The need for health care reform in America is obvious. It's long past time for action, yet Washington has been paralyzed. The fact that 46 million Americans are without health insurance and some 28 million are underinsured has yet to stir the nation's politicians.
The fact that insurance costs have played no small role in the demise of the American automobile industry has yet to infuse them with the courage of conviction.
The fact that providing health coverage is a crushing burden to small businesses that is stunting the growth of the national economy's most powerful engine hasn't done the trick either.
Why not?
Oh, the politicians in Washington have their reasons. Millions of them. Like the $47 million in campaign contributions federal candidates received from the insurance industry in 2008 alone. And the $29 million in donations pharmaceutical companies gave to federal politicians for last year's election. And then there's the nearly $23 million national office seekers got in 2008 from the hospitals and other for-profit health facilities. Another $14 million was dumped into campaign coffers last year by the HMOs and other health service gatekeepers.
That's a total of $113 million. One hundred and thirteen million reasons why Washington hasn't yet been moved by the heart-wrenching stories of countless people dying needlessly for lack of access to medical care and countless others driven to financial ruin simply because they had the misfortune of getting sick.
One hundred and thirteen million reasons why the best and most efficient solution to our country's broken health care system has been kept off the table.
One hundred and thirteen million reasons why the richest nation on earth turns a blind eye to pain and suffering and economic calamity, and why its leaders put the profits of the few ahead of the needs of the many.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Political Lightning Delays Play
UPDATE: Shortly after the Democracy Campaign posted a blog about a June 15 mega fundraiser, numerous media reports and editorials condemned the event and prompted Assembly Democratic leaders to postpone it until after the legislature finishes its work on the 2009-11 state budget.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Assembly Democrats' Fundraiser Appears Out Of Bounds
If their own rules are followed, one of the Assembly Democrats' biggest fundraisers of the year is going to be void of Assembly Democrats.
The June 15 event is at the Wild Rock Golf Club at Wilderness Resort in Wisconsin Dells. Contributors who want to play will pay $1,000 each, or $3,350 per foursome. Duffers who want to pay but not play can still get involved by sponsoring a hole for $750 or the entire event for $1,000. In addition to the outrageous fees - a.k.a. required campaign contributions - it's offering outrageous hole-in-one prizes to the well-heeled special interests and lobbyists who attend - $50,000 and a new Chevy Tahoe.
A notice about the event says its special guest will be Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan along with "other reps and guests."
Here's the problem. Last February the Assembly passed a rule banning its 99 Republican and Democratic members from holding fundraisers or even accepting or soliciting campaign contributions "during the period beginning on the day the biennial budget bill is introduced and ending on the date the biennial budget bill is presented to the Governor."
Sheridan said this week the Assembly plans to take up the budget June 10 and send it to the Senate shortly thereafter. However, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker said the Senate doesn't plan to take up the budget until the third week in June. On top of that if the Senate changes the Assembly's version of the budget in any way, a committee of legislators from both houses will meet to hammer out a compromise budget that must be approved without changes by both houses before it is sent to the governor.
The golf fundraiser is sponsored by the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, which is one of four legislative campaign committees controlled by Democratic and Republican Assembly and Senate leaders to soak special interests for campaign cash. These committees, which were exempt from the fundraising ban, raise money to help their respective caucus members get elected.
But the rule commendably spearheaded by majority Democrats clearly prohibits Assembly members from raising money for their own campaigns as well as soliciting cash for other committees that could provide them with election year resources.
The June 15 event is at the Wild Rock Golf Club at Wilderness Resort in Wisconsin Dells. Contributors who want to play will pay $1,000 each, or $3,350 per foursome. Duffers who want to pay but not play can still get involved by sponsoring a hole for $750 or the entire event for $1,000. In addition to the outrageous fees - a.k.a. required campaign contributions - it's offering outrageous hole-in-one prizes to the well-heeled special interests and lobbyists who attend - $50,000 and a new Chevy Tahoe.
A notice about the event says its special guest will be Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan along with "other reps and guests."
Here's the problem. Last February the Assembly passed a rule banning its 99 Republican and Democratic members from holding fundraisers or even accepting or soliciting campaign contributions "during the period beginning on the day the biennial budget bill is introduced and ending on the date the biennial budget bill is presented to the Governor."
Sheridan said this week the Assembly plans to take up the budget June 10 and send it to the Senate shortly thereafter. However, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker said the Senate doesn't plan to take up the budget until the third week in June. On top of that if the Senate changes the Assembly's version of the budget in any way, a committee of legislators from both houses will meet to hammer out a compromise budget that must be approved without changes by both houses before it is sent to the governor.
The golf fundraiser is sponsored by the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, which is one of four legislative campaign committees controlled by Democratic and Republican Assembly and Senate leaders to soak special interests for campaign cash. These committees, which were exempt from the fundraising ban, raise money to help their respective caucus members get elected.
But the rule commendably spearheaded by majority Democrats clearly prohibits Assembly members from raising money for their own campaigns as well as soliciting cash for other committees that could provide them with election year resources.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Journalism In Retreat
My, how things have changed.
A white elephant of a computer project, badly bungled by a state agency. The public denied access for four months to records detailing how politicians raised and spent money. The kind of stuff newspapers and other media would have been all over five years ago or, hell, even a year ago.
On Monday, the Democracy Campaign did something we've never before had to do. We filed an open records request to try to get our hands on about two dozen missing campaign finance reports that were supposed to be submitted by office holders and candidates for state office and made available for public inspection at the end of January. Not a single newspaper in the state wrote a word about it. Radio and television ignored the story, too, with the exception of one lonely community radio station in Madison.
People used to complain about "pack journalism," when seemingly the entire press corps would chase the same story, intensely competing to scoop each other and going to extreme lengths to unearth a new wrinkle or different dimension to a story. Today we have the opposite extreme on display. No one is telling a good many stories the public needs to know about.
We're in deep trouble. Ignorance and democracy are not compatible.
A white elephant of a computer project, badly bungled by a state agency. The public denied access for four months to records detailing how politicians raised and spent money. The kind of stuff newspapers and other media would have been all over five years ago or, hell, even a year ago.
On Monday, the Democracy Campaign did something we've never before had to do. We filed an open records request to try to get our hands on about two dozen missing campaign finance reports that were supposed to be submitted by office holders and candidates for state office and made available for public inspection at the end of January. Not a single newspaper in the state wrote a word about it. Radio and television ignored the story, too, with the exception of one lonely community radio station in Madison.
People used to complain about "pack journalism," when seemingly the entire press corps would chase the same story, intensely competing to scoop each other and going to extreme lengths to unearth a new wrinkle or different dimension to a story. Today we have the opposite extreme on display. No one is telling a good many stories the public needs to know about.
We're in deep trouble. Ignorance and democracy are not compatible.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Lost In Translation
Sometimes the right question can be asked, a correct answer can be given, and still there's profound misunderstanding. A line of questioning at Wednesday's public hearing on the Electioneering Disclosure bill closing the "issue ad" loophole provided a vivid illustration.
Senator Randy Hopper asked a legislative staff attorney if the bill treats corporations and labor unions the same. While the answer he received was technically correct, it also was incomplete and open to misinterpretation. Judging from follow-up questions and comments by committee members, it was clear the attorney's response left an inaccurate impression.
Senator Hopper and his colleagues were told a longstanding Wisconsin law bans corporations from making contributions or spending money for a "political purpose" and since the disclosure bill defines phony issue ads as communications done for a political purpose, corporations are prohibited from funding them. All of that is correct. It's what the attorney didn't say that created the problem. When the attorney used the word corporation, the legislators evidently heard "for-profit business." But under state law the term "corporation" does not only mean a for-profit company. It means any incorporated entity or organization. Labor unions are incorporated. Their names don't typically tip off their corporate structure, although a few do (witness Madison Teachers Inc.). Non-profit organizations are incorporated. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is a not-for-profit corporation.
The effect of existing Wisconsin law is to prohibit any incorporated entity from using treasury funds for a "political purpose." These organizations may form political action committees, however, to engage in political activity. The practical effect of the disclosure bill, if it becomes law, would be to require any campaign advertising or other electioneering activity to be done through a registered PAC, regardless of whether the organization is a for-profit business, a labor union or a non-profit group. All incorporated entities would be treated the same, thus creating a truly level playing field for all participants.
Not only do PACs have to register and report their sources of income and the amount they spend, but they also have to obey limits in current state law on campaign contributions they receive. An individual can give a maximum of $10,000 to a PAC. That's the same limit on donations to candidates for statewide offices such as governor or Supreme Court justice. Like candidates, PACs cannot accept donations from the treasuries of incorporated entities. So special interest groups doing campaign advertising would not be able to take money from the general treasuries of labor unions, for-profit businesses or non-profit organizations. They would have to raise their money from individuals in amounts not exceeding $10,000. Just like candidates for statewide office.
The issue ad disclosure bill truly would put interest groups on the same footing as candidates, and the way it treats businesses is no different than the way it treats labor unions or any other incorporated organization.
Senator Randy Hopper asked a legislative staff attorney if the bill treats corporations and labor unions the same. While the answer he received was technically correct, it also was incomplete and open to misinterpretation. Judging from follow-up questions and comments by committee members, it was clear the attorney's response left an inaccurate impression.
Senator Hopper and his colleagues were told a longstanding Wisconsin law bans corporations from making contributions or spending money for a "political purpose" and since the disclosure bill defines phony issue ads as communications done for a political purpose, corporations are prohibited from funding them. All of that is correct. It's what the attorney didn't say that created the problem. When the attorney used the word corporation, the legislators evidently heard "for-profit business." But under state law the term "corporation" does not only mean a for-profit company. It means any incorporated entity or organization. Labor unions are incorporated. Their names don't typically tip off their corporate structure, although a few do (witness Madison Teachers Inc.). Non-profit organizations are incorporated. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is a not-for-profit corporation.
The effect of existing Wisconsin law is to prohibit any incorporated entity from using treasury funds for a "political purpose." These organizations may form political action committees, however, to engage in political activity. The practical effect of the disclosure bill, if it becomes law, would be to require any campaign advertising or other electioneering activity to be done through a registered PAC, regardless of whether the organization is a for-profit business, a labor union or a non-profit group. All incorporated entities would be treated the same, thus creating a truly level playing field for all participants.
Not only do PACs have to register and report their sources of income and the amount they spend, but they also have to obey limits in current state law on campaign contributions they receive. An individual can give a maximum of $10,000 to a PAC. That's the same limit on donations to candidates for statewide offices such as governor or Supreme Court justice. Like candidates, PACs cannot accept donations from the treasuries of incorporated entities. So special interest groups doing campaign advertising would not be able to take money from the general treasuries of labor unions, for-profit businesses or non-profit organizations. They would have to raise their money from individuals in amounts not exceeding $10,000. Just like candidates for statewide office.
The issue ad disclosure bill truly would put interest groups on the same footing as candidates, and the way it treats businesses is no different than the way it treats labor unions or any other incorporated organization.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Dem Golf Fundraiser Tees Up Pricey Prizes
In these tough times families, businesses and even most states are slashing spending, reexamining their needs and eliminating extravagances.
But not the Senate Democrats who want to attract a lot of lobbyists to raise a boat load of money at the annual State Senate Democratic Committee golf fundraiser this Friday (May 29) at the Grand Geneva Resort in Lake Geneva.
To make those $900 per golfer entry fees more palatable, the committee is offering some nice door prizes.
New this year is two hole-in-one contests whose prizes are $50,000 and a new car.
It's legal, according to the Government Accountability Board. The committee bought an insurance policy for around $1,000 that will pay out in case one or both of the prizes are won.
In addition, each member of the foursome that gets the lowest team score wins a $500 stay-and-play package at Grand Geneva. The winners of the longest drives by a male and a female and the winner of the longest putt each get $100 golf shop gift cards.
So who's paying who to play?
But not the Senate Democrats who want to attract a lot of lobbyists to raise a boat load of money at the annual State Senate Democratic Committee golf fundraiser this Friday (May 29) at the Grand Geneva Resort in Lake Geneva.
To make those $900 per golfer entry fees more palatable, the committee is offering some nice door prizes.
New this year is two hole-in-one contests whose prizes are $50,000 and a new car.
It's legal, according to the Government Accountability Board. The committee bought an insurance policy for around $1,000 that will pay out in case one or both of the prizes are won.
