Throwing In The Towel On Civics

I got to be a fly on the wall at a discussion of Supreme Court elections last night. Two groups of about 10 or 12. One men, the other women.

In a scene right out of one of Leno's "Jaywalking" segments, none of the men could name a single member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. One spoke of "that short lady" (presumably Shirley Abrahamson) in an unsuccessful attempt to jog the memories of his fellows. Another mentioned "the woman who works for the banks." (Ouch.) Nobody came up with Annette Ziegler's name either.

The women were better, but not much. Several talked about how horrible the last Supreme Court election was. When asked what was bad about it, one mentioned the "Loophole Louie" ad but couldn't remember much more. Another mentioned "that ad Gableman did." No one pointed out that the election in question was held in 2008. No one seemed to have a clue that there was a more recent election for Supreme Court held earlier this year.

In a speech I gave at this year's Fighting Bob Fest that was later turned into a newspaper commentary, I listed 12 essential nutrients every democracy needs. On my list, #7 is citizenship and #8 is civic education. Judging from what I saw last night, #7 is on thin ice. And judging from a recent column written by a journalist-turned-schoolteacher, so is #8. Among her observations is this:

"For a while, we skipped social studies every Monday while students took standardized tests. It got cut when school let out early for teachers' professional development. Then one day, after a school assembly ran long and I had to administer a math skills assessment, our social studies class was whittled down to just 15 minutes. I threw in the towel."

As I said a month ago on stage and in print, there can be a ruling class or there can be democracy, but there cannot be both. If we are partial to democracy, then preparing our nation's youth to be citizens needs to be as front and center as preparing them to be economically productive.

Any thoughts on the subject Tony Evers?

Old Glory Is So Yesterday

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide a case - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - that started as a narrow dispute over whether federal election laws should have applied to a pay-per-view cable TV documentary savaging Hillary Clinton that was to air during the 2008 presidential primary elections.

As previously noted, Chief Justice John Roberts expanded the court's review to include two earlier Supreme Court rulings upholding restrictions on corporate spending in elections. Many court observers believe five of the nine justices favor reversing those precedents.

So at a time of corporate excess and irresponsibility not seen in our land since the Gilded Age, the court appears poised to rule that corporations do not have enough political clout and should be allowed to spend even more freely in elections. And rule thusly in the name of the First Amendment.

Never mind the word "corporation" does not appear in the First Amendment. Nor does the word appear even once in the entire U.S. Constitution for that matter. These justices who call themselves "strict constructionists" and claim to be faithful to the original text of the Constitution are getting ready to sweep away century-old laws banning corporate election spending.

Roberts and his ideological soulmates will not be able to base such a decision on what the Constitution actually says. Nor will they be able to find any predecessor on the nation's highest court who wrote a decision proclaiming that corporations are people and possess the same rights as flesh-and-blood citizens, including those rights spelled out under the First Amendment. Instead, the Roberts court will have to take this guy's word for it.

Bancroft Davis. Former president of a railroad company. As the court reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, he gave railroad companies a great gift in 1886 when he added a comment to the high court's ruling in a case involving the taxation of railroad properties. And in so doing, this one man gave all corporations a great gift by inventing the pseudolegal doctrine of corporate personhood. Out of thin air.

If the current Supreme Court rules in Citizens United the way many legal experts expect, the handiwork of Bancroft Davis will be affirmed and further cemented in place.

If the Roberts court does this, it will not just be naked judicial activism. It will not simply be the very thing they claim to abhor - legislating from the bench. These "strict constructionists" will be effectively rewriting the Constitution.

What next? Redesign the flag? To capture the essence of the Roberts court's mindset, it will need to look this one.

What? There Are Two Parties?

As we continue to wait for the Democrats who control both Washington and Madison to actually do something about money's paralyzing grip on our politics, my thoughts stray to my father.

