65,000 Square Miles Surrounded By Sanity

Dave Zweifel wrote the other day about a friend from out of state calling him to ask what the hell is going on in Wisconsin. Good question. And he's not the only one getting it.

We've got the most polarizing governor in America who can't for the life of him see what it is about him that so divides people. Supreme Court justices whose contempt for each other has been put on public display, with name calling eventually escalating to a physical altercation. A legislature that considers itself above longstanding open meetings and open records laws.

We had lawmakers passing a new law allowing Wisconsinites to carry concealed weapons at the same time the Capitol was in virtual lockdown and visitors to the people's house were being subjected to intensive weapons screening.

Weirdness abounds in America's Dairyland.

Voters are not amused. A great many have taken matters into their own hands, prompting an unprecedented number of recall elections.

Painfully ironic though it is, this year is the 100th anniversary of the most remarkable legislative session in Wisconsin history. The nation's first progressive income tax was established. Workers' compensation was invented. Railroads were regulated. The insurance industry was reformed and a state life insurance plan was instituted. Maximum work hours for women and children were set. Vocational and technical education systems were initiated. And that's just a partial accounting of the 1911 legislature's accomplishments.

That all this happened in 1911 was no accident. The stage actually was set much earlier when landmark political reforms were enacted in Wisconsin. In 1897 the crudest forms of corruption such as bribery, illegal voting and election fraud were outlawed (yes, you heard right, these things were not illegal in the first half century of statehood). In 1905 campaign contributions by corporations were banned. Democracy was further strengthened in that amazing 1911 session with the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act requiring candidates to report all sources of their funding and barring elected officials from trading favors, monetary or otherwise, in return for financial support from wealthy donors.

These laws have been badly weakened in recent years, and newer laws like the 34-year-old public financing program for state elections have been swept away entirely. New political pathogens have emerged and have been left largely untreated. What is happening in 2011 is no accident either.

As was the case in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Wisconsin is at a crossroads. The defining question of our moment is the same one that stared the people of our state in the face back then. Which shall rule, wealth or people?

A new report issued yesterday by a national academic research institute suggests an answer is in the offing. The study was based on based on an analysis of data from recent elections in six Midwestern states including Wisconsin. Among other things, the authors offer an assessment of the Democracy Campaign's proposed new approach to election campaign financing, concluding that the "combination of policies would have extraordinarily powerful effects."

The institute estimates our plan would increase the proportion of campaign money coming from $100-and-under donors from the current 19% to as much as 91% of the total. At the same time, the role of $1,000-or-more donors would be cut from the current 34% to 6%, while the role of special interest political action committees (PACs) would shrink from 9% to only 1%.

Game changing, that's what it would be. The report's conclusion, not mine. The report's lead author happens to have a Republican pedigree. He used to write speeches for Dick Cheney when the former vice president was secretary of defense. He also once was a top congressional staffer as associate director of the House Republican Conference.

As was the case in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the problems we face cross partisan boundaries. The question is not which shall rule, Democrats or Republicans? The question is which shall rule, wealth or people?

When Wisconsin answers that question as definitively and effectively as our state did a century ago, the stage will again be set for a legislative session every bit as remarkable as 1911's. Then Wisconsin will come back to its senses.

Can't wait.

Walker Donor Blows Contribution Limit, Gets Reward

A proposal signed into law by Republican Governor Scott Walker was sought by trucking giant Schneider National whose owner exceeded the $10,000 limit on campaign contributions to Walker during his 2010 run for governor.

The bill signed July 5 at the company’s Green Bay headquarters prohibits lawsuits against trucking companies for negligence or wrongdoing caused by a supplier.

Thomas Schneider, variously identified in Walker’s campaign finance reports as the company’s owner or a semi-retired consultant, was one of 10 donors identified in complaints filed Wednesday by the Democracy Campaign for exceeding the $10,000 limit on campaign contributions.

Walker’s campaign finance reports show Schneider gave Walker $10,550 in the last gubernatorial campaign period – from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. The reports also show Schneider gave Walker contributions totaling $10,300 in calendar year 2010.

State campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to $10,000 to a candidate for governor in a campaign period, as well as $10,000 to all state and local candidates combined in a calendar year.

Walker said at the bill signing the new law fit into his effort to improve the state’s business climate.

