle has received $36,157 in contributions since 1998 from employees and PACs of AT&T, one of his most generous corporate backers. In addition, AT&T was among seven companies that gave $25,000 each to help pay for Doyle's 2007 inaugural party.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Disappearing Act
A bill – pushed by the Democracy Campaign for years – making out-of-state political committees comply with the same campaign finance disclosure requirements as in-state committees was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor as 2005 Wisconsin Act 176 last March.
A year after this law was made it has been unmade, the Democracy Campaign has learned, wiped off the books by an "administrative decision" by the state Revisor of Statutes.
Here's what we've been told by legislative attorneys:
On the same day Act 176 became law, another bill – Assembly Bill 428 – was enacted as 2005 Wisconsin Act 177. That bill's purpose was to cleanse state law of the provisions of a sham campaign finance reform plan laced with a poison pill that was enacted in 2002 as part of a budget repair bill but was later struck down in court because the judge found the poison pill unconstitutional as expected.
The official story of the disclosure law's cruel fate is that the lawyers responsible for keeping our state statutes nice and tidy decided that Act 177 trumps Act 176, even though Act 176 reflects the will of the Legislature expressed in 2006 and Act 177 merely cleans up a mess created by the Legislature nearly four years earlier – a mess, by the way, that had nothing to do with making out-of-state donations more transparent.
That's the official story. We aren't so sure. We smell a rat.
A year after this law was made it has been unmade, the Democracy Campaign has learned, wiped off the books by an "administrative decision" by the state Revisor of Statutes.
Here's what we've been told by legislative attorneys:
On the same day Act 176 became law, another bill – Assembly Bill 428 – was enacted as 2005 Wisconsin Act 177. That bill's purpose was to cleanse state law of the provisions of a sham campaign finance reform plan laced with a poison pill that was enacted in 2002 as part of a budget repair bill but was later struck down in court because the judge found the poison pill unconstitutional as expected.
The official story of the disclosure law's cruel fate is that the lawyers responsible for keeping our state statutes nice and tidy decided that Act 177 trumps Act 176, even though Act 176 reflects the will of the Legislature expressed in 2006 and Act 177 merely cleans up a mess created by the Legislature nearly four years earlier – a mess, by the way, that had nothing to do with making out-of-state donations more transparent.
That's the official story. We aren't so sure. We smell a rat.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
40,000 Versus 500
As a recent article in the trade publication Broadcast Engineering pointed out, consolidation of media ownership is changing the news gathering business and putting the squeeze on newsrooms. That is having a profound impact on the ability of the media to keep an eye on what's going on in state government.
There are currently only about 500 reporters covering state legislatures across the nation. There are roughly 40,000 registered lobbyists — five per legislator — seeking to influence government decisions at the state level.
The battle between private gain and the public interest is not a fair fight. When the mouthpieces of the private interest groups outnumber the eyes and ears of the general public by such an outlandish margin, is it any wonder these special interests are having their way with our elected state representatives?
There are currently only about 500 reporters covering state legislatures across the nation. There are roughly 40,000 registered lobbyists — five per legislator — seeking to influence government decisions at the state level.
The battle between private gain and the public interest is not a fair fight. When the mouthpieces of the private interest groups outnumber the eyes and ears of the general public by such an outlandish margin, is it any wonder these special interests are having their way with our elected state representatives?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Top Doyle Donor Indicted
Kenosha multimillionaire Dennis Troha, who made a fortune in the trucking industry before heading an effort to locate a casino in Kenosha and becoming Governor Jim Doyle's biggest financial supporter, was indicted by a federal grand jury yesterday on charges of illegally funneling contributions through family members to the governor's campaign and other political committees and then lying to the FBI about the scheme.
Troha's attorney told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Troha acknowledges furnishing funds to his children so they could make political contributions, but insists he did not direct them to donate to any particular candidate. That's a hard argument to sell when you look at the pattern of giving to Doyle by Troha family members. If they were all making independent decisions, then it's one hell of a series of coincidences that they all repeatedly decided to give to the same candidate on the same day and often in the exact same amount.