To dad, politics was simple. He never worked on a political campaign. He belonged to no civic groups. He was a dairy farmer, which occupied him from sunup to sundown seven days a week. He had an eighth-grade education. All he knew about politics came from religiously reading the newspaper. To his dying day, he never once so much as turned on a computer.

Republicans were for the rich, Democrats were for the poor. Republicans favored business. Democrats sided with labor. Democrats made war, Republicans brought on depression. Economically speaking, that is.

He never said so at the supper table, but for most of his life Dixie was home to the Democratic Party. After standing for slavery, Democrats were stalwarts for segregation. Republicans were abolitionists. The party of Lincoln.

Because dad didn't speak of it and because children were to be seen and not heard, no one in our family talked about the political realignment brought on by LBJ signing all the civil rights legislation. Nixon's southern strategy was never a topic of table talk.

Maybe such shifts in the tectonic plates of politics were unwelcome complexity. Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor. Republicans favor business. Democrats support labor. Democrats make war, Republicans depression. Republicans are tight with a buck. Democrats spend like drunken sailors.

It's hard to say what dad would make of politics today. Republicans are still for the rich, but so are the Democrats. Both are money parties and both now get most of their loot from business. Unions still prefer Democrats, but the Democrats get five times as much money from business and are reluctant as hell to ever cross the guys holding the capital.

No one talks much about the poor. The most Democrats are willing to say is they are for "working families," whatever that means. Wisconsin used to have usury laws. No lender could charge more than 18% interest. Today loan sharks charge the poor over 500%, and the Assembly's top Democrat says capping interest rates at 36% "goes too far." Especially because "there's a lot of jobs that are impacted if you just eliminate the industry." One of his lieutenants who chairs the financial institutions committee justified inaction by pointing out that loan sharks "did not create poverty. It was there before they got there." This from the party of the poor.

Both parties are fond of war. But the Democrats clearly have surrendered the mantle of war party. Prominent Democratic hawks, like Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn, are long gone. If anything, it's the Republicans who are today's masters of the military-might-equals-national-security mantra.

Neither party is fiscally responsible. Any Republican claim of being better stewards of taxpayer money is demolished by the history of federal deficits since Eisenhower's day. Democrats haven't been bashful about running up debt, but Republicans have done it with even more reckless abandon. Obama is well on his way to evening the score, though.

The political calculus on race has been turned upside down. Today it's the Republicans who most overtly and zealously court the white vote. And it's the Democrats who are friendlier to racial minorities that are fast becoming majorities. Given this emerging demographic reality, it's hard to see how this is a sustainable posture for the GOP.

Circling back to money's influence in politics, it's long since been forgotten that great populist reformers like Teddy Roosevelt and Fighting Bob La Follette were Republicans. The Republican Party is now squarely in money's camp. But so, unquestionably, are the Democrats.

Which leads to the question: What would TR and Fighting Bob do today?

They'd probably do what they did then. Ruthlessly battle their partisan enemies. And fight those on their own side just as fiercely. And then maybe try starting a new party.

Clock Keeps Ticking, Justice Keeps Waiting In Jensen Case

On the right side of our blog's main page above the links, you'll find a clock keeping the time that has passed since former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen was charged with criminal misconduct in public office for his role in the Capitol caucus scandal. We'll keep it there until the Jensen case is finally brought to closure one way or the other. It will serve as an ongoing reminder of the vast difference between the treatment of ordinary citizens and a prominent political figure in our criminal justice system.

The Increasingly Impersonal Nature Of Being A Person

Other than house-elves, politicians are about the only ones you'll ever hear refer to themselves in the third person. It's an annoying but fairly uncommon habit, even among the political class. There's even a word for it - illeism - but it's hardly a must-have in one's vocabulary.

More common in political-speak is the majestic plural. Nearly every politician nowadays is guilty of this one. Individual persons turning themselves into groups is weird, but that weirdness takes on greater currency now that there's renewed attention being paid to the U.S. Supreme Court's created-out-of-thin-air doctrine that corporations are people.