In addition, each member of the foursome that gets the lowest team score wins a $500 stay-and-play package at Grand Geneva. The winners of the longest drives by a male and a female and the winner of the longest putt each get $100 golf shop gift cards.
So who's paying who to play?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wisconsin TARP Recipients Spent $144,000+ On Lobbying, Contributions
Executives at four Wisconsin banks that have gotten nearly $2.4 billion in federal bailout money spent more than $144,000 on lobbying and campaign contributions to Wisconsin legislative candidates and the governor in 2008 when the economy tanked.
The biggest spenders were executives at M&I banks. M&I Bank Corporation in Milwaukee also received the most bailout funds - $1.7 billion. M&I bank executives contributed $68,400 to Wisconsin political candidates in 2008. Another $725 came from the bank's political action committee, and M&I spent an additional $59,124 lobbying state government last year.
M&I currently opposes a legislative proposal that would put wages owed to employees ahead of money owed to banks when a business goes bankrupt.
Associated Banc-Corporation in Green Bay received $525 million in bailout money. Executives from its banks contributed $8,975 to 22 legislative candidates and committees and another $1,750 to Governor Jim Doyle in 2008.
Associated Banc's president and chief operating officer resigned last week and gave no reason. She will be paid $1.65 million over the next 10 months as part of a separation agreement.
Anchor BanCorporation in Madison received $110 million in bailout funds after its bank executives contributed $1,800 to Doyle last year and Park Bancorporation in Madison received $23.2 million from the feds after its bank executives gave $2,100 to four legislative candidates and $1,250 to Doyle.
Overall, 14 Wisconsin banks have accepted just under $2.5 billion in federal bailout money so far.
The biggest spenders were executives at M&I banks. M&I Bank Corporation in Milwaukee also received the most bailout funds - $1.7 billion. M&I bank executives contributed $68,400 to Wisconsin political candidates in 2008. Another $725 came from the bank's political action committee, and M&I spent an additional $59,124 lobbying state government last year.
M&I currently opposes a legislative proposal that would put wages owed to employees ahead of money owed to banks when a business goes bankrupt.
Associated Banc-Corporation in Green Bay received $525 million in bailout money. Executives from its banks contributed $8,975 to 22 legislative candidates and committees and another $1,750 to Governor Jim Doyle in 2008.
Associated Banc's president and chief operating officer resigned last week and gave no reason. She will be paid $1.65 million over the next 10 months as part of a separation agreement.
Anchor BanCorporation in Madison received $110 million in bailout funds after its bank executives contributed $1,800 to Doyle last year and Park Bancorporation in Madison received $23.2 million from the feds after its bank executives gave $2,100 to four legislative candidates and $1,250 to Doyle.
Overall, 14 Wisconsin banks have accepted just under $2.5 billion in federal bailout money so far.
Monday, May 18, 2009
In Search Of A Third Way On Elections
It is a distinct minority, but there are those who believe the best way to deal with disfigured elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices is to get rid of them. The elections, that is, not the justices.
Despite the fact such a move is politically and practically implausible, as I've blogged before, the debate still simmers. In fact, it was a matter of considerable discussion at the State Bar of Wisconsin annual convention in Milwaukee a little over a week ago, where I debated Wisconsin State Journal publisher Bill Johnston in a session on the topic moderated by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
A legislator here and there with encouragement from a media commentator or two are floating the idea of going even farther and doing away with the state's nonpartisan spring elections altogether.
There's no denying that Wisconsin's spring elections leave a great deal to be desired. For one thing, voter turnout has been abysmal. But why is the kneejerk reaction to unsatisfying elections seemingly always a call to get rid of them? Why is the menu of options limited to poor elections or no elections? Isn't there a third way?
Of course there is. We could focus on making the spring elections more innovative and compelling and worthy of the average voter's attention. We could experiment with voting by mail or multi-day voting or weekend voting.
Or even better yet, we could move to ranked choice voting. It's working in other parts of the country. The best known variant of ranked choice voting – Instant Runoff Voting – would save taxpayers money by eliminating the need for the February primary, the lowest of the low-turnout spring elections. IRV gives voters greater ability to express their preferences and is a truer reflection of the will of the people. And it all but does away with the annoying phenomena of "spoiler" candidates and "wasted" votes.
What's not to like? More importantly, what do we have to lose? Other than our elections, I mean.
Despite the fact such a move is politically and practically implausible, as I've blogged before, the debate still simmers. In fact, it was a matter of considerable discussion at the State Bar of Wisconsin annual convention in Milwaukee a little over a week ago, where I debated Wisconsin State Journal publisher Bill Johnston in a session on the topic moderated by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
A legislator here and there with encouragement from a media commentator or two are floating the idea of going even farther and doing away with the state's nonpartisan spring elections altogether.
There's no denying that Wisconsin's spring elections leave a great deal to be desired. For one thing, voter turnout has been abysmal. But why is the kneejerk reaction to unsatisfying elections seemingly always a call to get rid of them? Why is the menu of options limited to poor elections or no elections? Isn't there a third way?
Of course there is. We could focus on making the spring elections more innovative and compelling and worthy of the average voter's attention. We could experiment with voting by mail or multi-day voting or weekend voting.
Or even better yet, we could move to ranked choice voting. It's working in other parts of the country. The best known variant of ranked choice voting – Instant Runoff Voting – would save taxpayers money by eliminating the need for the February primary, the lowest of the low-turnout spring elections. IRV gives voters greater ability to express their preferences and is a truer reflection of the will of the people. And it all but does away with the annoying phenomena of "spoiler" candidates and "wasted" votes.
What's not to like? More importantly, what do we have to lose? Other than our elections, I mean.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A Smear By Any Other Name
After issuing our report yesterday on campaign advertising by special interest groups in this spring's elections, we got a fair amount of feedback from people who took sharp exception to our headline characterizing the sponsors of the ads as "smear groups." The report focused primarily on two left-leaning organizations – Greater Wisconsin Committee and Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union.
A smear is obviously in the eye of the beholder, and those on the right rip us every time we use disparaging language to describe attack ads done by right-wing groups and people on the left rip us when we condemn attacks by left-wing groups. People see these ads through their own ideological lens.
I look at WEAC's TV ad in the school superintendent race, for example, and can't help but see it as self-serving, misleading and sleazy. The union even photoshopped a picture of candidate Rose Fernandez to take the smile off her face. Seriously. Watch the ad and compare it to the photo that accompanies this story about the race. It's obviously the same photo but it's been retouched to give Fernandez a dour, rather gruesome expression. To me, that's sleazy.
As for the content of the ad, it says the report cards are in and Tony Evers gets all "A's" while Fernandez gets an incomplete and a couple of "F's." No real evidence is offered to support the conclusion that Evers deserves such grades, and likewise there is the flimsiest justification for the failing marks given to Fernandez.
Sorry, but I think it's neither a stretch nor unfair to label an ad a smear when it makes unsubstantiated claims adulating one candidate and demonizing another, and then stoops to doctoring a picture to make its point.
We stand by our characterization.
A smear is obviously in the eye of the beholder, and those on the right rip us every time we use disparaging language to describe attack ads done by right-wing groups and people on the left rip us when we condemn attacks by left-wing groups. People see these ads through their own ideological lens.
I look at WEAC's TV ad in the school superintendent race, for example, and can't help but see it as self-serving, misleading and sleazy. The union even photoshopped a picture of candidate Rose Fernandez to take the smile off her face. Seriously. Watch the ad and compare it to the photo that accompanies this story about the race. It's obviously the same photo but it's been retouched to give Fernandez a dour, rather gruesome expression. To me, that's sleazy.
As for the content of the ad, it says the report cards are in and Tony Evers gets all "A's" while Fernandez gets an incomplete and a couple of "F's." No real evidence is offered to support the conclusion that Evers deserves such grades, and likewise there is the flimsiest justification for the failing marks given to Fernandez.
Sorry, but I think it's neither a stretch nor unfair to label an ad a smear when it makes unsubstantiated claims adulating one candidate and demonizing another, and then stoops to doctoring a picture to make its point.
We stand by our characterization.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Worst U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Ever
1. A person can be property (Dred Scott v. Sanford)
2. Property can be a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad)
3. "Separate but equal" justification for racial segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson)
4. Money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo)
2. Property can be a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad)
3. "Separate but equal" justification for racial segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson)
4. Money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Problem Behind Every Problem
On Earth Day six years ago, I gave a speech to a small audience on the UW-Madison campus. I wouldn't change a word if I made it again today. If anything, I would attach a greater sense of urgency to the message.
I said then that the greatest environmental challenge of our time is the health of our democracy and that clean water will never flow from dirty politics. Follow the money and you see why clean air initiatives are so often blocked too.
It's not just our natural resources that fall prey to dirty politics. United for a Fair Economy is a national group that is concerned about the growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands in America and how regressive tax policies have encouraged the extreme risk taking, reckless speculation and unchecked greed that have wrecked our economy. But in a critique of President Obama's tax proposals issued two weeks ago, the group identifies the problem behind the problem.
"Like many other industries, the financial industry is enjoying a self-reinforcing cycle between favorable tax treatment and political influence. The more the industry profits from low taxation, the richer it grows. The richer it grows, the more it invests in politicians who will deliver favorable regulations and taxes."
It's not just the investment banks and the big hedge funds that have been playing this game. Look at AIG. Follow the money and you see why AIG was never reined in and then was quickly bailed out once things fell apart. Look at all three industries that are at Ground Zero of the economic implosion. Follow the money and you see why they were allowed to play fast and loose with other people's money and now are being gently tut-tutted for their crimes.
Follow the money and you see why health care reform has had such a hard time getting off the ground in Washington. Or in Madison, for that matter. Speaking of our state capital, look at the Tavern League. Follow the money and you see why the beer tax hasn't been raised in 40 years and why a statewide ban on smoking in public places enjoys such broad public support but has been such a tough sell to state legislators.
Follow the money and you see why payday lenders – a sanitized name for loan sharks – have been left totally unregulated in Wisconsin. Look even more closely and you begin to see why a lot of things that seem so totally out of character for Wisconsin are happening.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people I run into in my travels who have a hard time seeing why politics matters and how government is important to their lives. Self evident as it might be, they don't seem to see that the richest and most privileged in our society clearly believe politics matters a great deal and are convinced government is of the utmost importance. They've invested vast fortunes to warp the rules government makes in their favor. And they've reaped even greater fortunes from those investments.
As many people as I encounter who aren't putting two and two together, I find even more who get it but still are paralyzed when it comes to doing something about it. I can't help but suspect that's because we've all been taught – brainwashed, really – from a very early age to be consumers first and foremost, not citizens.
Of the problems behind every problem, that's the biggest one of all.
I said then that the greatest environmental challenge of our time is the health of our democracy and that clean water will never flow from dirty politics. Follow the money and you see why clean air initiatives are so often blocked too.
It's not just our natural resources that fall prey to dirty politics. United for a Fair Economy is a national group that is concerned about the growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands in America and how regressive tax policies have encouraged the extreme risk taking, reckless speculation and unchecked greed that have wrecked our economy. But in a critique of President Obama's tax proposals issued two weeks ago, the group identifies the problem behind the problem.
"Like many other industries, the financial industry is enjoying a self-reinforcing cycle between favorable tax treatment and political influence. The more the industry profits from low taxation, the richer it grows. The richer it grows, the more it invests in politicians who will deliver favorable regulations and taxes."
It's not just the investment banks and the big hedge funds that have been playing this game. Look at AIG. Follow the money and you see why AIG was never reined in and then was quickly bailed out once things fell apart. Look at all three industries that are at Ground Zero of the economic implosion. Follow the money and you see why they were allowed to play fast and loose with other people's money and now are being gently tut-tutted for their crimes.
Follow the money and you see why health care reform has had such a hard time getting off the ground in Washington. Or in Madison, for that matter. Speaking of our state capital, look at the Tavern League. Follow the money and you see why the beer tax hasn't been raised in 40 years and why a statewide ban on smoking in public places enjoys such broad public support but has been such a tough sell to state legislators.