It's obvious what Troha was after. It's equally obvious why he'd think giving heavily to the governor might be a way to get what he wanted. What's more mysterious is why someone approaching retirement age who has publicly claimed to be worth more than $33 million would risk prompting the feds to start sniffing around by resorting to money laundering to get around the state's $10,000 limit on campaign contributions to a candidate for statewide office. After all, Wisconsin's campaign finance laws are in such disrepair that Troha could have exploited loopholes in the law to go as far above the $10,000 limit as his heart desired and his bank account permitted.
Troha appeared to figure this out, although too late to avoid scrutiny by the FBI and U.S. Attorney. He made two $50,000 contributions – the first on December 23, 2005 and the second on September 8, 2006 – to the Democratic Governors Association, a so-called "527" group, which in turn helped bankroll pro-Doyle electioneering by the shadowy Greater Wisconsin Committee. Around the time of those gifts to DGA, contributions directly to Doyle from Troha family members were pretty much drying up.
Troha and his wife also took advantage of another way to lavish more than $10,000 on the governor. They donated $25,000 to the governor's 2003 inaugural party and another $50,000 to help pay for 2007 inaugural festivities. Inaugural donations are not counted as campaign contributions.
This latest dismal episode in the soap opera of Wisconsin politics not only illustrates the lengths wealthy interests will go to buy elections and influence government officials, but also underscores how utterly broken our campaign finance system is.
Troha's attorney told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Troha acknowledges furnishing funds to his children so they could make political contributions, but insists he did not direct them to donate to any particular candidate. That's a hard argument to sell when you look at the pattern of giving to Doyle by Troha family members. If they were all making independent decisions, then it's one hell of a series of coincidences that they all repeatedly decided to give to the same candidate on the same day and often in the exact same amount.
It's obvious what Troha was after. It's equally obvious why he'd think giving heavily to the governor might be a way to get what he wanted. What's more mysterious is why someone approaching retirement age who has publicly claimed to be worth more than $33 million would risk prompting the feds to start sniffing around by resorting to money laundering to get around the state's $10,000 limit on campaign contributions to a candidate for statewide office. After all, Wisconsin's campaign finance laws are in such disrepair that Troha could have exploited loopholes in the law to go as far above the $10,000 limit as his heart desired and his bank account permitted.
Troha appeared to figure this out, although too late to avoid scrutiny by the FBI and U.S. Attorney. He made two $50,000 contributions – the first on December 23, 2005 and the second on September 8, 2006 – to the Democratic Governors Association, a so-called "527" group, which in turn helped bankroll pro-Doyle electioneering by the shadowy Greater Wisconsin Committee. Around the time of those gifts to DGA, contributions directly to Doyle from Troha family members were pretty much drying up.
Troha and his wife also took advantage of another way to lavish more than $10,000 on the governor. They donated $25,000 to the governor's 2003 inaugural party and another $50,000 to help pay for 2007 inaugural festivities. Inaugural donations are not counted as campaign contributions.
This latest dismal episode in the soap opera of Wisconsin politics not only illustrates the lengths wealthy interests will go to buy elections and influence government officials, but also underscores how utterly broken our campaign finance system is.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Deconstructing Frankenstein
Senate Democrats are rightly taking it on the chin for blocking efforts to put an end to the so-called "Frankenstein veto." Why on earth legislators wouldn't want to rein in the power of the governor and restore the balance of power between the two lawmaking branches of government is beyond me.
Trouble is, the solution that's been offered doesn't solve the problem. A proposed constitutional amendment by Republican Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls does not kill Frankenstein.
Harsdorf's constitutional amendment would continue to allow governors to stitch together bits and pieces of an appropriation bill to create laws that the Legislature did not approve or authorize. It would expressly prohibit one way governors do that, but still leave plenty of room for mischief.
The proposed amendment says governors "may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill." That means a governor could still delete one or more parts of a single sentence, such as the word "not," and stitch together the remnants to create a law with the opposite meaning of the one approved by the Legislature. A governor also would continue to be permitted to delete whole sentences or paragraphs or sections or subsections of bills and piece together what remains to fashion new laws that the Legislature did not approve, as long as care is taken not to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences.