With the Supremes now seriously thinking of taking this pseudolegal dogma to ridiculous new extremes by letting corporations spend freely in elections, the New York Times asked today in an editorial where the judicial invention of corporate personhood will end. Will they get the right to vote? To hold office? To bear arms?

Good questions. But the sign to really watch for is when they start speaking of themselves in the first person.

How A Court Reporter Made History

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Jeffrey Toobin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

The Word From Colbert Nation

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Indiana Lawyer Defending Gableman

As state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman set out to fight off charges of judicial misconduct, either he felt there was not suitable legal representation to be found in Wisconsin or he couldn't find an attorney in the state who would represent him.

The technically nonpartisan Gableman has gone into battle with James Bopp of the Terre Haute, Indiana law firm Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom as his counsel. Bopp is best known as an anti-abortion lawyer as well as the lead attorney in all the legal challenges to the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. But Bopp also is a member of the Republican National Committee who was part of a small band from the committee's far-right flank that sought to rig the selection process for RNC chair. He then showed his dissatisfaction with the party's choice as he sharply criticized new chair Michael Steele in April for refusing to call President Barack Obama a "socialist."

What's In The Water In Lake Geneva?

When Washington and Madison politics threatens to drive you insane, there's a need for some comic relief. Leave it to Lake Geneva.

The posh resort community is in a state of anarchy after the mayor attempted a banana republic-style coup, suspending four political opponents from the City Council and attempting to replace them with allies who happened to have been defeated in the last election by - you guessed it - none other than the four aldermen the mayor aims to oust.

The overthrow hit at least a temporary snag when the remaining council members balked at meeting to consider the appointed replacements. Leaving Lake Geneva without a functioning government, at least for the time being.

OK, so this is no laughing matter if you're in Lake Geneva. But with Congress and the Legislature returning to work after summer recess, there is both amusement and comfort in the knowledge that madness is not necessarily confined to capitals.

12 Things Every Democracy Needs

The following is excerpted from the text of the speech I gave at Saturday's Fighting Bob Fest entitled "A Democracy Worthy of the Name."

There are some things no true democracy can do without. Think of these as 12 minimum daily requirements, a basic subsistence diet:

1. Free speech

2. A free and independent press

3. Legitimate elections

4. Equal justice under the law

5. An ability to distinguish between democracy and commerce

6. An appreciation for and devotion to the commons

7. Citizenship

8. Civic education

9. A distribution of wealth sufficient to sustain a middle class

10. Religious freedom and a separation of church and state

11. Economic freedom and a separation of corporation and state

12. Dissent

Changes To Records Proposal Hides Information From Public

Wisconsin judges and district attorneys would no longer have to provide information to the public about the property they own under changes made by Democratic legislators to a bill actually meant to increase public access to certain government documents.

The legislative measure was intended to increase public access to Statement of Economic Interest documents filed each year by about 2,100 public officials and others who serve on state boards and commissions. These forms (here and here, for example) describe their economic holdings - like land, buildings, stocks, bonds, business activities and other investments and income. The form also requires them to vaguely disclose the value of each holding.

The legislation would require the Government Accountability Board to post the documents on the Internet. For decades, people who want to see the documents have had to submit a written request, and their names are given to the public officials whose statement are viewed. That practice would stop.

But Democratic Representative Fred Kessler of Milwaukee, a former judge, convinced the committee to change the bill to prohibit the board from releasing information online or in any other form about property owned by judges and district attorneys.

Kessler said he wants the property information for judges and prosecutors kept secret because they are regularly harassed or threatened by people who have been in their courts.

Now no one wants to see judges, prosecutors or any other law enforcement officers put in peril, but the logic for excluding them is hard to pin down.

First, how routinely are judges and prosecutors statewide harassed?

Second, are judges and prosecutors who know the ins and outs of the law better than most of us just letting this pass, and if there is no current remedy, shouldn't there be one regardless of the public access issue raised here?