Follow the money and you see why payday lenders – a sanitized name for loan sharks – have been left totally unregulated in Wisconsin. Look even more closely and you begin to see why a lot of things that seem so totally out of character for Wisconsin are happening.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people I run into in my travels who have a hard time seeing why politics matters and how government is important to their lives. Self evident as it might be, they don't seem to see that the richest and most privileged in our society clearly believe politics matters a great deal and are convinced government is of the utmost importance. They've invested vast fortunes to warp the rules government makes in their favor. And they've reaped even greater fortunes from those investments.
As many people as I encounter who aren't putting two and two together, I find even more who get it but still are paralyzed when it comes to doing something about it. I can't help but suspect that's because we've all been taught – brainwashed, really – from a very early age to be consumers first and foremost, not citizens.
Of the problems behind every problem, that's the biggest one of all.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Self-Inflicted Gunshot Wound
To paraphrase Casey Stengel, the secret to responsible gun ownership is to keep those who irrationally fear the president the hell away from those who are undecided.
The NRA and other right-wing groups like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks have been whipping gun owners into a sky-is-falling frenzy by spinning a yarn about how President Obama supports a 500% tax increase on ammunition, a claim that FactCheck.org says "distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."
Absence of fact has not prevented this rumor from growing legs, to the point where there's been a run on ammo across the country. Gun show business is booming, with one merchant reporting that gun and ammo prices already have doubled. Another gun shop owner says he saw a 55% increase in gun sales in one month and "they're out of everything right now."
It looks like gun owners are well on their way to imposing that 500% tax they fear. . . on themselves.
Former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus once called the state lottery a "tax on stupidity." Such penny-ante gambling is pea-sized numbskullery compared to this.
The NRA and other right-wing groups like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks have been whipping gun owners into a sky-is-falling frenzy by spinning a yarn about how President Obama supports a 500% tax increase on ammunition, a claim that FactCheck.org says "distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."
Absence of fact has not prevented this rumor from growing legs, to the point where there's been a run on ammo across the country. Gun show business is booming, with one merchant reporting that gun and ammo prices already have doubled. Another gun shop owner says he saw a 55% increase in gun sales in one month and "they're out of everything right now."
It looks like gun owners are well on their way to imposing that 500% tax they fear. . . on themselves.
Former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus once called the state lottery a "tax on stupidity." Such penny-ante gambling is pea-sized numbskullery compared to this.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Shortchanged Again
Rich interests and their yes-men in the political class are fond of claiming that negative campaigning is good and the more that is spent on elections the better. The logic behind this line of bull is that no-holds-barred, no-expense-spared politicking creates a spectacle that invariably leads to the civic equivalent of rubbernecking, creating a sense of excitement about the race and building awareness of what is at stake. Which in turn boosts voter turnout. And thus democracy is served.
On a platter.
There was record spending in last year's high court race, and the advertising – whether sponsored by a candidate or outside interest groups – was squarely in the gutter. In this year's contest, spending was somewhere between one-third and a half of what it was in 2008 and the pitches for votes were made from the high road. Yet voter turnout in the two elections was virtually identical – just shy of 20 percent. Which is to say abysmal.
Voters were shortchanged in the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court elections. We were repeatedly lied to and seats on the state's highest court were bought. But the way this year's race played out is not much better. There was no special interest hijacking like we saw last year and the year before. And we weren't force-fed a diet of deception and character assassination this time around. It's just there wasn't a contest.
Four interest groups did 90 percent of the TV advertising in last year's race. This year, one candidate did almost all the talking. Incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson not only had a grotesque financial advantage over challenger Randy Koschnick, but she had the one interest group that weighed in on her side too.
For democracy to function at least and flourish at best, every election needs to be a competition of ideas. That means competing candidates are required, not just competing interest groups. Candidates, and not interest groups, need to be front and center because it's the candidates who are on the ballot. But it's equally essential that more than one candidate have the means to get a message out to voters because only then do voters have a meaningful choice about who will best serve the public.
Another reason more than one viable candidate is required is that elections are supposed to be instruments of accountability. Only when there are serious challengers are the views of winning candidates sufficiently challenged and their records adequately scrutinized. And only then are elected officials forced to remain reasonably faithful to those who vote them into office.
By these measures, the last three state Supreme Court races left a great deal to be desired. The most recent fell short for quite different reasons than the previous two, but nonetheless it fell short of what the public deserves and should expect. The experience of these last three elections cries out for reform.
On a platter.
There was record spending in last year's high court race, and the advertising – whether sponsored by a candidate or outside interest groups – was squarely in the gutter. In this year's contest, spending was somewhere between one-third and a half of what it was in 2008 and the pitches for votes were made from the high road. Yet voter turnout in the two elections was virtually identical – just shy of 20 percent. Which is to say abysmal.
Voters were shortchanged in the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court elections. We were repeatedly lied to and seats on the state's highest court were bought. But the way this year's race played out is not much better. There was no special interest hijacking like we saw last year and the year before. And we weren't force-fed a diet of deception and character assassination this time around. It's just there wasn't a contest.
Four interest groups did 90 percent of the TV advertising in last year's race. This year, one candidate did almost all the talking. Incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson not only had a grotesque financial advantage over challenger Randy Koschnick, but she had the one interest group that weighed in on her side too.
For democracy to function at least and flourish at best, every election needs to be a competition of ideas. That means competing candidates are required, not just competing interest groups. Candidates, and not interest groups, need to be front and center because it's the candidates who are on the ballot. But it's equally essential that more than one candidate have the means to get a message out to voters because only then do voters have a meaningful choice about who will best serve the public.
Another reason more than one viable candidate is required is that elections are supposed to be instruments of accountability. Only when there are serious challengers are the views of winning candidates sufficiently challenged and their records adequately scrutinized. And only then are elected officials forced to remain reasonably faithful to those who vote them into office.
By these measures, the last three state Supreme Court races left a great deal to be desired. The most recent fell short for quite different reasons than the previous two, but nonetheless it fell short of what the public deserves and should expect. The experience of these last three elections cries out for reform.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
New Reporting System Fails Public Again
An effort by several candidates to post their latest campaign finance reports on the state Government Accountability Board's new electronic filing system has gotten fouled up again - cheating the public of information it may want to look at before they vote in next Tuesday's election.
The latest glitch occurred Monday - the day the last campaign reports before the April 7 spring election were due. The board said several reports filed by candidates got stuck in the system's innards so the public could not view them.
Unfortunately, the board's effort to work around the problem and post the reports didn't work so well either.
For instance, 841 contributions totaling $157,325 on Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's report are unidentified - no names, addresses, cities, states or zips. Those contributions represent more than half of the $296,819 she raised between February 3 and March 23.
And the numbers in the latest campaign finance report for Rose Fernandez, a state school superintendent candidate, don't come close to adding up. We were told by board staff she raised $65,611. But the report posted for her shows only $9,287 worth of contributions.
We've found many candidates make some mistakes on their report - simple math errors, not putting contributions from individuals and political action committees in the correct sections and an inexplicable knack for not being able to record the ending cash balance on one report as the beginning cash balance on the next report they file.
But we highly doubt Abrahamson or Fernandez messed up their reports this badly, given the myriad of problems the Government Accountability Board has had with electronic reporting since last fall.
The latest glitch occurred Monday - the day the last campaign reports before the April 7 spring election were due. The board said several reports filed by candidates got stuck in the system's innards so the public could not view them.
Unfortunately, the board's effort to work around the problem and post the reports didn't work so well either.
For instance, 841 contributions totaling $157,325 on Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's report are unidentified - no names, addresses, cities, states or zips. Those contributions represent more than half of the $296,819 she raised between February 3 and March 23.
And the numbers in the latest campaign finance report for Rose Fernandez, a state school superintendent candidate, don't come close to adding up. We were told by board staff she raised $65,611. But the report posted for her shows only $9,287 worth of contributions.
We've found many candidates make some mistakes on their report - simple math errors, not putting contributions from individuals and political action committees in the correct sections and an inexplicable knack for not being able to record the ending cash balance on one report as the beginning cash balance on the next report they file.
But we highly doubt Abrahamson or Fernandez messed up their reports this badly, given the myriad of problems the Government Accountability Board has had with electronic reporting since last fall.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Most Offensive AIG Payouts Of All
Everybody's howling this week about insurance giant AIG's recent payouts to its executives and foreign banks, and with good reason, but payouts the company made over a much longer period – to politicians – have been largely overlooked. But one is surely tied to the other.
In the last 20 years AIG contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties. The company carefully hedged its bets over the years, giving almost exactly half of its donations to Democrats and the other half to Republicans. AIG showed a meteorologist's fixation with the direction of the winds. When they blew in the Republicans' direction, the company's money followed. When they began to fill the Democrats' sails, AIG redirected its largesse.
These "investments" paid handsome dividends. Lax government oversight. Tens of billions of dollars in handouts to save the company from itself.
P.S. What kind of company obligates itself to pay employee bonuses? Aren't bonuses, by definition, supposed to be discretionary? Something a manager can choose to give an employee whose performance exceeds expectations? AIG insists it had no choice but to pay all those bonuses to people who ran the company into the ground. A contract is a contract. Washington pundits have been fond of saying AIG is "too big to fail." I'm thinking the company is actually too stupid to live.
In the last 20 years AIG contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties. The company carefully hedged its bets over the years, giving almost exactly half of its donations to Democrats and the other half to Republicans. AIG showed a meteorologist's fixation with the direction of the winds. When they blew in the Republicans' direction, the company's money followed. When they began to fill the Democrats' sails, AIG redirected its largesse.
These "investments" paid handsome dividends. Lax government oversight. Tens of billions of dollars in handouts to save the company from itself.
P.S. What kind of company obligates itself to pay employee bonuses? Aren't bonuses, by definition, supposed to be discretionary? Something a manager can choose to give an employee whose performance exceeds expectations? AIG insists it had no choice but to pay all those bonuses to people who ran the company into the ground. A contract is a contract. Washington pundits have been fond of saying AIG is "too big to fail." I'm thinking the company is actually too stupid to live.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Priorities, Priorities. . . .
Earlier this month the Democracy Campaign released a report showing the state's new electronic reporting system is generating current and past campaign finance reports that are riddled with errors for dozens of candidates and political action committees.
The board's staff has yet to publicly respond - or worse yet - address the problem. The same incorrect reports cited by WDC, including ones for the state's biggest fundraiser Governor Jim Doyle, remain up for public viewing, and more are added every day.
Apparently the board's staff has more important stuff to do than correct erroneous public documents or figure out what to do about another floundering IT project - important stuff like creating a pronunciation guide for the names of all the spring election candidates.
And it tackles all of them, even the toughies like:
Marc A. Hammer Mark A. HAMM-er
Paul W. Baxter Pawl W. BAXX-ter
Michael W. Hoover MI-kul W. HOO-ver
Steve Gibbs Steev Gibbs
Daniel W. Blank DAN-yul W. Blank
Jerry Wright JERR-ee Rite
Joe Donald Jo DON-uld
Unfortunately, in trying to make some tough names easy to pronounce they managed to list some wrong - the pronunciation for John P. Anderson is shown as Jon D. AN-der-sun
The board's staff has yet to publicly respond - or worse yet - address the problem. The same incorrect reports cited by WDC, including ones for the state's biggest fundraiser Governor Jim Doyle, remain up for public viewing, and more are added every day.
Apparently the board's staff has more important stuff to do than correct erroneous public documents or figure out what to do about another floundering IT project - important stuff like creating a pronunciation guide for the names of all the spring election candidates.
And it tackles all of them, even the toughies like:
Marc A. Hammer Mark A. HAMM-er
Paul W. Baxter Pawl W. BAXX-ter
Michael W. Hoover MI-kul W. HOO-ver
Steve Gibbs Steev Gibbs
Daniel W. Blank DAN-yul W. Blank
Jerry Wright JERR-ee Rite
Joe Donald Jo DON-uld
Unfortunately, in trying to make some tough names easy to pronounce they managed to list some wrong - the pronunciation for John P. Anderson is shown as Jon D. AN-der-sun
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Special Interest Control Of Another Court Election, With A Twist
What do Michael Gableman and Randy Koschnick have in common? A lot. Both grew up in the Milwaukee area. Graduated from the same law school. Became circuit court judges in small rural counties. Virtually indistinguishable judicial philosophies. Same physical build, for crying out loud.
Both developed a desire to sit on the state Supreme Court, and articulated almost identical reasons for their aspirations. But that's where their stories begin to diverge.