It's That Really Old Document's Fault

From the debt ceiling talks in Washington to the reaction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Stranglegate scandal, the politicians' Rule Number One is on prominent display. When things get fouled up, never accept responsibility and always assign blame.

When one justice's hands somehow made their way to another's neck, our state's officialdom could have swiftly insisted on acceptance of responsibility. Instead we got hasty assignment of blame. Some are faulting Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson for not being more of a peacemaker. Now two state senators are blaming the state constitution, calling for it to be amended to end Supreme Court elections.

Political Rule Number One makes them roads rarely traveled, but the paths to responsibility are as numerous as the potential targets of blame. Let's review the options.

The judiciary could police itself. Judicial misconduct charges could be filed in response to the recent physical altercation in the high court's chambers. Discipline can range from reprimand to suspension and even removal from office.

Any perpetrators of physical violence could be held to account in the criminal justice system. Charges could be filed and any criminal acts could be prosecuted.

The Legislature could initiate impeachment proceedings.

Voters could, at the proper moment, exercise their right to pursue a recall election.

It is striking that Senators Dale Schultz and Tim Cullen did not advocate any of these measures. Instead they found fault with the state's founding document. And they blamed the voters.

It is even more striking that they issued their indictment of Supreme Court elections a matter of days after legislators voted to eviscerate the Impartial Justice Act that provided high court candidates with an alternative to grubbing for private special interest money in order to run competitively for the office. And they put an exploding candle on their carcinogenic cake when they increased the limit on private donations to Supreme Court hopefuls. Not by a little either. Tenfold. The old limit was $1,000. The new limit is $10,000.

There is no doubt that the flood of money in recent Supreme Court elections is at the heart of the court's current dysfunction. And there is no doubt that legislators and the governor just made matters much worse.

They are not done throwing monkey wrenches. Now that they have swung the floodgates open even more widely, they are advancing legislation to prevent the public from knowing how much money is flowing into elections and where that money is coming from.

They take such actions and then they have the gall to suggest that the real problem is the governing framework Wisconsin's founders designed. They scream at the top of their lungs, "the state Supreme Court is an effing mess! Amend the constitution!"

Wisconsin's Supreme Court used to be a national model, recognized as one of the finest courts in the nation. Has it occurred to no one in the Capitol or on the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board that all the while this reputation was being earned the court was elected?

Our state has elected Supreme Court justices for over 150 years. For a century and a half, those elections produced a court that was deserving of the public's trust and confidence. In very recent years, the court's reputation has been badly tarnished. Has it occurred to no one at the Capitol or the State Journal that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't that we had Supreme Court elections for over a century and a half, it's that we started having Supreme Court auctions beginning in 2007?

The constitution is not the problem. Democracy is not the problem. Political Rule Number One is. So are all the backward policies and judicial edicts that have turned our elections into auctions. Any real solution has to address those real problems.

Giving The Supremes More Rope

Public confidence in the state Supreme Court has never been lower, for obvious reasons.

The new state budget won't help matters any.

The most significant campaign finance reform in over 30 years in Wisconsin was effectively gutted by the budget passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Scott Walker. It eliminates all funding for public financing of state elections – including state Supreme Court races – and diverts the money to help cover the cost of implementing the new law requiring voters to have a state-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Also buried deep in the two-year budget is a tenfold increase in the limit on campaign contributions to Supreme Court candidates – from $1,000 to $10,000. Now there's a confidence booster!

Along with writing into existence substantially bigger donations to high court hopefuls, budget writers handed state elections entirely over to private interests by raiding the money from the 34-year-old Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund and the year-old Democracy Trust Fund that is the key funding source for the Impartial Justice Act to pay for a scheme to make it more difficult to vote.

There have been no documented instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin, yet the state will be spending millions of dollars on a new state program that will disenfranchise some voters and unnecessarily burden many others. And state officials are paying for this waste of taxpayer money by killing public financing programs aimed at maintaining fair and clean elections. Doing this requires a profound act of disrespect toward Wisconsin taxpayers who checked the box on their income tax form designating some of their taxes to the clean campaign funds. Against their will, these taxpayers will have their money used instead for what amounts to a policy of poll taxation.

Bankers' Deposits Get Results

A powerful special interest group that supports a budget plan to let credit unions more easily convert to banks contributed $15,000 to an outside electioneering group that has spent more than $1 million since last fall to help elect GOP legislators.