Third, how would limiting public access to these documents address that problem if the harassment and threats are already occurring?

And finally, some other public officials like state legislators have no doubt experienced harassment and threats so why single out judges and prosecutors for this special treatment?

An Open Letter To John Roberts

Dear Chief Justice,

As you and your colleagues on the Supreme Court deliberate in the Citizens United case, I have two questions for you. Do corporations, labor unions and other organized special interest groups have too little say in the halls of government? Are their voices not adequately heard in election campaigns?

Nearly all Americans would answer "no." Most of the rest would say "hell no!"

The way you and your eight fellow justices answer these questions will decide this case. No pressure, but your answers also will set democracy's course in 21st Century America.

Sincerely,

Worried in Wisconsin

Why Hell Froze

The Democracy Campaign issued a most unusual report today, showing that campaign fundraising by Wisconsin legislators in the first half of the year fell to its lowest level since 1999. In fact, after scouring our archives it appears it was utterly unique. I could find no other report documenting a drop in fundraising. I found this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, but nothing showing the spigot closing.

In our report we attribute the decline in donations to the Assembly's rule banning fundraising during the state budget process. This wasn't mere conjecture on our part. The numbers told a convincing story. Overall fundraising was down, but it was down most sharply in the Assembly.

Nevertheless, since releasing our analysis this morning we've heard from a few who wonder if the economy had more to do with it than the Assembly rule.

Could be. But if the recession was the cause, then fundraising should have been in a tailspin in 2008 because the economy was already in a freefall. That wasn't the case. On the contrary, all kinds of records were broken in last year's legislative elections.

And back in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11, the economy sputtered and both charitable contributions and tax collections fell. But the political money kept flowing. In fact, donations to candidates for governor went up six fold over pre-9/11 levels.

What we've seen over the years is a steep and steady upward arc to political giving, regardless of the condition of the economy. It is one of the few things that is truly recession-proof.

Which is why we are convinced that the drop in legislative fundraising in the first six months of 2009 had everything to do with the Assembly ban on budget-season fundraising.

Supremes Ponder Plutocracy

Not many have noticed, but the U.S. Supreme Court is contemplating the mother of all acts of judicial activism. What started as a narrow case dealing with whether federal election laws should apply to a pay-per-view cable TV production called "Hillary: The Movie" has mushroomed into something much bigger, with profound implications for democracy and longstanding federal and state laws guarding against the buying of elections.

After hearing oral arguments in March on the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court's majority decided in late June to expand the scope of issues it will consider, and ordered new arguments in September over whether the court should consider overturning two key precedents involving corporate campaign spending established in a 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and 2003's McConnell v. FEC.

The potential consequences are huge. At stake is the future of the 100-year-old wall separating corporation and state that offers at least some protection against the selling of our government. That wall was erected in the form of a 1907 federal law prohibiting corporations from using the capital amassed in their vast treasuries to influence elections as well as Wisconsin's century-old ban on corporate spending in state elections. (A similar federal law applying to labor unions was later enacted and Wisconsin's law is broad and applies to more than just business corporations, as we've noted before.) Also at risk are the new electioneering disclosure rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board but now on hold pending the outcome of the Citizens United case.

If the Supreme Court indeed tears down the old walls and forbids the building of any new ones, it will unleash a new torrent of special interest money into both federal and state elections. Swept away will be laws passed over a century ago by representatives of the people both in Congress and in our state Legislature here in Wisconsin, laws upheld not once but twice by the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Talk about legislating from the bench.

Better Together Than Alone

The Democracy Campaign is a founding member of the Midwest Democracy Network, a regional alliance of groups in five Great Lakes states devoted to achieving economies of scale in the reform community that allow groups to do work collectively and regionally that none of them could likely do alone in their respective states. WDC is represented on the network's five-member steering committee. This video tells more of the story. . . .

What is the Midwest Democracy Network? from Midwest Democracy Network on Vimeo.