Gableman, of course, won his election and claimed a seat on the high court. Koschnick appears to stand no chance. He has almost no money and his opponent, incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, has raised over $1 million. Even a poll by a newly created right-wing group shows him running almost 30 points behind.
So what sets apart Koschnick and Gableman, these virtual clones? Other than the fact that Koschnick is actually the far more polished candidate of the two, the one big difference is that Gableman had three special interest groups and about $2.7 million of their money going for him.
While the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court races made most every legal professional cringe and citizens of just about every stripe recoil in horror, this year's race is turning out to be an equally vivid illustration of the extent of special interest control over the fate of those who aspire to sit on Wisconsin's highest court.
I say that not only because of what was done for Gableman but is being denied his twin. I say it also because of the campaign Abrahamson is waging. As I pointed out in a recent newspaper commentary, the looming threat of another special interest hijacking surely lit a fire under the chief justice hot enough to inspire her campaign to raise funds with such vigor that she long ago surpassed the seven-figure mark. She saw that a few interest groups did almost all of the TV advertising in last year's high court contest and controlled most of what voters were able to read, see and hear about the candidates. She understandably wanted no part of a similar fate.
But all those donations will come back to bite her. At least some of her biggest donors will inevitably stand before her in court one day. And perfectly legitimate questions about whether she can rule fairly and impartially on those cases will arise.
Which is why this year's election may well turn out to be every bit as powerful a case study in why we need Supreme Court election reform in the worst way.
Both developed a desire to sit on the state Supreme Court, and articulated almost identical reasons for their aspirations. But that's where their stories begin to diverge.
Gableman, of course, won his election and claimed a seat on the high court. Koschnick appears to stand no chance. He has almost no money and his opponent, incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, has raised over $1 million. Even a poll by a newly created right-wing group shows him running almost 30 points behind.
So what sets apart Koschnick and Gableman, these virtual clones? Other than the fact that Koschnick is actually the far more polished candidate of the two, the one big difference is that Gableman had three special interest groups and about $2.7 million of their money going for him.
While the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court races made most every legal professional cringe and citizens of just about every stripe recoil in horror, this year's race is turning out to be an equally vivid illustration of the extent of special interest control over the fate of those who aspire to sit on Wisconsin's highest court.
I say that not only because of what was done for Gableman but is being denied his twin. I say it also because of the campaign Abrahamson is waging. As I pointed out in a recent newspaper commentary, the looming threat of another special interest hijacking surely lit a fire under the chief justice hot enough to inspire her campaign to raise funds with such vigor that she long ago surpassed the seven-figure mark. She saw that a few interest groups did almost all of the TV advertising in last year's high court contest and controlled most of what voters were able to read, see and hear about the candidates. She understandably wanted no part of a similar fate.
But all those donations will come back to bite her. At least some of her biggest donors will inevitably stand before her in court one day. And perfectly legitimate questions about whether she can rule fairly and impartially on those cases will arise.
Which is why this year's election may well turn out to be every bit as powerful a case study in why we need Supreme Court election reform in the worst way.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Something's Missing
One thing you would normally see by now on wisdc.org is a write-up of campaign fundraising and spending shown on year-end reports filed by candidates by the end of January. Last year, we posted our analysis of those end-of-year filings on February 20.
In 2007, we were able to put a pricetag on the 2006 race for governor by February 6. Two days later, we reported the total cost of the attorney general race. On February 21, we were able to issue an analysis of spending by candidates and interest groups in all state races, including all of the state legislative contests.
The year before that, it was also February 21 when we put out final numbers for campaign fundraising in 2005 reflected on year-end reports filed in late January 2006. In 2005, we reported final figures for 2004 on February 14. In 2004, it was February 18.
In 2003, we tallied the total cost of the 2002 governor's race by February 6, and reported year-end totals for fundraising and campaign spending in state legislative elections on February 24.
Notice that every year these reports were made public before the end of February. Also notice that we're already into March and we have not yet posted anything on the year-end reports filed in January that cover campaign activity in the 2008 elections. We're not able to because we can't get all of the reports from the state's new campaign finance reporting system.
This new electronic filing system was supposed to enhance public access to information about campaign fundraising and spending in state elections. So far, it's not living up to that promise. What's worse, there are substantial problems with the reliability of the data in the system. We discovered a number of glaring problems and reported on them a little less than four weeks ago. Now we've unearthed even more glitches and issued another report today.
The agency responsible for the new electronic reporting system, the Government Accountability Board, has done a lot of things right in its first year of operation, most notably standing up to the special interests and voting to restore meaning to state laws requiring full disclosure of electioneering and limiting campaign contributions. The new board also imposed stiff penalties on wealthy donors flagged by the Democracy Campaign for breaking campaign donation limitations, something the old Elections Board was loathe to do. And don't forget the new board's baptism by fire – the unenviable task of administering the 2008 election. The GAB deserves stellar marks for its maiden electoral voyage, as voting went smoothly and the controversies that marred the 2000 and 2004 elections were noticeably absent in Wisconsin last November.
But the GAB still is plagued by the Achilles' heel of the staff the new board inherited from the old one it replaced – utter haplessness when it comes to managing information technology projects. The current mess with campaign finance recordkeeping is hardly the lone example of IT work bungled by this crew. The ill-fated attempted privatization of voter registration was an even more publicized and costly misadventure.
One state senator has gone so far as to suggest candidates for state office in Wisconsin be given the option of going back to filing paper reports on their campaign finances. While the frustration that inspires such a proposal is totally understandable, there's no going back. We live in an electronic age and an increasingly paperless society. Besides, we fought long and hard for the enactment of the Citizens Right to Know law that created electronic disclosure of campaign finances. And then we fought a years-long battle to get the law implemented. Members of the public should not have to make a pilgrimage to a state agency office and paw through thousands of pages of paper reports to see who's giving money to our elected state officials.
But just as it became clear a couple three years ago that we needed a "paper trail" bill requiring any electronic voting machine to produce a verifiable paper record, and we got it, now the obvious shortcomings of the state's new campaign finance reporting system cry out for a paper trail of campaign contributions and election expenses. Wisconsin needs a mandatory paper backup to the campaign finance reports that are being stored in this new, all-too-fallible electronic filing cabinet.
In 2007, we were able to put a pricetag on the 2006 race for governor by February 6. Two days later, we reported the total cost of the attorney general race. On February 21, we were able to issue an analysis of spending by candidates and interest groups in all state races, including all of the state legislative contests.
The year before that, it was also February 21 when we put out final numbers for campaign fundraising in 2005 reflected on year-end reports filed in late January 2006. In 2005, we reported final figures for 2004 on February 14. In 2004, it was February 18.
In 2003, we tallied the total cost of the 2002 governor's race by February 6, and reported year-end totals for fundraising and campaign spending in state legislative elections on February 24.
Notice that every year these reports were made public before the end of February. Also notice that we're already into March and we have not yet posted anything on the year-end reports filed in January that cover campaign activity in the 2008 elections. We're not able to because we can't get all of the reports from the state's new campaign finance reporting system.
This new electronic filing system was supposed to enhance public access to information about campaign fundraising and spending in state elections. So far, it's not living up to that promise. What's worse, there are substantial problems with the reliability of the data in the system. We discovered a number of glaring problems and reported on them a little less than four weeks ago. Now we've unearthed even more glitches and issued another report today.
The agency responsible for the new electronic reporting system, the Government Accountability Board, has done a lot of things right in its first year of operation, most notably standing up to the special interests and voting to restore meaning to state laws requiring full disclosure of electioneering and limiting campaign contributions. The new board also imposed stiff penalties on wealthy donors flagged by the Democracy Campaign for breaking campaign donation limitations, something the old Elections Board was loathe to do. And don't forget the new board's baptism by fire – the unenviable task of administering the 2008 election. The GAB deserves stellar marks for its maiden electoral voyage, as voting went smoothly and the controversies that marred the 2000 and 2004 elections were noticeably absent in Wisconsin last November.
But the GAB still is plagued by the Achilles' heel of the staff the new board inherited from the old one it replaced – utter haplessness when it comes to managing information technology projects. The current mess with campaign finance recordkeeping is hardly the lone example of IT work bungled by this crew. The ill-fated attempted privatization of voter registration was an even more publicized and costly misadventure.
One state senator has gone so far as to suggest candidates for state office in Wisconsin be given the option of going back to filing paper reports on their campaign finances. While the frustration that inspires such a proposal is totally understandable, there's no going back. We live in an electronic age and an increasingly paperless society. Besides, we fought long and hard for the enactment of the Citizens Right to Know law that created electronic disclosure of campaign finances. And then we fought a years-long battle to get the law implemented. Members of the public should not have to make a pilgrimage to a state agency office and paw through thousands of pages of paper reports to see who's giving money to our elected state officials.
But just as it became clear a couple three years ago that we needed a "paper trail" bill requiring any electronic voting machine to produce a verifiable paper record, and we got it, now the obvious shortcomings of the state's new campaign finance reporting system cry out for a paper trail of campaign contributions and election expenses. Wisconsin needs a mandatory paper backup to the campaign finance reports that are being stored in this new, all-too-fallible electronic filing cabinet.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Astronauts, Judges And Stupid People
In our last blog post, I said it was only a matter of time before the Wisconsin State Journal used a federal court ruling that judges can join political parties as evidence that voters can no longer be trusted to decide who sits on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. Nothing if not predictable, the State Journal fulfilled the prophecy yesterday.
Opinion page editor Scott Milfred praised Federal Judge Barbara Crabb's decision as "smart and strong." Despite the fact Crabb took pains to stress that nothing in the ruling should make states consider abandoning elections, Milfred interpreted Crabb's opinion to mean just that. After reading the same decision, John Nichols came to the exact opposite conclusion. As did we.
But the most striking thing about Milfred's column was this statement: "We don’t elect school principals, hospital administrators or astronauts. Unlike politicians, they actually need to know what they’re doing. The same is true with our high court justices...."
Perhaps it hasn't yet dawned on the State Journal's editorial board, but realizing their dream of replacing an elected Supreme Court with an appointed one depends on amending the state constitution. That takes approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by the voters in a statewide referendum. In other words, the newspaper's braintrust will need those politicians who don't know what they're doing to go along with them not once but twice. And then they'll need those pesky voters who are too stupid to pick good judges to agree with them too.
And people give me a hard time for believing this is the year the Cubs will end that World Series drought.
Opinion page editor Scott Milfred praised Federal Judge Barbara Crabb's decision as "smart and strong." Despite the fact Crabb took pains to stress that nothing in the ruling should make states consider abandoning elections, Milfred interpreted Crabb's opinion to mean just that. After reading the same decision, John Nichols came to the exact opposite conclusion. As did we.
But the most striking thing about Milfred's column was this statement: "We don’t elect school principals, hospital administrators or astronauts. Unlike politicians, they actually need to know what they’re doing. The same is true with our high court justices...."
Perhaps it hasn't yet dawned on the State Journal's editorial board, but realizing their dream of replacing an elected Supreme Court with an appointed one depends on amending the state constitution. That takes approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by the voters in a statewide referendum. In other words, the newspaper's braintrust will need those politicians who don't know what they're doing to go along with them not once but twice. And then they'll need those pesky voters who are too stupid to pick good judges to agree with them too.
And people give me a hard time for believing this is the year the Cubs will end that World Series drought.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Another Blame-The-Voters Editorial In 3, 2, 1....
Here's betting the Wisconsin State Journal pounces on the federal court ruling striking down a ban on judges joining political parties as further evidence Wisconsin needs to do away with court elections.
Before readers swallow what the State Journal will almost certainly serve up, they really should read the ruling judge's own insights on the matter.
In her decision, Federal Judge Barbara Crabb wrote "it is no small task to determine the best way to promote judicial integrity" but goes on to say that "(d)espite the challenges, it does not follow that the government, the legal community and the general public should simply throw in the towel and adopt an 'anything goes' approach. Nor does it mean that states must abandon elections if they wish to have any meaningful influence over judicial conduct. Although many in the legal community demonize judicial elections and exalt a system of appointment, a 'merit' selection process has its own flaws and is no guarantee that the judiciary will be free from partisan bias or the perception of it."