The proposed amendment to our state constitution would not have prevented Governor Doyle from stitching together the remnants of a single sentence to increase the state's bonding authority for major highway projects from $140 million to $1 billion without the approval of the Legislature. That Frankenstein veto can be found in Section 683d of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33.
If the proposed amendment had been in effect during Tommy Thompson's tenure in office, it would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to spend $319 million per year that the Legislature did not authorize. This veto appears in Section 2135t of 1991 Wisconsin Act 39 and resulted in $1.2 billion in spending over four years for a school tax credit that the Legislature had decided to eliminate and replace with a different form of property tax relief.
The proposed amendment also would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to repeal the Property Tax Rent Credit. This little beauty in Section 2m of 1999 Wisconsin Act 10 cost taxpayers $234 million in higher income taxes before the tax credit was eventually restored.
Another time, Governor Thompson unilaterally increased the amount of sales tax collections that retailers were required to pay by using Frankenstein vetoes to reduce the amounts that could be deducted as "administration expenses" in Section 510 of 1991 Wisconsin Act 269. That veto increased revenues by something on the order of $25 million to $35 million. Harsdorf's amendment wouldn't have stopped that one either.
Governor Doyle used the same stitching technique that Thompson employed to unilaterally increase an agricultural chemical cleanup surcharge from 38 cents per ton to 83 cents per ton, while the Legislature had approved an increase to only 63 cents per ton. That veto can be found in Section 1745 of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33. Again, the proposed constitutional amendment would allow this Frankenstein to live.
Neither side – not those who oppose fixing the problem just because they belong to the same political party as the current governor who now wields this monstrous veto authority and not even those who support the proposed constitutional amendment that is advertised as a remedy – gets it. Neither group of legislators is doing what's best for the Legislature and the people its members represent or what's right for democracy.
Trouble is, the solution that's been offered doesn't solve the problem. A proposed constitutional amendment by Republican Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls does not kill Frankenstein.
Harsdorf's constitutional amendment would continue to allow governors to stitch together bits and pieces of an appropriation bill to create laws that the Legislature did not approve or authorize. It would expressly prohibit one way governors do that, but still leave plenty of room for mischief.
The proposed amendment says governors "may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill." That means a governor could still delete one or more parts of a single sentence, such as the word "not," and stitch together the remnants to create a law with the opposite meaning of the one approved by the Legislature. A governor also would continue to be permitted to delete whole sentences or paragraphs or sections or subsections of bills and piece together what remains to fashion new laws that the Legislature did not approve, as long as care is taken not to create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences.
The proposed amendment to our state constitution would not have prevented Governor Doyle from stitching together the remnants of a single sentence to increase the state's bonding authority for major highway projects from $140 million to $1 billion without the approval of the Legislature. That Frankenstein veto can be found in Section 683d of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33.
If the proposed amendment had been in effect during Tommy Thompson's tenure in office, it would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to spend $319 million per year that the Legislature did not authorize. This veto appears in Section 2135t of 1991 Wisconsin Act 39 and resulted in $1.2 billion in spending over four years for a school tax credit that the Legislature had decided to eliminate and replace with a different form of property tax relief.
The proposed amendment also would not have prevented Governor Thompson from vetoing parts of a single sentence to repeal the Property Tax Rent Credit. This little beauty in Section 2m of 1999 Wisconsin Act 10 cost taxpayers $234 million in higher income taxes before the tax credit was eventually restored.
Another time, Governor Thompson unilaterally increased the amount of sales tax collections that retailers were required to pay by using Frankenstein vetoes to reduce the amounts that could be deducted as "administration expenses" in Section 510 of 1991 Wisconsin Act 269. That veto increased revenues by something on the order of $25 million to $35 million. Harsdorf's amendment wouldn't have stopped that one either.
Governor Doyle used the same stitching technique that Thompson employed to unilaterally increase an agricultural chemical cleanup surcharge from 38 cents per ton to 83 cents per ton, while the Legislature had approved an increase to only 63 cents per ton. That veto can be found in Section 1745 of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33. Again, the proposed constitutional amendment would allow this Frankenstein to live.