Fundraising Ban Widely Effective, BUT. . .

A review of campaign finance reports filed so far shows widespread adherence to a rule banning campaign fundraising by members of the Assembly during the state budget process.

However, if the reports accurately reflect when the contributions were received, four Assembly representatives violated the ban in effect during legislative action on the 2009-11 budget. The reports filed as of early Thursday cover fundraising and spending activity in the first six months of 2008 by about one-fourth of the Assembly.

The Assembly ban approved in February called on its 99 members not to accept or solicit any campaign contributions for themselves or other campaign committees beginning the day the budget bill is introduced in the legislature, which was February 17, and ending on the date it is presented to the governor, which was June 29.

Democrats Fred Clark of Baraboo and Ted Zigmunt of Francis Creek accepted $600 and $2,050 in contributions, respectively, on February 17. Republican Rich Zipperer of Pewaukee accepted $450 in contributions February 17 and Republican Keith Ripp of Lodi accepted a $57.80 in-kind contribution June 25.

Democrat Penny Bernard Schaber of Appleton received $3,025 before the ban and a $50 contribution on June 16 which she returned to the contributor.

A report filed by veteran Democrat Robert Turner of Racine shows he raised $11,065 in individual and political action committee contributions from March 24 through April 24. But the ban allowed Assembly members to accept contributions to run for other elected offices. Turner unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Racine in a May 5 special election.

Republican Kevin Petersen of Waupaca made $1,610 in in-kind contributions and a personal loan to his campaign during the ban.

The Democracy Campaign found numerous Assembly members got contributions before the ban took effect, according to their campaign reports. Democrat Mark Radcliffe of Black River Falls accepted $1,880 in contributions February 13 and 14 and Democratic Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan of Janesville accepted $500 February 2. Republicans Bill Kramer of Waukesha got $500, Robin Vos of Racine got $4,525 and Jim Ott of Mequon and Gary Tauchen of Bonduel each raised $100 - all before the ban.

So far, representatives who reported getting no individual or PAC contributions during the entire six-month period are:

Republican Representatives Dan Meyer of Eagle River, Roger Roth of Appleton, Samantha Kerkman of Genoa City, Richard Spanbauer of Oshkosh, Don Friske of Merrill, Mark Gottlieb of Port Washington and Pat Strachota of West Bend;

Democratic Representatives Jim Soletski of Green Bay, David Cullen of Milwaukee, Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids, Mary Hubler of Rice Lake, Chuck Benedict of Beloit and Joe Parisi and Spencer Black, both of Madison.

Hard Times For Fat Cats

Is a recession in the political economy right around the corner? Bill Kraus thinks so.

He might end up being right. Bill's a seasoned political veteran who knows the lay of the land in campaigns as well as anyone. If he looks into his crystal ball and sees belt-tightening for the political class, then it at least has to be considered a plausible scenario.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

I say that for two reasons. First, the overall economy was already in recession in 2008 but political giving and campaign spending were up. Way up. Second, if you count up all the donors to state campaigns in the Democracy Campaign's online database, they amount to only about 1% of Wisconsin's population. If the masses were making campaign contributions, then you'd expect political giving to drop off during an economic downturn. But only 1% does all the donating, and it tends to be the upper crust, the least likely to have been seriously impacted by the recession.

For these reasons, it's my guess that the political economy will remain recession-proof.

A Familiar Dodge

The tale of missing travel receipts that was told over the weekend by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a familiar ring to it. What has evidently now become standard operating procedure in at least the upper echelons of the executive branch was once an all-too-common election campaign practice that was exposed and then banned in early 2006.

We started noticing that credit card transactions by campaigns were being reported in a way that made it impossible to determine who was being paid for goods or services rendered. Campaign finance reports would attribute vaguely described expenses to the credit card company and not the vendor who was the actual recipient of the campaign funds. Governor Jim Doyle was among the worst offenders.