To underscore her point, Judge Crabb cited a study of federal appeals court decisions showing that the political party of the appointing president is an accurate predictor of how judges will vote and that decisions are more extreme when an appellate panel is made up of three judges appointed by a president of the same party. She also discussed the common assumption that Bush v. Gore would have been decided differently if the candidates' positions in the deadlock had been reversed.
Crabb observes that "(e)ven if it could be demonstrated that a nonelective selection process were superior, it is unlikely that the more than 30 states that use elections will abandon them any time soon."
She concludes, "Whatever route the government takes, it should be hesitant in seeking to improve the judiciary by limiting the discussions that candidates may have with the public. Such measures not only risk violating the rights of the candidates and keeping voters ignorant, but 'signal disrespect for the equality of citizens with their decision-makers' by assuming that voters must be protected from their own bad judgment."
Hear, hear.
Before readers swallow what the State Journal will almost certainly serve up, they really should read the ruling judge's own insights on the matter.
In her decision, Federal Judge Barbara Crabb wrote "it is no small task to determine the best way to promote judicial integrity" but goes on to say that "(d)espite the challenges, it does not follow that the government, the legal community and the general public should simply throw in the towel and adopt an 'anything goes' approach. Nor does it mean that states must abandon elections if they wish to have any meaningful influence over judicial conduct. Although many in the legal community demonize judicial elections and exalt a system of appointment, a 'merit' selection process has its own flaws and is no guarantee that the judiciary will be free from partisan bias or the perception of it."
To underscore her point, Judge Crabb cited a study of federal appeals court decisions showing that the political party of the appointing president is an accurate predictor of how judges will vote and that decisions are more extreme when an appellate panel is made up of three judges appointed by a president of the same party. She also discussed the common assumption that Bush v. Gore would have been decided differently if the candidates' positions in the deadlock had been reversed.
Crabb observes that "(e)ven if it could be demonstrated that a nonelective selection process were superior, it is unlikely that the more than 30 states that use elections will abandon them any time soon."
She concludes, "Whatever route the government takes, it should be hesitant in seeking to improve the judiciary by limiting the discussions that candidates may have with the public. Such measures not only risk violating the rights of the candidates and keeping voters ignorant, but 'signal disrespect for the equality of citizens with their decision-makers' by assuming that voters must be protected from their own bad judgment."
Hear, hear.
Friday, February 13, 2009
State Agencies Support Special Interest Group Opposed To Closing Tax Loophole
Two state agencies, parts of the University of Wisconsin System and the state’s technical college system are among the financial sponsors of a special interest lobby group that wants to protect a state business tax loophole and opposes a legislative proposal to require workers’ wage claims be paid ahead of debts owed to banks by bankrupt businesses.
The association, a registered lobbying organization, describes itself as a nonprofit group dedicated to expanding the state’s economy. “It is critical that the collective voice of economic development professionals is heard as public policy matters affecting our economy and workforce are debated and acted upon,” according to its website.
The state agencies, UW and technical colleges are among dozens of businesses and trade associations that pay varying amounts to support the lobby group. The UW-Madison Office of Corporate Relations is listed as a silver sponsor at $3,500. The UW-Extension’s economic development center and the Department of Financial Institutions are listed as bronze sponsors at $1,500 each and the University Research Park, Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority and Wisconsin Technical College System are associate sponsors at $500 each.
The association is among 17 bank, business, insurance and trade groups in a front group called the Coalition to Save Wisconsin Jobs that recently said it will fight Governor Jim Doyle's plan to enact a new $94 million a year business tax - called combined reporting - as part of Doyle's state stimulus package.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Election Law Charge Reduced To Fine
A Republican state representative accused of making false statements in campaign literature last fall has paid a $250 fine on a reduced charge.
Representative Dan Knodl of Germantown was originally charged in late October with a violation of state election law that carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. Knodl was accused of naming numerous people as supporters who did not support him or give him permission to use their names in a campaign flier.
Knodl pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct that was approved in Ozaukee County Circuit Court in late January.
Knodl handily defeated Democrat Charlene Brady in the November elections to win the 24th Assembly District seat formerly held by Republican Sue Jeskewitz.
Representative Dan Knodl of Germantown was originally charged in late October with a violation of state election law that carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. Knodl was accused of naming numerous people as supporters who did not support him or give him permission to use their names in a campaign flier.
Knodl pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct that was approved in Ozaukee County Circuit Court in late January.
Knodl handily defeated Democrat Charlene Brady in the November elections to win the 24th Assembly District seat formerly held by Republican Sue Jeskewitz.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Wisconsin Donors Gave Record $3.8 Million To Shadow Groups
The $3.78 million
The key findings and highlights of the 527 groups’
A big beneficiary was the Greater
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Hard Times
A week rarely goes by without word of another state newspaper reporter leaving the trade. Our state's not unique . . . it's happening everywhere. NPR just aired an excellent story focusing on the Hartford Courant and what it means to our democracy if newspapers like the Courant go away. In These Times just ran an article about the vanishing press corps in our nation's capital.
Democracy cannot long survive without a vigorous and always inquiring news industry. If newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, something will have to take its place. I just heard of a new enterprise called Your News. Visitors to this web-based news service not only can consume the site's content, they can contribute to it. Check it out.
Maybe this is what the future looks like.
Democracy cannot long survive without a vigorous and always inquiring news industry. If newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, something will have to take its place. I just heard of a new enterprise called Your News. Visitors to this web-based news service not only can consume the site's content, they can contribute to it. Check it out.
Maybe this is what the future looks like.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Two Years and Four Convictions Later Doyle Still Holding Troha Contributions
Governor Jim Doyle has yet to return any of the more than $100,000 federal prosecutors say was contributed to his campaign in a conspiracy that has seen three businessmen and a county executive convicted and sentenced for giving or getting bribes in connection with landing a proposed Indian casino in
The ringleader, Dennis Troha, was indicted nearly two years ago on charges he funneled nearly $250,000 in corporate funds through family members and business acquaintances to the campaigns of more than 20 state and federal politicians and the Democratic and Republican parties.
Troha got six months probation, his business associates Achille Infusino and John Erickson each got 18 months probation and former Kenosha County Executive Allan Kehl was sentenced to two years in prison.
Hanging your hat on one charge being dropped in a plea deal is pretty flimsy cover. Federal investigators found the contributions were made with corporate funds, which is illegal, and on behalf of Troha by others, which is also illegal.
Doyle’s resistance to giving back the Troha conspiracy contributions is curious given other contributions he has returned to donors in the past.
In May 2006 Doyle returned $10,000 to 10
Doyle also returned a 2003 contribution in 2006 from a former associate of a convicted
Sounds like a good description of Doyle’s standard for returning questionable campaign contributions.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Enemy Within
With the shape our country is in, I can't help but think we've been pretty lousy stewards of the rich inheritance we were given by those who came before us. What we are fixing to pass on to my 9-year-old son's generation is not the America I want him to inherit. It is damaged goods.
We all should have known better. It's been 30 years, but I still remember sitting in economics classes in college and on more than one occasion listening to professors say with a straight face that America's economy was depression-proof because of monetary and fiscal policy tools and regulatory protections that didn't exist when the country descended into the Great Depression.
Seemed to make sense at the time. But now their instruction seems flimsier with each passing day.
Those professors failed to account for the possibility that bought-and-paid-for politicians might one day t
ear down the post-Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. And they seriously erred in placing such faith in the infallibility of the Fed and the public-spiritedness of the Congress and White House.
College professors aren't the only ones who should have known better. That goes for all of us.
We should have gotten to know Charles Ponzi better so we could recognize him when he came our way again. We didn't. He did return, this time by the name of Bernard Madoff. Despite 10 years' worth of warnings, Ponzi wasn't noticed until after Madoff made off with tens of billions of dollars of our money.
Hollywood warned us 20-some years ago with Gordon Gekko. Real life warned us with the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. The warnings went unheeded.
We should have learned the lessons of Vietnam. Instead we idly watched most all the same mistakes repeated in Iraq. And then some.
Even the best and brightest among us – from college professors and high-ranking public officials to captains of industry and the media intelligentsia – are living proof of what a comic strip told us about ourselves over 35 years ago.
Extremely difficult days lie ahead. Yes, to a sometimes substantial degree we are victims of forces beyond our control. But we also are largely to blame for our fate.
We all should have known better. It's been 30 years, but I still remember sitting in economics classes in college and on more than one occasion listening to professors say with a straight face that America's economy was depression-proof because of monetary and fiscal policy tools and regulatory protections that didn't exist when the country descended into the Great Depression.
Seemed to make sense at the time. But now their instruction seems flimsier with each passing day.
Those professors failed to account for the possibility that bought-and-paid-for politicians might one day t
ear down the post-Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. And they seriously erred in placing such faith in the infallibility of the Fed and the public-spiritedness of the Congress and White House.College professors aren't the only ones who should have known better. That goes for all of us.
We should have gotten to know Charles Ponzi better so we could recognize him when he came our way again. We didn't. He did return, this time by the name of Bernard Madoff. Despite 10 years' worth of warnings, Ponzi wasn't noticed until after Madoff made off with tens of billions of dollars of our money.
Hollywood warned us 20-some years ago with Gordon Gekko. Real life warned us with the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. The warnings went unheeded.
We should have learned the lessons of Vietnam. Instead we idly watched most all the same mistakes repeated in Iraq. And then some.
Even the best and brightest among us – from college professors and high-ranking public officials to captains of industry and the media intelligentsia – are living proof of what a comic strip told us about ourselves over 35 years ago.
Extremely difficult days lie ahead. Yes, to a sometimes substantial degree we are victims of forces beyond our control. But we also are largely to blame for our fate.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Will Doyle Give The Money Back Now?
Embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's top campaign fundraiser, adviser and close friend Christopher Kelly made a $10,000 donation to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle back in June 2006. It was well known at the time that Kelly was under federal investigation. Still, Doyle accepted the contribution. Even after Kelly was indicted last December on tax fraud charges, Doyle kept the money. When it was reported in February that Kelly received a loan from an Iraqi billionaire who had been convicted of fraud in France, Doyle still held on tight to Kelly's donation.
It was reported yesterday that a court filing shows Kelly is set to plead guilty in his federal corruption case.
Now that Kelly will be convicted of a federal crime, will Governor Doyle finally part company with this tainted cash?
It was reported yesterday that a court filing shows Kelly is set to plead guilty in his federal corruption case.
Now that Kelly will be convicted of a federal crime, will Governor Doyle finally part company with this tainted cash?
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Real Scandal
Wisconsin has been frequently visited by political scandal in recent years, and that's one good reason to take the advice the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gave the other day and not get too smug about what's happening in Illinois.
Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green's failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor's office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.
A check of the Democracy Campaign's database of campaign donors shows that another lead actor in the Illinois corruption scandal and indicted Friend of Rod, Blagojevich's close adviser and top fundraiser Christopher Kelly, gave Doyle $10,000 in June 2006. It was public knowledge that Kelly was under federal investigation at the time he made the donation. Even after he was indicted, Doyle kept the money. For more on Kelly, go here, here and here.
Such links alone ought to be enough to keep in check any superiority complex Wisconsin might have. But the biggest reason we cannot afford to be smug is that the real scandal is so much more vast than what the U.S. Attorney's office has on Rod Blagojevich.
The real scandal is what's perfectly legal in our political system.
It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people's life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.
The same thing is perfectly legal at the state level in Wisconsin, albeit on a proportionately smaller scale.
That's why we cannot afford to be complacent. And why we cannot allow reform to be a scandal-driven undertaking.
Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green's failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor's office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.
A check of the Democracy Campaign's database of campaign donors shows that another lead actor in the Illinois corruption scandal and indicted Friend of Rod, Blagojevich's close adviser and top fundraiser Christopher Kelly, gave Doyle $10,000 in June 2006. It was public knowledge that Kelly was under federal investigation at the time he made the donation. Even after he was indicted, Doyle kept the money. For more on Kelly, go here, here and here.
Such links alone ought to be enough to keep in check any superiority complex Wisconsin might have. But the biggest reason we cannot afford to be smug is that the real scandal is so much more vast than what the U.S. Attorney's office has on Rod Blagojevich.
The real scandal is what's perfectly legal in our political system.
It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people's life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.
The same thing is perfectly legal at the state level in Wisconsin, albeit on a proportionately smaller scale.
That's why we cannot afford to be complacent. And why we cannot allow reform to be a scandal-driven undertaking.