Neither side – not those who oppose fixing the problem just because they belong to the same political party as the current governor who now wields this monstrous veto authority and not even those who support the proposed constitutional amendment that is advertised as a remedy – gets it. Neither group of legislators is doing what's best for the Legislature and the people its members represent or what's right for democracy.
Computer Crashes
The state is pulling the plug right and left on major computer projects. The latest casualty is a $28 million sales-tax tracking system for the state Department of Revenue.
Which inspired state Representative Sue Jeskewitz, a Menomonee Falls Republican, to remark: "No private business would spend $26 million or $30 million for a project that doesn't work."
Maybe, maybe not. But the state has managed to find more than a few private businesses that will gladly take tens of millions of the taxpayers' dollars without delivering a product that works. Like American Management Systems, now part of CGI Group. And Accenture.
Speaking of Accenture, don't be surprised if the state's contract with the company to develop a statewide voter registration system is the next big computer project to crash and burn. The arrangement is a disaster.
Which inspired state Representative Sue Jeskewitz, a Menomonee Falls Republican, to remark: "No private business would spend $26 million or $30 million for a project that doesn't work."
Maybe, maybe not. But the state has managed to find more than a few private businesses that will gladly take tens of millions of the taxpayers' dollars without delivering a product that works. Like American Management Systems, now part of CGI Group. And Accenture.
Speaking of Accenture, don't be surprised if the state's contract with the company to develop a statewide voter registration system is the next big computer project to crash and burn. The arrangement is a disaster.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Passing 58 Million Bucks
Spending by special interest groups influencing Wisconsin lawmakers is in the news again, with the latest figures showing that more than $58 million was spent on lobbying during the 2005-2006 legislative session, up nearly 20% over the prior session.
News reports that blandly identify which interest groups spent the most leave casual readers, viewers and listeners wondering why they should care. Pointing out that they are ultimately picking up the tab might do the trick caring-wise. The $58 million and then some ends up being passed along to taxpayers without $200-an-hour lobbyists working for them when state officials hand out special interest tax breaks or budget pork or no-bid contracts.
In the press advisory reporting the record-breaking spending on influence peddling, the state Ethics Board tried reassuring citizens that the store is being minded. Ethics Board director Roth Judd took pains to remind us that "Wisconsin leads the nation in forbidding special interest groups from providing favors to elected officials."
Two pertinent facts make such happy talk ring just a bit hollow. First, Judd evidently does not consider the campaign contributions special interest groups can legally shower on lawmakers at any time – even while the state budget is being crafted, for crying out loud – a favor to those elected officials. Which begs the question: Exactly what kind of favor is more valuable to a politician these days than a campaign donation? Secondly, even if you overlook all that campaign money and buy what Judd is saying about Wisconsin forbidding interest groups from providing favors to elected officials, there's nothing preventing the elected officials from providing favors to the interest groups. It's that part of the transaction that hits the average taxpayer squarely in the pocketbook.
The other painfully apparent part of the story that is overlooked in the media accounts of lobbying spending is how the campaign donations go hand in hand with the tens of millions spent by the lobbying industry. Elected officials are addicted to the contributions from the special interests that pay all the hired guns to work the halls of the Capitol. Those campaign contributions are the reason elected officials have to listen to the lobbyists. If we didn't have an utterly broken campaign finance system and candidates didn't have to rely on special interest money to get elected and re-elected, the lobbying groups wouldn't be spending $58 million. They'd be wasting their money if they did.
News reports that blandly identify which interest groups spent the most leave casual readers, viewers and listeners wondering why they should care. Pointing out that they are ultimately picking up the tab might do the trick caring-wise. The $58 million and then some ends up being passed along to taxpayers without $200-an-hour lobbyists working for them when state officials hand out special interest tax breaks or budget pork or no-bid contracts.
In the press advisory reporting the record-breaking spending on influence peddling, the state Ethics Board tried reassuring citizens that the store is being minded. Ethics Board director Roth Judd took pains to remind us that "Wisconsin leads the nation in forbidding special interest groups from providing favors to elected officials."