The state Elections Board was called upon to prohibit the practice and require meaningful disclosure of how money is really changing hands in campaign business transacted by credit card. In March 2006, the board did just that, adopting a new policy requiring campaigns to disclose the vendor's name and address as well as the date, amount and purpose of any expense over $20.

Doyle evidently didn't take any lesson from that episode because the veil he has been routinely throwing over expenses related to his travel as governor is eerily reminiscent of the one his campaign used to throw over all manner of spending he did while seeking the office in the first place.

Why Do Politicians Really Cry?

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

- Mahatma Gandhi

GAB To Sue Eight Legislative Candidates For Not Filing Campaign Reports

A state agency plans to sue four legislators and four unsuccessful legislative candidates claiming they have not filed year-end 2008 campaign finance reports due five months ago.

The four legislators are incumbent Democratic Representatives Tamara Grigsby, Annette Williams and Christine Sinicki and Republican Representative Scott Newcomer. The four others, who lost in the 2008 primary or general elections, were Republicans Jess Kufahl, David Nickel and Jason LaSage and Democrat Perry Duman.

Campaign finance reports for these and 14 other candidates were the subject of a first-ever open records request asking the Government Accountability Board to make the records - due February 2 - available to the public or investigate the candidates for breaking state campaign finance laws.

The availability and accuracy of campaign finance reports for dozens of 2008 legislative candidates have been a problem for months because of the board's new electronic filing system implemented last fall. Reports generated by the system have been fraught with problems that include incorrect fundraising and spending totals, wrongly identified expenditures, and contributions and expenditures listed multiple times.

Prosser Not Hearing Jensen Appeal

UPDATE: A spokesman for the Wisconsin Supreme Court notified our office today that Justice David Prosser is not participating in the court's review of former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen's appeal of lower court rulings that his retrial must be held in Dane County, not his home county of Waukesha as he desires.

No word yet on whether Justice Prosser plans to once again serve as a character witness for Jensen. Pertinent to this issue is the Supreme Court's own rule, SCR 60.03(2), which states: "A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge may not testify voluntarily as a character witness (emphasis added)."

The plain meaning of this rule prohibits a judge like Justice Prosser from lending the prestige of his office and the court to advance the private interests of a defendant like Scott Jensen. And it clearly prohibits any judge subject to this state rule from voluntarily testifying as a character witness. Which begs the question, is there such a thing as an unwilling character witness?

Which Justices Will Decide Jensen's Fate This Time?

For the second time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear an appeal by Scott Jensen as the surrealistically drawn-out saga of corruption charges against the former Assembly speaker stretches well into its seventh year.

Jensen was originally charged in October 2002, and it was back in early 2005 when the high court first agreed to hear an appeal in this case. That time, Jensen was joined by other legislators caught up in the Capitol scandal as well as a former aide in an attempt to have the charges against them dismissed. The court barely had a quorum to take up the case because three justices recused themselves due to close personal or political ties to the defendants.

A fourth - Justice Patrick Crooks - heard the appeals despite having had Jensen as his campaign manager in 1995 and 1996. Crooks also received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Jensen's campaign committees and the justice's campaign finance reports listed payments of nearly $27,000 to a firm run by Jensen's wife for campaign work. More on that in a bit.

The court ultimately rejected the appeals and allowed the charges to stand. Jensen was eventually convicted and sentenced to prison, but his conviction was later overturned on a technicality in November 2007 and he was granted a new trial. Jensen has been trying ever since to get the location of the new trial switched from Dane County, where the crimes he's accused of are alleged to have occurred, to his home county of Waukesha. Two lower courts have turned him down, but now the Supreme Court will review those rulings.

At least two justices have no business participating in this decision. Justice Crooks has the aforementioned conflicts of interest. And Justice David Prosser served with Jensen in the Assembly where the two were close political allies. Moreover, Prosser agreed to serve as a character witness for Jensen in his first trial. He called Jensen a "person of the highest integrity" whom he had "always trusted." He went on to say Jensen is an "honest person and a fair person" and when asked during cross-examination if his opinion of Jensen would change if he knew Jensen lied in interviews with law enforcement officials, Prosser simply said "no."