Monday, December 08, 2008
A No-Tax Pledge That Costs Too Much
Politicians are fond of saying that taxpayers don't want their money used to pay for political campaigns. Actually, they do.
A national bipartisan poll done by two top D.C.-area political polling firms – one that caters almost exclusively to Republicans and corporate interests and the other that works primarily for Democrats, labor unions and progressive advocacy groups – shows strong public support for publicly financed elections. Support for taxpayer-funded elections is high in every region of the country, and actually is slightly higher in the conservative South than it is in the more liberal Northeast and Midwest. Support cuts across gender and age lines, not to mention political party affiliation. More than two-thirds of Democrats back public financing, but an even higher percentage of Republicans do too.
Over two-thirds of voters (69%) believe we need changes to the way elections are financed, and the polling provides a strong clue as to why. An overwhelming majority of voters make the connection between large campaign donations and the lack of progress in dealing with the nation's most pressing problems. A supermajority (77%) of those surveyed agreed with the statement “I am worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today, like the economic crisis, rising energy costs, reforming health care, and global warming.”
And a large majority see big campaign contributions as a major cause of the economic meltdown. Over two-thirds (70%) of voters agree with the statement “Large campaign contributions from the banking industry to members of Congress have resulted in lax oversight and have been a major factor in causing the current financial crisis on Wall Street.”
In the weeks and months to come, we'll undoubtedly hear politicians of just about every stripe claim that we can't afford public financing of election campaigns in these tough economic times. The people these politicians are supposed to be representing have a distinctly different view, as this latest poll shows. From coast to coast, from young to old, from left to right, Americans have reached the conclusion that we cannot afford the way political campaigns are financed today. The cost to our country is far too high.
A national bipartisan poll done by two top D.C.-area political polling firms – one that caters almost exclusively to Republicans and corporate interests and the other that works primarily for Democrats, labor unions and progressive advocacy groups – shows strong public support for publicly financed elections. Support for taxpayer-funded elections is high in every region of the country, and actually is slightly higher in the conservative South than it is in the more liberal Northeast and Midwest. Support cuts across gender and age lines, not to mention political party affiliation. More than two-thirds of Democrats back public financing, but an even higher percentage of Republicans do too.
Over two-thirds of voters (69%) believe we need changes to the way elections are financed, and the polling provides a strong clue as to why. An overwhelming majority of voters make the connection between large campaign donations and the lack of progress in dealing with the nation's most pressing problems. A supermajority (77%) of those surveyed agreed with the statement “I am worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today, like the economic crisis, rising energy costs, reforming health care, and global warming.”
And a large majority see big campaign contributions as a major cause of the economic meltdown. Over two-thirds (70%) of voters agree with the statement “Large campaign contributions from the banking industry to members of Congress have resulted in lax oversight and have been a major factor in causing the current financial crisis on Wall Street.”
In the weeks and months to come, we'll undoubtedly hear politicians of just about every stripe claim that we can't afford public financing of election campaigns in these tough economic times. The people these politicians are supposed to be representing have a distinctly different view, as this latest poll shows. From coast to coast, from young to old, from left to right, Americans have reached the conclusion that we cannot afford the way political campaigns are financed today. The cost to our country is far too high.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Gladstonewalling Justice
Former state Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen was originally charged with felony misconduct in public office on October 18, 2002. More than six years now have passed – 2,234 days to be exact – and Jensen's legal fate still has not been decided.Jensen went on trial once already and was convicted. That was back in March 2006. He appealed his conviction and was granted a new trial on a legal technicality. That was in November 2007. A date for the new trial still has not been set.
One-time British prime minister William Gladstone died in 1898, but nevertheless knew all you need to know about the Jensen case.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Reader's Digest Version Of Law School Forum
Last Friday, we posted a 56-minute video of the discussion at last week's Justice, Money and Politics forum at the UW Law School. If you don't have an hour to spare to watch the whole thing, you can watch this 7-minute version.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Justice, Money and Politics on YouTube
Tuesday night's forum at the UW Law School featured state Supreme Court Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks, Wisconsin State Journal editorial page editor Scott Milfred and yours truly.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Spitting Out The Multivitamin
UW Professor Ken Goldstein is fond of telling anyone who will listen that negative political ads are good for you, going so far as to call them a "multivitamin for the democratic process."
If there's even a whiff of aptness in that analogy, then recent elections like Wisconsin's last two state Supreme Court races proved one thing conclusively. It's possible to overdose on vitamins.
In this fall's elections, a bunch of phony front groups and party satellites held voters' noses and tried pilling us again, but the public wasn't swallowing what they were trying to force down our throats. One of the big stories of the 2008 election was the public's repudiation of gutter politics. Smear campaigns failed, as the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram pointed out, from the national stage to the local scene.
Now that's something worth celebrating.
If there's even a whiff of aptness in that analogy, then recent elections like Wisconsin's last two state Supreme Court races proved one thing conclusively. It's possible to overdose on vitamins.
In this fall's elections, a bunch of phony front groups and party satellites held voters' noses and tried pilling us again, but the public wasn't swallowing what they were trying to force down our throats. One of the big stories of the 2008 election was the public's repudiation of gutter politics. Smear campaigns failed, as the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram pointed out, from the national stage to the local scene.
Now that's something worth celebrating.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Gentler, Bipartisan WMC? Hmmmmmm.
Some have wondered whether Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce might change its negative electioneering activities after the public drubbing it has taken for its nasty political ads, particularly in the 2007 and 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court races.
Well here's an interesting item. The state's largest business group has sponsored mailings in support of two incumbent Democratic senators who rarely support WMC. Senators Dave Hansen of Green Bay and Robert Wirch of Kenosha each received a 21 percent rating - on a scale of zero to 100 percent - on WMC's legislative report card in September. The report card rated legislators on how they voted on proposals WMC supported and opposed in 2007-08.
Hansen and Wirch got the low ratings because the pair voted the way WMC liked on only three of 14 bills on WMC's agenda.
But maybe this has less to do with turning over a new leaf and more to do with reading the political tea leaves. Wirch and Hansen are safe, token endorsements in two ways. Both Democratic incumbents appear likely to win in November and the Democrats do not appear likely to lose control of the state Senate.
Well here's an interesting item. The state's largest business group has sponsored mailings in support of two incumbent Democratic senators who rarely support WMC. Senators Dave Hansen of Green Bay and Robert Wirch of Kenosha each received a 21 percent rating - on a scale of zero to 100 percent - on WMC's legislative report card in September. The report card rated legislators on how they voted on proposals WMC supported and opposed in 2007-08.
Hansen and Wirch got the low ratings because the pair voted the way WMC liked on only three of 14 bills on WMC's agenda.
But maybe this has less to do with turning over a new leaf and more to do with reading the political tea leaves. Wirch and Hansen are safe, token endorsements in two ways. Both Democratic incumbents appear likely to win in November and the Democrats do not appear likely to lose control of the state Senate.
What It Means To Be Nonpartisan
"Nonpartisan, my ass."
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard those words over the last 10 years, I'd be a rich man.
Who says it depends on whose ox we've gored most recently. As Jason Stein of the Wisconsin State Journal observed back in 2006, it's amazing how partisan operatives can call the Democracy Campaign nothing but a political puppet one minute and then a respected nonpartisan watchdog the next.
To partisans, we're nonpartisan only when it benefits their side.
Ah, politics.
To anyone outside of the political class, though, nonpartisanship means a little bit more. Let me start with what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean you're agnostic on public policy or, in the Democracy Campaign's case, neutral on what's best for the health of the democratic process in Wisconsin. We have an agenda. It's just that putting politicians of a particular stripe in power is not part of that agenda.
Being nonpartisan means not endorsing candidates. It means not having a political action committee for making donations in partisan races. It means not sponsoring phony "issue ads" to get favored candidates elected, or engaging in any form of campaigning aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. It means not having any favorite candidates.
For us, nonpartisanship means blowing the whistle when we see wrongdoing, no matter what party the offender belongs to. That doesn't mean the whistle has to be blown half the time on one side and half the time on the other. It means it has to be blown whenever there is serious wrongdoing. If it happens all those being flagged are Republicans, so be it. Or all Democrats. The chips will fall where they may. As it turns out, plenty of chips have fallen on both sides of the fence.
Democracy is party politics, but it also is much more than that. It is a living thing, and like all living things, it will die if not cared for. Whether the Democracy Campaign has been faithful in aspiring to be that caretaker – and faithful in its nonpartisanship – is for many to debate, and many already have decided.
What I am certain of is that there is a place for nonpartisanship in politics. And it is possible and indeed essential that some practice it.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard those words over the last 10 years, I'd be a rich man.
Who says it depends on whose ox we've gored most recently. As Jason Stein of the Wisconsin State Journal observed back in 2006, it's amazing how partisan operatives can call the Democracy Campaign nothing but a political puppet one minute and then a respected nonpartisan watchdog the next.
To partisans, we're nonpartisan only when it benefits their side.
Ah, politics.
To anyone outside of the political class, though, nonpartisanship means a little bit more. Let me start with what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean you're agnostic on public policy or, in the Democracy Campaign's case, neutral on what's best for the health of the democratic process in Wisconsin. We have an agenda. It's just that putting politicians of a particular stripe in power is not part of that agenda.
Being nonpartisan means not endorsing candidates. It means not having a political action committee for making donations in partisan races. It means not sponsoring phony "issue ads" to get favored candidates elected, or engaging in any form of campaigning aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. It means not having any favorite candidates.
For us, nonpartisanship means blowing the whistle when we see wrongdoing, no matter what party the offender belongs to. That doesn't mean the whistle has to be blown half the time on one side and half the time on the other. It means it has to be blown whenever there is serious wrongdoing. If it happens all those being flagged are Republicans, so be it. Or all Democrats. The chips will fall where they may. As it turns out, plenty of chips have fallen on both sides of the fence.
Democracy is party politics, but it also is much more than that. It is a living thing, and like all living things, it will die if not cared for. Whether the Democracy Campaign has been faithful in aspiring to be that caretaker – and faithful in its nonpartisanship – is for many to debate, and many already have decided.
What I am certain of is that there is a place for nonpartisanship in politics. And it is possible and indeed essential that some practice it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Democracy Or Republic?
A letter I received today from a Lake Mills resident touched on a subject that has been debated since the founding of our country and expressed a view I often hear from people who are not fond of the Democracy Campaign's work. The letter started on a positive note, saying "I like what I see and hear of your doing to get big, often crooked, money out of politics. Badly needed."
The writer continued: "But I am of the belief that we are a republic, NOT a democracy." He went on to say I seem to worship "the many" and voiced worry about what he called the "crowd culture."
Personally, I don't believe a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive. Put another way, it is possible to be both a republic and a democracy, and I believe that is what America was intended to be.
It's worth remembering that when Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was famously asked: "Well, what have we got – a republic or a monarchy?" He was not asked: "Well, what have we got – a republic or a democracy?" A republic is the opposite of a monarchy, not the opposite of a democracy.
After reading the letter, I checked a few dictionaries. One defined a republic as "a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people have impact on its government.” The word comes from the Latin res publica, which translates as "public thing" or "public matter." Another dictionary defines a republic as "a state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth." Yet another defines it as "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them."
The term "democracy," on the other hand, is alternatively defined as "government by the people" and "rule of the majority" and "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Under these definitions, it is obvious that what the founders chose to create could be described as either a republic or a representative democracy or both.
It's particularly important to remember that at the time of our nation's creation, the whole idea of a "democracy" and a "republic" was radical and frightening and hard to imagine actually working, which explains why the Federalist Papers were published anonymously. The Federalist Papers made it quite clear that most of the founders wanted America to be a democracy. But many also feared the possibility that the American experiment could turn into mob rule. Some founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a strong central government and even a monarch, with George Washington as king (something Washington resisted with great passion).
It is both safe and fair to say that in the end the consensus was that America should not become a direct democracy, but rather should have a representative form of government.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries and were taking a great leap of faith with no direct experience to confirm their faith that a democratic government could be established on a large scale. They had seen democracy work well in small populations, like the Greek city-states, but had no idea whether such a model could be extended to a new institution governing what was at the time a massive population.