Two pertinent facts make such happy talk ring just a bit hollow. First, Judd evidently does not consider the campaign contributions special interest groups can legally shower on lawmakers at any time – even while the state budget is being crafted, for crying out loud – a favor to those elected officials. Which begs the question: Exactly what kind of favor is more valuable to a politician these days than a campaign donation? Secondly, even if you overlook all that campaign money and buy what Judd is saying about Wisconsin forbidding interest groups from providing favors to elected officials, there's nothing preventing the elected officials from providing favors to the interest groups. It's that part of the transaction that hits the average taxpayer squarely in the pocketbook.
The other painfully apparent part of the story that is overlooked in the media accounts of lobbying spending is how the campaign donations go hand in hand with the tens of millions spent by the lobbying industry. Elected officials are addicted to the contributions from the special interests that pay all the hired guns to work the halls of the Capitol. Those campaign contributions are the reason elected officials have to listen to the lobbyists. If we didn't have an utterly broken campaign finance system and candidates didn't have to rely on special interest money to get elected and re-elected, the lobbying groups wouldn't be spending $58 million. They'd be wasting their money if they did.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Elections Board's Rathole Strategy
Just when you think the status of the state's computerized voter registration project can't get worse, it deteriorates further. Even though completion of the project already is more than a year overdue, the state Elections Board is now acknowledging that the new system still won't be fully operational for this spring's elections.
Elections Board officials are expressing hope that all the kinks in the new system will be worked out and all of its promised functions will be functioning by the presidential primary election in February 2008.
Believe it when you see it. Remember that when it first became clear the Elections Board was going to miss the January 1, 2006 deadline for completing the work, board officials expressed confidence that the new system would be up and working by the April 2006 elections. Those elections came and went without a finished product, and the board then targeted last fall's elections. Only limited features were in use for the November election, and those didn't exactly perform flawlessly.
This project has become the state election equivalent of the Iraq War. The question now is whether the Elections Board will ever admit that its rathole strategy is doomed to failure. The board is due to be dismantled and replaced by the new Government Accountability Board in six months. Between now and then, will the board fess up and acknowledge the disaster that this project has become? Will it seriously consider the mounting evidence that its private sector partner in crime Accenture is simply not up to the task of producing a workable statewide computerized voter registration system? Will the board do the right thing and declare Accenture in breach of contract and sue the company so that at least some of the taxpayer money that has been wasted can be recouped? Or will this dysfunctional and soon-to-be-defunct agency continue to throw good money after bad and then pass off the whole mess to the new board?
Elections Board officials are expressing hope that all the kinks in the new system will be worked out and all of its promised functions will be functioning by the presidential primary election in February 2008.
Believe it when you see it. Remember that when it first became clear the Elections Board was going to miss the January 1, 2006 deadline for completing the work, board officials expressed confidence that the new system would be up and working by the April 2006 elections. Those elections came and went without a finished product, and the board then targeted last fall's elections. Only limited features were in use for the November election, and those didn't exactly perform flawlessly.
This project has become the state election equivalent of the Iraq War. The question now is whether the Elections Board will ever admit that its rathole strategy is doomed to failure. The board is due to be dismantled and replaced by the new Government Accountability Board in six months. Between now and then, will the board fess up and acknowledge the disaster that this project has become? Will it seriously consider the mounting evidence that its private sector partner in crime Accenture is simply not up to the task of producing a workable statewide computerized voter registration system? Will the board do the right thing and declare Accenture in breach of contract and sue the company so that at least some of the taxpayer money that has been wasted can be recouped? Or will this dysfunctional and soon-to-be-defunct agency continue to throw good money after bad and then pass off the whole mess to the new board?
Paying Gold For Garbage
More than $32 million was spent electing a governor in Wisconsin in 2006. And spending in the state attorney general race topped $8.3 million – five times more than was spent in the previous race in 2002. Apologists for the campaign arms race in Wisconsin elections like to claim that it's money well spent. Runaway spending is needed to ensure a robust debate on the issues and enable candidates to get their message about where they stand to the voters.
The smear campaigns that disfigured last fall's races for governor and attorney general were themselves the most effective counterargument to this nonsense. In the governor's race, both major party candidates and their special interest allies spent millions on ads saying the other guy was the bigger crook. Millions more were spent by both sides in the attorney general race claiming that their opponents would go easy on violent offenders, lacked concern for crime victims, were soft on illegal immigration and would let sexual predators roam free in neighborhoods.