What's more, Prosser admitted that when he was Assembly speaker he engaged in the same conduct that Jensen is being prosecuted for.

There is no way in hell either Prosser or Crooks should be anywhere in the room when the Supreme Court hears this latest appeal and then decides where the second trial of Scott Jensen will take place.

113 Million Reasons Why Not

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WDC found the state Department of Financial Institutions, the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, UW-Madison’s Office of Corporate Relations, the University Research Park, the UW-Extension’s Center for Community Economic Development and the Wisconsin Technical College System are among the backers of a group called the Wisconsin Economic Development Association.

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.

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.

Wisconsin Donors Gave Record $3.8 Million To Shadow Groups

Wisconsin contributors gave a record $3.78 million in the 2007-08 election cycle to unregulated political hit groups that spend most of their money on negative advertising, mailings and other electioneering activities to foul state and federal elections with special interest propaganda, a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign analysis shows.

Fundraising and spending reports filed with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service by these so-called 527 groups, which are mostly business, union and ideological organizations, also show some of them sent millions of dollars back to Wisconsin political and phony issue ad groups that smeared candidates in several legislative races last November.

The $3.78 million Wisconsin individuals, businesses and unions gave to 527s in 2007 and 2008 shatters the previous record $2.57 million Wisconsin contributors gave to 527s in the 2001-02 election cycle (see Bar Chart).

The key findings and highlights of the 527 groups’ Wisconsin fundraising and spending include:

Seven Wisconsin political groups, including three phony issue groups, got $2.48 million from mostly out-of-state 527 organizations to help fund their electioneering activities in legislative elections and campaigning on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

A big beneficiary was the Greater Wisconsin Committee’s 527 group – the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund – which got $1.07 million to spend in key legislative races against Republicans. Advancing Wisconsin, a pro-Democratic grassroots group that campaigned around the state on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and in about two dozen legislative races, got $918,393. Building a Stronger Wisconsin, which attacked Republican candidates in at least three legislative races, got $225,000 and Club for Growth Wisconsin, a conservative, pro-Republican group, received $100,000.

Seven Wisconsin contributors, which included individuals, unions, businesses and ideological groups, gave more than $100,000 to 527 groups during the two-year period including Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein who gave pro-Democratic 527s $1.16 million (see Table 1).

Fourteen 527 groups received more than $100,000 in Wisconsin contributions (see Table 2). In all, more than $2 of every $3 in Wisconsin contributions in 2007 and 2008 went to Democratic 527 groups - $2.63 million or 69.7 percent.

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.

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 Kenosha.

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.

After Troha was charged in early March 2007, Doyle said, “My campaign was aware of nothing to suggest that the contributions received from Mr. Troha were in any way inappropriate or unlawful.” And later when prosecutors agreed to drop the charge involving laundered Troha family contributions to Doyle as part of a plea bargain, a campaign spokesman said Doyle wouldn’t return any Troha contributions.

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.

Republican U.S. Representative Paul Ryan and Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Oberstar of Minnesota either returned or gave to charity more than $78,000 of Troha-related contributions well before Troha or any of his cohorts were even convicted.

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 New York lawyers whose firm and two partners were federally indicted. He also returned a $5,000 contribution from an Illinois businessman in 2005 after he found out the contribution was made at the time the state was negotiating an out-of-court settlement involving complaints about the donor’s business practices.

Doyle also returned a 2003 contribution in 2006 from a former associate of a convicted Washington D.C. lobbyist even though the donor was never charged with any wrongdoing. At the time, a Doyle campaign spokesman said the cash was returned because the lobbyist’s actions were “so out of whack.”

Sounds like a good description of Doyle’s standard for returning questionable campaign contributions.

Gallows Humor

A good laugh from south of the border. . . .