The genius of the founders' creation was how they balanced the idea that the will of the people shall be the law of the land with strong protections for individual rights. Clearly, there are certain rights and laws that should not be disregarded at the whim of the majority. The system of checks and balances that is central to the design of American democracy was created not only to prevent any individual or any branch of government from gaining excessive power, but also to prevent a tyranny of the majority and to protect the rights of those in the minority.
I stand accused of worshipping "the many," as if democracy is a dirty word. Actually, I worship the delicate balancing act that the Founding Fathers performed to give us a system that is both a republic and a democracy. I do believe people should matter more than money in politics, and I am deeply wary of privilege – especially the political privilege that accompanies great wealth. I am concerned that too much power has been concentrated in too few hands in recent years.
That's why the Democracy Campaign and I are working to make our system more truly democratic. And more authentically republican.
The writer continued: "But I am of the belief that we are a republic, NOT a democracy." He went on to say I seem to worship "the many" and voiced worry about what he called the "crowd culture."
Personally, I don't believe a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive. Put another way, it is possible to be both a republic and a democracy, and I believe that is what America was intended to be.
It's worth remembering that when Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was famously asked: "Well, what have we got – a republic or a monarchy?" He was not asked: "Well, what have we got – a republic or a democracy?" A republic is the opposite of a monarchy, not the opposite of a democracy.
After reading the letter, I checked a few dictionaries. One defined a republic as "a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people have impact on its government.” The word comes from the Latin res publica, which translates as "public thing" or "public matter." Another dictionary defines a republic as "a state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth." Yet another defines it as "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them."
The term "democracy," on the other hand, is alternatively defined as "government by the people" and "rule of the majority" and "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Under these definitions, it is obvious that what the founders chose to create could be described as either a republic or a representative democracy or both.
It's particularly important to remember that at the time of our nation's creation, the whole idea of a "democracy" and a "republic" was radical and frightening and hard to imagine actually working, which explains why the Federalist Papers were published anonymously. The Federalist Papers made it quite clear that most of the founders wanted America to be a democracy. But many also feared the possibility that the American experiment could turn into mob rule. Some founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a strong central government and even a monarch, with George Washington as king (something Washington resisted with great passion).
It is both safe and fair to say that in the end the consensus was that America should not become a direct democracy, but rather should have a representative form of government.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries and were taking a great leap of faith with no direct experience to confirm their faith that a democratic government could be established on a large scale. They had seen democracy work well in small populations, like the Greek city-states, but had no idea whether such a model could be extended to a new institution governing what was at the time a massive population.
The genius of the founders' creation was how they balanced the idea that the will of the people shall be the law of the land with strong protections for individual rights. Clearly, there are certain rights and laws that should not be disregarded at the whim of the majority. The system of checks and balances that is central to the design of American democracy was created not only to prevent any individual or any branch of government from gaining excessive power, but also to prevent a tyranny of the majority and to protect the rights of those in the minority.
I stand accused of worshipping "the many," as if democracy is a dirty word. Actually, I worship the delicate balancing act that the Founding Fathers performed to give us a system that is both a republic and a democracy. I do believe people should matter more than money in politics, and I am deeply wary of privilege – especially the political privilege that accompanies great wealth. I am concerned that too much power has been concentrated in too few hands in recent years.
That's why the Democracy Campaign and I are working to make our system more truly democratic. And more authentically republican.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Swiss Banks Of Wisconsin Politics
Swiss banks are known the world over as the place to stash ill-gotten gains, keep questionable finances one step ahead of the law or otherwise stockpile riches with no questions asked.
So-called "issue ad" groups are their political equivalent.
We've been updating the Hijacking Election 2008 section of our web site pretty much daily as we learn of new under-the-radar smear campaigns in state legislative races being run by groups like All Children Matter and Building a Stronger Wisconsin. They are creating a traffic jam on the low road, stuffing mailboxes and in some cases filling the airwaves in key battleground districts with paint-by-numbers attacks. All Children Matter assails Democratic candidates, claiming they all support health care benefits for illegal aliens. Building a Stronger Wisconsin attacks Republicans on the grounds that they don't care about school kids and rape victims.
The money raised to fund these smears is not disclosed to the public. Voters have been kept entirely in the dark about who's paying for this gutter campaigning.
Four groups – Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Greater Wisconsin Committee, Club for Growth and the Coalition for America's Families – raised and spent two out of every three dollars in the last two state Supreme Court elections and accounted for nearly 90 percent of the television advertising in this year's race.
Voters have been given no clue about where the money came from to pay for all those ads either.
Electioneering by trade associations, lobbying organizations and party front groups abounds in state elections now, and who pays the bills is a secret.
It's secret because of a gaping loophole allowing special interest groups to operate outside the laws requiring disclosure and limiting political contributions. To operate like Swiss banks. And in so doing, to effectively take the "r" out of free speech.
So-called "issue ad" groups are their political equivalent.
We've been updating the Hijacking Election 2008 section of our web site pretty much daily as we learn of new under-the-radar smear campaigns in state legislative races being run by groups like All Children Matter and Building a Stronger Wisconsin. They are creating a traffic jam on the low road, stuffing mailboxes and in some cases filling the airwaves in key battleground districts with paint-by-numbers attacks. All Children Matter assails Democratic candidates, claiming they all support health care benefits for illegal aliens. Building a Stronger Wisconsin attacks Republicans on the grounds that they don't care about school kids and rape victims.
The money raised to fund these smears is not disclosed to the public. Voters have been kept entirely in the dark about who's paying for this gutter campaigning.
Four groups – Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Greater Wisconsin Committee, Club for Growth and the Coalition for America's Families – raised and spent two out of every three dollars in the last two state Supreme Court elections and accounted for nearly 90 percent of the television advertising in this year's race.
Voters have been given no clue about where the money came from to pay for all those ads either.
Electioneering by trade associations, lobbying organizations and party front groups abounds in state elections now, and who pays the bills is a secret.
It's secret because of a gaping loophole allowing special interest groups to operate outside the laws requiring disclosure and limiting political contributions. To operate like Swiss banks. And in so doing, to effectively take the "r" out of free speech.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Too Close To Be Legal?
State law says independent expenditure groups cannot cooperate or coordinate with political campaigns or candidates they support on outside electioneering activities like mailings, broadcast or newspaper ads and automated phone calls.
So is it possible to abide by that law when the candidate is on the board of directors of the organization doing the campaigning on his behalf?
That's the scenario involving the Fond du Lac Association of Commerce's political action committee which filed documents September 29 saying it intends to make independent expenditures on behalf of 18th Senate District Republican candidate Randy Hopper who is also on the group's board of directors, according to its website and Hopper's campaign website.
In addition to that cozy relationship, the Young Professionals of Fond du Lac, a division of the chamber of commerce, is hosting an October 16 forum featuring Hopper and Democratic challenger Jessica King to air their views.
So is it possible to abide by that law when the candidate is on the board of directors of the organization doing the campaigning on his behalf?
That's the scenario involving the Fond du Lac Association of Commerce's political action committee which filed documents September 29 saying it intends to make independent expenditures on behalf of 18th Senate District Republican candidate Randy Hopper who is also on the group's board of directors, according to its website and Hopper's campaign website.
In addition to that cozy relationship, the Young Professionals of Fond du Lac, a division of the chamber of commerce, is hosting an October 16 forum featuring Hopper and Democratic challenger Jessica King to air their views.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailout Vote Followed The Money
Lost amidst all of the post-game punditry and Monday-morning quarterbacking following yesterday's vote in the House of Representatives on the financial bailout plan was any mention of the fact that House members from both parties who voted for the bailout have received a lot more money from the finance, insurance and real estate industries than those who voted against it.
So, was yesterday's rejection of the rescue plan evidence that House members heard loud and clear from rank-and-file voters that any bailout should be a good deal for average working folks and not just a sweet deal for Wall Street? Or was it just a fundraising ploy, a pointed message to the industries at the center of the financial collapse that they had better be a little more – OK, a lot more – generous to those House members who got less help with their elections in the past?
Much remains to be seen. But one thing is clear. It's hard to imagine yesterday's vote being the final word on the bailout. The high rollers at the heart of this mess have pumped $340 million into federal campaigns for the 2008 election alone and $2 billion since 1990. The big question is not whether they will get something approximating the $700 billion return on their "investment" that they are begging for, but rather what if any strings will be attached.
It's all about the strings now, if you ask me.
So, was yesterday's rejection of the rescue plan evidence that House members heard loud and clear from rank-and-file voters that any bailout should be a good deal for average working folks and not just a sweet deal for Wall Street? Or was it just a fundraising ploy, a pointed message to the industries at the center of the financial collapse that they had better be a little more – OK, a lot more – generous to those House members who got less help with their elections in the past?
Much remains to be seen. But one thing is clear. It's hard to imagine yesterday's vote being the final word on the bailout. The high rollers at the heart of this mess have pumped $340 million into federal campaigns for the 2008 election alone and $2 billion since 1990. The big question is not whether they will get something approximating the $700 billion return on their "investment" that they are begging for, but rather what if any strings will be attached.
It's all about the strings now, if you ask me.
Monday, September 29, 2008
One Or The Other
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." – Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1916 to 1939
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who Owns Whom In The Ownership Society
What's happening on Wall Street and what's about to happen to all of us taxpayers is more than the latest dramatic failure of our government to carry out its proper responsibilities. The extent of the negligence dwarfs even the before and after of Hurricane Katrina, which is really saying something. But this is more than another case of people in high places sleeping at the switch.
The turmoil in U.S. financial markets is more than an indictment of the criminal theology of deregulation and more deregulation. Yes, we have the economic anarchists to thank for all the collapsing financial institutions and the growing panic in the stock market. Who is more to blame, the majority in our society who bought unbridled greed as a governing philosophy, or those who made the sale? Does it really matter? There's been plenty of stupidity to go around.
And the reservoir is far from dry. The very people who peddled the snake oil now want a government bailout. The no-government-is-good-government crowd is allergic to paying taxes, but expects the taxpayer to rush to the rescue when things fall apart. Privatized profits and socialized losses. Sweet deal. What blows the mind is how quickly and easily such deals are consummated in Washington.
It is here the root of the crisis is found. What we have is not just an excess of greed or a lack of oversight. We have an absence of democracy.
The reason Wall Street was never reined in and now will be bailed out is that the officials who decide things in Washington are owned by those they are supposed to regulate. Need persuading? Follow the money.
The finance, insurance and real estate industries that are at the heart of the scandal have given nearly $340 million in campaign contributions at the national level in the 2008 election cycle alone. Half of it to Democrats and half to Republicans.
Washington insiders are fond of saying insurance giant AIG is "too big to fail" when justifying the company's bailout. Actually, its campaign donations are too large to ignore.
Look at the list of top all-time donors to federal campaigns. Weighing in at number four is none other than Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks. Look at the so-called "bundlers" who raise the really big money for both presidential campaigns. The lists for both major party candidates are littered with investment bankers and bigwigs from the insurance and real estate industries.
And don't forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They've got millions invested in Washington's elite.
So this is what is meant when we're told they're building an "ownership society."
The turmoil in U.S. financial markets is more than an indictment of the criminal theology of deregulation and more deregulation. Yes, we have the economic anarchists to thank for all the collapsing financial institutions and the growing panic in the stock market. Who is more to blame, the majority in our society who bought unbridled greed as a governing philosophy, or those who made the sale? Does it really matter? There's been plenty of stupidity to go around.
And the reservoir is far from dry. The very people who peddled the snake oil now want a government bailout. The no-government-is-good-government crowd is allergic to paying taxes, but expects the taxpayer to rush to the rescue when things fall apart. Privatized profits and socialized losses. Sweet deal. What blows the mind is how quickly and easily such deals are consummated in Washington.
It is here the root of the crisis is found. What we have is not just an excess of greed or a lack of oversight. We have an absence of democracy.
The reason Wall Street was never reined in and now will be bailed out is that the officials who decide things in Washington are owned by those they are supposed to regulate. Need persuading? Follow the money.
The finance, insurance and real estate industries that are at the heart of the scandal have given nearly $340 million in campaign contributions at the national level in the 2008 election cycle alone. Half of it to Democrats and half to Republicans.
Washington insiders are fond of saying insurance giant AIG is "too big to fail" when justifying the company's bailout. Actually, its campaign donations are too large to ignore.