The smear campaigns that disfigured last fall's races for governor and attorney general were themselves the most effective counterargument to this nonsense. In the governor's race, both major party candidates and their special interest allies spent millions on ads saying the other guy was the bigger crook. Millions more were spent by both sides in the attorney general race claiming that their opponents would go easy on violent offenders, lacked concern for crime victims, were soft on illegal immigration and would let sexual predators roam free in neighborhoods.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Legislature Passes Ethics Reform
Both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature yesterday overwhelmingly passed the ethics reform bill that was the subject of a special legislative session. To read the statement the Democracy Campaign issued after final approval of the bill, go here.
The 97-2 vote in the Assembly late in the day yesterday culminated a whirlwind of activity on the ethics bill. The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee unanimously approved the bill in the morning, setting the stage for floor debate. The Senate unanimously approved the legislation without amendment early in the afternoon, and the Assembly vote followed a few hours later. Governor Doyle will sign the bill later this week. (Check out some of the newspaper and television coverage of what unfolded at the Capitol yesterday.)
We hope this will be the first of many legislative victories that serve to restore Wisconsin's good name. When the Democracy Campaign put forward our five-step Power to the Voter agenda a few years ago, one of the things we called for was "independent ethics and campaign finance law enforcement by restructuring the state Elections Board and Ethics Board into a single agency with expanded enforcement powers and more resources, under the direction of a politically independent board." We got that yesterday.
This victory is cause for celebration, but it is only one of many steps that need to be taken to win back Wisconsin's reputation for clean, open and accountable government. Now it's on to much bigger and more difficult fights. Campaign finance reform. Lobbying reform. Fair and impartial justice. Election integrity. There's a lot of work still left to do. Here's hoping the win on ethics reform will create momentum that will carry over to these other battles.
The 97-2 vote in the Assembly late in the day yesterday culminated a whirlwind of activity on the ethics bill. The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee unanimously approved the bill in the morning, setting the stage for floor debate. The Senate unanimously approved the legislation without amendment early in the afternoon, and the Assembly vote followed a few hours later. Governor Doyle will sign the bill later this week. (Check out some of the newspaper and television coverage of what unfolded at the Capitol yesterday.)
We hope this will be the first of many legislative victories that serve to restore Wisconsin's good name. When the Democracy Campaign put forward our five-step Power to the Voter agenda a few years ago, one of the things we called for was "independent ethics and campaign finance law enforcement by restructuring the state Elections Board and Ethics Board into a single agency with expanded enforcement powers and more resources, under the direction of a politically independent board." We got that yesterday.
This victory is cause for celebration, but it is only one of many steps that need to be taken to win back Wisconsin's reputation for clean, open and accountable government. Now it's on to much bigger and more difficult fights. Campaign finance reform. Lobbying reform. Fair and impartial justice. Election integrity. There's a lot of work still left to do. Here's hoping the win on ethics reform will create momentum that will carry over to these other battles.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Poison Pill Removed From Ethics Bill
Senate and Assembly leaders announced today they have reached agreement on further changes to the ethics reform bill that is the subject of a special legislative session, including the removal of a self-destruct mechanism – the legislation's controversial "nonseverability" clause – that would have wiped out the entire new enforcement system created by the bill if any part of it were ruled unconstitutional by a court.
Disagreement between leaders of the two houses over the presence of this poison pill in the legislation had become a major sticking point that threatened to derail consideration of the ethics enforcement reform bill. Removal of the nonseverability clause not only represents a major improvement in the bill and a victory for the Democracy Campaign and other reform advocates who pointed out the provision and called for its elimination, but it also clears the way for the legislation to be taken up by both houses this week.
Disagreement between leaders of the two houses over the presence of this poison pill in the legislation had become a major sticking point that threatened to derail consideration of the ethics enforcement reform bill. Removal of the nonseverability clause not only represents a major improvement in the bill and a victory for the Democracy Campaign and other reform advocates who pointed out the provision and called for its elimination, but it also clears the way for the legislation to be taken up by both houses this week.