Look at the list of top all-time donors to federal campaigns. Weighing in at number four is none other than Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks. Look at the so-called "bundlers" who raise the really big money for both presidential campaigns. The lists for both major party candidates are littered with investment bankers and bigwigs from the insurance and real estate industries.
And don't forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They've got millions invested in Washington's elite.
So this is what is meant when we're told they're building an "ownership society."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Our Very Own Katherine Harris
J.B. Van Hollen seems intent on becoming Katherine Harris. Unlike Harris's Florida, Wisconsin does not allow partisan officials to run our elections. We entrust that task to a politically independent agency under the direction of a nonpartisan board of retired judges.
That arrangement is obviously not to the liking of Van Hollen, who is the highest ranking elected Republica
n in the state and c
o-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign in Wisconsin. He is suing the agency and the former judges who head it in an effort to get people kicked off the voter rolls. He insists it's necessary to protect us against voter fraud. He is undeterred by the fact that voter fraud is more rare than a financially stable investment bank. He is even less sensitive to the considerable collateral damage his crusade will do.
In his apparent zeal to emulate Katherine the Great, Van Hollen hardly waited for the ink on his lawsuit to dry before announcing that he is forming an "election fraud task force." It's hard to believe many voters will put much trust in a task force headed by someone so heavily invested in making sure John McCain is the next president.
Maybe Van Hollen doesn't care about that. Or maybe he's green with envy that Katherine Harris's deeds were the stuff of a made-for-HBO movie.
Who would play J.B. Van Hollen? I nominate Will Farrell.
That arrangement is obviously not to the liking of Van Hollen, who is the highest ranking elected Republica
n in the state and c
o-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign in Wisconsin. He is suing the agency and the former judges who head it in an effort to get people kicked off the voter rolls. He insists it's necessary to protect us against voter fraud. He is undeterred by the fact that voter fraud is more rare than a financially stable investment bank. He is even less sensitive to the considerable collateral damage his crusade will do.In his apparent zeal to emulate Katherine the Great, Van Hollen hardly waited for the ink on his lawsuit to dry before announcing that he is forming an "election fraud task force." It's hard to believe many voters will put much trust in a task force headed by someone so heavily invested in making sure John McCain is the next president.
Maybe Van Hollen doesn't care about that. Or maybe he's green with envy that Katherine Harris's deeds were the stuff of a made-for-HBO movie.
Who would play J.B. Van Hollen? I nominate Will Farrell.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Van Hollen's Lawsuit: A Pander Or A Hoax?
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's decision to pick nits in the name of upholding the Orwellian-named federal Help America Vote Act and sue the Government Accountability Board over the way the agency is implementing the state's new computerized voter registration system has been roundly and rightly panned by the media. But it was Milwaukee Magazine editor Bruce Murphy who got to the root of the matter.
Murphy assumes Van Hollen is smart enough to know the lawsuit has no sound legal basis and is going nowhere. He concludes Van Hollen must have filed it just to shore up his political base.
That's certainly a plausible if not overly charitable theory. If Murphy's wrong and the lawsuit is not just political pandering, then it is a solution in search of a problem. If Van Hollen honestly believes his action has legal merit, then he is tipping his and his party's hand on what their favorite bugaboo – voter fraud – really amounts to.
Discrepancies between databases. Clerical and typographical errors. Missing middle initials. Oh. My. God.
Whether the attorney general's lawsuit was inspired by political vanity or some darker motive surely will be the subject of speculation for some time to come. But because of the inherent silliness of the action, Van Hollen has unwittingly made people like Anna Larson the face of the supposed problem of voter fraud. The white-haired Larson is 82 years old and can't remember failing to vote in an election.
You see, the computers say Anna Larson is registered to vote in both Madison and Waukesha. An act of voter fraud waiting to happen. The new system flagged Larson and she was knocked off the rolls.
It turns out another woman with the exact same name and same birth date, a rare coincidence to be sure, had just registered in Waukesha. The voter database that is the offspring of the Help America Vote Act merges registrants with the same name and birth date, and the person who stays on the rolls is the person who last registered. It wasn't much of a help to Anna Larson.
In the exceedingly unlikely event that Van Hollen's lawsuit is successful, two things will surely happen. It will become even more apparent that the problem of voter fraud is itself a fraud. And to learn what we already knew, there will have to be many more victims like Anna Larson.
Murphy assumes Van Hollen is smart enough to know the lawsuit has no sound legal basis and is going nowhere. He concludes Van Hollen must have filed it just to shore up his political base.
That's certainly a plausible if not overly charitable theory. If Murphy's wrong and the lawsuit is not just political pandering, then it is a solution in search of a problem. If Van Hollen honestly believes his action has legal merit, then he is tipping his and his party's hand on what their favorite bugaboo – voter fraud – really amounts to.
Discrepancies between databases. Clerical and typographical errors. Missing middle initials. Oh. My. God.
Whether the attorney general's lawsuit was inspired by political vanity or some darker motive surely will be the subject of speculation for some time to come. But because of the inherent silliness of the action, Van Hollen has unwittingly made people like Anna Larson the face of the supposed problem of voter fraud. The white-haired Larson is 82 years old and can't remember failing to vote in an election.
You see, the computers say Anna Larson is registered to vote in both Madison and Waukesha. An act of voter fraud waiting to happen. The new system flagged Larson and she was knocked off the rolls.
It turns out another woman with the exact same name and same birth date, a rare coincidence to be sure, had just registered in Waukesha. The voter database that is the offspring of the Help America Vote Act merges registrants with the same name and birth date, and the person who stays on the rolls is the person who last registered. It wasn't much of a help to Anna Larson.
In the exceedingly unlikely event that Van Hollen's lawsuit is successful, two things will surely happen. It will become even more apparent that the problem of voter fraud is itself a fraud. And to learn what we already knew, there will have to be many more victims like Anna Larson.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Money For Nothing
Mike Ivey wrote an excellent piece this week about how Wisconsin is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in business subsidies every year without bothering to check if they pay off. A 2005 Democracy Campaign review of over 5,100 state Commerce Department grants and subsidized loans found the same problem.
We found no evidence of site visits or audits by the state to determine if the state assistance was being used as promised or that the recipients had created or retained the number of jobs promised in their agreements. In four cases, recipients did not even file the required self-evaluations to show the progress of their projects. Five projects Commerce signed off on violated the department's own program guidelines requiring the assistance to be targeted to economically distressed areas, or where unemployment and poverty rates were higher than the statewide average.
To make matters even worse, the public is kept in the dark about the state's dealings with private business. Ivey cites a 2007 evaluation of state disclosure of business subsidies, procurement contracts and lobbying activities by the national watchdog group Good Jobs First. The group gave Wisconsin an "F" for disclosure of economic development subsidies and a "C+" for disclosure of state procurement contracts that businesses receive.
There was another dimension to our 2005 report that was not touched on in either Ivey's article or the Good Jobs First evaluation. We found that those who made campaign contributions received eight times more state assistance in the form of grants, subsidized loans and tax breaks than non-contributors. This finding mirrored what a University of Michigan researcher found in a January 2003 review of major state construction and road building contracts. The value of contracts awarded during the 1990s to contractors who contributed to then-Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign averaged $20 million while the average value of contracts awarded to non-contributors was $870,000.
We found no evidence of site visits or audits by the state to determine if the state assistance was being used as promised or that the recipients had created or retained the number of jobs promised in their agreements. In four cases, recipients did not even file the required self-evaluations to show the progress of their projects. Five projects Commerce signed off on violated the department's own program guidelines requiring the assistance to be targeted to economically distressed areas, or where unemployment and poverty rates were higher than the statewide average.
To make matters even worse, the public is kept in the dark about the state's dealings with private business. Ivey cites a 2007 evaluation of state disclosure of business subsidies, procurement contracts and lobbying activities by the national watchdog group Good Jobs First. The group gave Wisconsin an "F" for disclosure of economic development subsidies and a "C+" for disclosure of state procurement contracts that businesses receive.
There was another dimension to our 2005 report that was not touched on in either Ivey's article or the Good Jobs First evaluation. We found that those who made campaign contributions received eight times more state assistance in the form of grants, subsidized loans and tax breaks than non-contributors. This finding mirrored what a University of Michigan researcher found in a January 2003 review of major state construction and road building contracts. The value of contracts awarded during the 1990s to contractors who contributed to then-Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign averaged $20 million while the average value of contracts awarded to non-contributors was $870,000.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
'Poisonous Swill'
Read this from the departing chancellor of Wisconsin's flagship university. He starts by saying "Wisconsin has lost its way." He goes on to say "the hyper-partisan political environment at the state capitol is toxic" and the state's "politics has become a poisonous swill."
And he was just getting warmed up.
And he was just getting warmed up.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Lagging Behind Corrupticut
A recent New York Times editorial highlighted the fact that Connecticut is the latest state to put in place sweeping campaign finance reforms featuring full public financing of state elections. This is the first year the state that became known as "Corrupticut" is operating under the new system and, as the Times pointed out, early signs are very encouraging.
Connecticut's reform was modeled after the highly successful systems in Arizona and Maine. Maine has been publicly financing its state elections since 2000 and electoral competition has spiked. More people are running for public office, including significantly more women, and state legislative races are now five times less likely to be uncontested.
Connecticut took action after corruption scandals resulted in a former governor, a state senator and two mayors going to prison. In stark contrast, Wisconsin has so far failed to act even after six powerful former legislators were paraded into courtrooms and, in several of the cases, eventually were put behind bars for criminal misconduct in public office.
Wisconsin used to lead the nation. We were known far and wide for public policy innovation, not to mention open and honest government. Now when it comes to cleaning up growing political corruption, even the likes of lowly "Corrupticut" are beating us to the punch.
This is a telling measure of just how miserably our state leaders have failed as stewards of our democracy.
Connecticut's reform was modeled after the highly successful systems in Arizona and Maine. Maine has been publicly financing its state elections since 2000 and electoral competition has spiked. More people are running for public office, including significantly more women, and state legislative races are now five times less likely to be uncontested.
Connecticut took action after corruption scandals resulted in a former governor, a state senator and two mayors going to prison. In stark contrast, Wisconsin has so far failed to act even after six powerful former legislators were paraded into courtrooms and, in several of the cases, eventually were put behind bars for criminal misconduct in public office.
Wisconsin used to lead the nation. We were known far and wide for public policy innovation, not to mention open and honest government. Now when it comes to cleaning up growing political corruption, even the likes of lowly "Corrupticut" are beating us to the punch.
This is a telling measure of just how miserably our state leaders have failed as stewards of our democracy.
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Shortcut To Redemption
Just back from a week's vacation in the northwoods. . . . Didn't see much news while I was away, but I did hear that WISC-TV has hired former state Senate leader and convicted felon Chuck Chvala to be a political commentator. WISC's station manager explained his decision to bring Chvala aboard by saying "I'm one of those that believe in redemption."
I believe in redemption too. But the road to redemption runs through a place called remorse. To this day, Chvala hasn't shown any. He has never admitted that he stole from the state's taxpayers to fund an effort to rig elections. And he has never apologized to the people of Wisconsin for his crimes against democracy.
One of Chvala's first commentaries was titled "Managing a Flip-Flop." WISC should have insisted it be titled "I screwed up royally, here's all the things I did wrong, and I am sorry for all the harm I have done." Or better yet, the station should have waited for Chvala to achieve remorse before they gave him a shot at redemption.
I believe in redemption too. But the road to redemption runs through a place called remorse. To this day, Chvala hasn't shown any. He has never admitted that he stole from the state's taxpayers to fund an effort to rig elections. And he has never apologized to the people of Wisconsin for his crimes against democracy.
One of Chvala's first commentaries was titled "Managing a Flip-Flop." WISC should have insisted it be titled "I screwed up royally, here's all the things I did wrong, and I am sorry for all the harm I have done." Or better yet, the station should have waited for Chvala to achieve remorse before they gave him a shot at redemption.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Keeping The Web Untangled
A blow was struck today for freedom, innovation and democracy on the Internet. A little over an hour ago, the Federal Communications Commission voted to punish Comcast for violating Net Neutrality and interfering with its customers' right to do what they want on the Internet.
While this is a giant leap for the FCC, it is but one small step in the fight to keep the Internet free and open. There's still much to be done. Go here and do it.
While this is a giant leap for the FCC, it is but one small step in the fight to keep the Internet free and open. There's still much to be done. Go here and do it.