Friday, January 26, 2007
A Choice Distinction
Only a listener with the IQ of a potted plant could conclude negative ads about a political candidate around election time are not electioneering activities designed to get people to vote for a certain candidate.
But that is the claim by some wealthy special interest groups that run these nasty ads. Case in point is the Alliance for Choices in Education, a group that promotes the expansion of Milwaukee's school voucher - or school choice - program that uses more than $100 million in state tax dollars to send about 17,000 children to private and religious schools.
On page 5 of a document the alliance filed with the State Elections Board in connection with a complaint against one of its cohorts, All Children Matter, the alliance says it did not give $90,00 to All Children Matter last fall "for the purpose of influencing Wisconsin elections. Rather, it gave money for the purpose of issue advocacy."
But the advocacy never mentioned the groups' issue - school choice.
All Children Matter is before the board amid allegations of campaign finance law violations and money laundering because of a statement in one of its fliers that claimed a Democratic state senate candidate supported higher taxes. The group also used tax issues to attack candidates in other legislative races.
In the governor's race, three of the group's television "issue ads" during last fall's election hammered Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's ethics and the timing of campaign contributions he received from people awarded state contracts. Here are some of the statements from one of those ads: "It seems everything's for sale in Madison, especially under Governor Doyle.... I think that Governor Doyle is definitely corrupted by the money.... Governor Doyle's not running a clean government."
Be that as it may, where exactly is the advocacy for school choice?
But that is the claim by some wealthy special interest groups that run these nasty ads. Case in point is the Alliance for Choices in Education, a group that promotes the expansion of Milwaukee's school voucher - or school choice - program that uses more than $100 million in state tax dollars to send about 17,000 children to private and religious schools.
On page 5 of a document the alliance filed with the State Elections Board in connection with a complaint against one of its cohorts, All Children Matter, the alliance says it did not give $90,00 to All Children Matter last fall "for the purpose of influencing Wisconsin elections. Rather, it gave money for the purpose of issue advocacy."
But the advocacy never mentioned the groups' issue - school choice.
All Children Matter is before the board amid allegations of campaign finance law violations and money laundering because of a statement in one of its fliers that claimed a Democratic state senate candidate supported higher taxes. The group also used tax issues to attack candidates in other legislative races.
In the governor's race, three of the group's television "issue ads" during last fall's election hammered Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's ethics and the timing of campaign contributions he received from people awarded state contracts. Here are some of the statements from one of those ads: "It seems everything's for sale in Madison, especially under Governor Doyle.... I think that Governor Doyle is definitely corrupted by the money.... Governor Doyle's not running a clean government."
Be that as it may, where exactly is the advocacy for school choice?
Dying To Be A Supreme
What is shaping up to be the most expensive and nastiest race for state Supreme Court Wisconsin has seen prompted the national court-watching group Justice at Stake to issue an alert yesterday. The contest for the open seat on the state's highest court also is the subject of Milwaukee Magazine editor Bruce Murphy's latest column.
The Democracy Campaign is a partner organization in the Justice at Stake Campaign that is working for fair and impartial courts. This spring's Supreme Court race in Wisconsin promises to be one of the best illustrations yet of why such an effort is needed.
The Democracy Campaign is a partner organization in the Justice at Stake Campaign that is working for fair and impartial courts. This spring's Supreme Court race in Wisconsin promises to be one of the best illustrations yet of why such an effort is needed.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Legislature Keeps Moving On Ethics Reform Bill
A state Senate committee yesterday approved an amended version of the ethics reform bill that is the subject of a special legislative session, a day after an Assembly committee made some changes to the legislation and passed it.
The Assembly committee's amendments addressed a few of the concerns raised during last week's public hearings. Yesterday's Senate committee actions went further and fixed some of the most glaring flaws in the legislation identified by reform advocates like the Democracy Campaign.
For example, the Senate committee unanimously approved an amendment removing a poison pill in the bill known as "nonseverability" that not only caught the eye of the Democracy Campaign and other reform backers but also newspapers like the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. The committee also improved public access to information and knocked out a gag rule that WDC objected to and that also drew the ire of many media organizations like the La Crosse Tribune and the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.
There are still problems in the bill that need to be addressed before it is a finished product worthy of passage by the Legislature and the governor's signature. It'll likely be a while before this ethics reform effort's ultimate fate is known, but at least it's moving in the right direction.
The Assembly committee's amendments addressed a few of the concerns raised during last week's public hearings. Yesterday's Senate committee actions went further and fixed some of the most glaring flaws in the legislation identified by reform advocates like the Democracy Campaign.
For example, the Senate committee unanimously approved an amendment removing a poison pill in the bill known as "nonseverability" that not only caught the eye of the Democracy Campaign and other reform backers but also newspapers like the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. The committee also improved public access to information and knocked out a gag rule that WDC objected to and that also drew the ire of many media organizations like the La Crosse Tribune and the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.
There are still problems in the bill that need to be addressed before it is a finished product worthy of passage by the Legislature and the governor's signature. It'll likely be a while before this ethics reform effort's ultimate fate is known, but at least it's moving in the right direction.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Governor Calls Special Session On Ethics
Governor Jim Doyle yesterday called the Legislature into special session to act on recently agreed-to ethics enforcement reforms.
The special session convened today and the ethics reform bill was introduced. The Democracy Campaign has been informed that it is the intention of legislative leaders to hold public hearings on the proposed legislation within the next week, with floor debate and passage of the legislation in both houses of the Legislature tentatively scheduled for the week of January 29.
We received a copy of the bill yesterday and have been carefully reviewing its contents. This afternoon we issued a statement about some of bill's details that need fixing before it is passed by the Legislature and presented to the governor for his signature.
The special session convened today and the ethics reform bill was introduced. The Democracy Campaign has been informed that it is the intention of legislative leaders to hold public hearings on the proposed legislation within the next week, with floor debate and passage of the legislation in both houses of the Legislature tentatively scheduled for the week of January 29.
We received a copy of the bill yesterday and have been carefully reviewing its contents. This afternoon we issued a statement about some of bill's details that need fixing before it is passed by the Legislature and presented to the governor for his signature.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Big Price For Public Records
The State Elections Board now charges an exorbitant fee to copy certain public documents. The board's new fee applies to voter lists used by candidates to canvass and solicit prospective constituents and send newsletters and other mailings.
One state legislator told Madison's Isthmus newspaper voter lists collected from clerks in her district used to cost her a total of $75. Now available only through the Elections Board, her list will cost about $500. A copy of the entire statewide voter list will cost $12,500.
The board says the big fee - a flat $25 plus $5 for every 1,000 names - is needed to pay for the new $28 million statewide voter database - warts and all - and that some of the people who buy voter lists are going to sell them for a profit anyway.
WDC sees two problems with the high fee which we opposed when the board approved it in August. First, the fees are substantially higher than what it actually costs to copy the data. Second, the high fees are yet another competitive advantage for incumbents who raise substantially more money than challengers.
Unfortunately the board can get away with it - for now - because the Legislature exempted the voter list fee from the state Open Records Law. That law is one of the cornerstones of open government. It prohibits government from denying public access to records except for some personal, health and employment information, as well as records in active police investigations. More importantly in this case - the law also prohibits government from charging high fees for copies of public records.
One state legislator told Madison's Isthmus newspaper voter lists collected from clerks in her district used to cost her a total of $75. Now available only through the Elections Board, her list will cost about $500. A copy of the entire statewide voter list will cost $12,500.
The board says the big fee - a flat $25 plus $5 for every 1,000 names - is needed to pay for the new $28 million statewide voter database - warts and all - and that some of the people who buy voter lists are going to sell them for a profit anyway.
WDC sees two problems with the high fee which we opposed when the board approved it in August. First, the fees are substantially higher than what it actually costs to copy the data. Second, the high fees are yet another competitive advantage for incumbents who raise substantially more money than challengers.
Unfortunately the board can get away with it - for now - because the Legislature exempted the voter list fee from the state Open Records Law. That law is one of the cornerstones of open government. It prohibits government from denying public access to records except for some personal, health and employment information, as well as records in active police investigations. More importantly in this case - the law also prohibits government from charging high fees for copies of public records.