The May 31 contribution by the Wisconsin Bankers Association to the Republican State Leadership Committee occurred shortly after Republicans who control the legislature added the credit union conversion plan May 12 during Joint Finance Committee consideration of the proposed 2011-13 state budget.

The legislature later approved the budget and sent it to GOP Governor Scott Walker to sign into law. The Wisconsin Bankers Association also contributed $25,000 last August 12 to the Wisconsin Governors Association – another outside electioneering group – which spent $5 million in 2010 on negative broadcast ads and other electioneering activities to help elect Walker.

The Republican State Leadership Committee spent $935,726 in the 2010 elections to support GOP legislative candidates who won the majority in the Assembly and Senate. This spring, the group spent another $97,000 on a special election for a La Crosse area Assembly seat, as well as an undisclosed amount of money on 30-second television ads pushing the recall of two Democratic state senators.

In addition to its contributions to the two Republican outside electioneering groups, the Wisconsin Bankers Association – through individual and political action committee contributions – funneled $291,802 in 2009 and 2010 to candidates for statewide office and the legislature, including $56,286 to Walker.

Credit unions and other critics of the conversion proposal object to it for two reasons. First, it is one of dozens of non-spending policy items in tucked into the budget that should be dealt with in stand-alone legislation where it can be given more public scrutiny and legislative consideration. And on the merits of the plan, the group representing credit unions claims it’s an attempt to kill credit unions by making it easier and faster for a few organized members or directors to turn them into banks.

Supporters of the plan contend it isn’t a controversial measure and only streamlines conversions, which are already allowed.

Here's Some Targets For Walker's Veto Pen

For all the yammering by Republicans who control the legislature about keeping policy and other non-fiscal items out of the proposed 2011-2013 state budget, former state budget officer John Montgomery managed to assemble a lengthy digest of items - 11 pages worth - that Republican Governor Scott Walker should consider nixing with his veto pen when he signs the budget Sunday.

Most of the following items do not impact state spending or they have policy ramifications that deserve more public scrutiny and legislative consideration as stand-alone legislative proposals left to stand or fall on their own merits. Instead, legislators and special interests chock the budget full of items it shouldn't have because this is the only bill the legislature considers that must pass.

This time around, those items include major changes to health care access and eligibility, education policy and regulations governing insurers, financial institutions and the environment. Even beer is affected!

So grab a cold drink and a comfortable chair - it's a long list.

Selected Budget Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Legislature to the 2011-2013 State Budget Sent To Governor Scott Walker

Below are many of the changes made by the Joint Finance Committee and the Wisconsin Legislature to Governor Scott Walker’s proposed 2011-2013 state budget. These mostly non-fiscal items were gleaned from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s budget analyses and are listed by the relevant state agency.

Administration – Website Information on State Expenditures, Contracts and Grants – Beginning July 1, 2013, require all state agency expenditures of more than $100 including employee salary and fringe benefit expenses be included in an Internet searchable data base for use by the public. In addition, require all state agencies’ expenditures for grants and contracts to be on a similar website that will show the person receiving the grant or contract and the amount.

Administration – State Building Energy Efficiency Study – Require a study by December 1, 2011 of the feasibility of installing energy efficient heating and cooling systems in state-owned buildings. This type of review has been done previously.

Administration – Transfer State Relocation Unit – Transfer from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Administration, the state unit charged with resolving disputes when businesses must be relocated for state and local government projects.

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection – Transfer Dairy 2020 and Administration of Agriculture-Related Tax Credits – Transfer administration of certain 10% refundable tax credits from the Department of Revenue to Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Building Program – 2011-13 Facility Maintenance and Repair Projects – Authorize the Department of Administration to disburse up to $5 million in maintenance funds for state facility maintenance without approval of the State Building Commission.

Circuit Courts –Increase the Limit for Small Claims Actions – Increase from $5,000 or less to $10,000 or less, the amount that may be recovered in small claims court. This action also increases the threshold to $10,000 for claims against the state that must be paid through legislation passed by the Legislature.

Circuit Courts –Bail Bond Sureties and Licensing Requirements – Require that no person acting as a surety can be paid unless they are an agent of a surety insurance company, who must be compensated at 10% of the value of the bond. Surety corporations and agents must be licensed and regulated by the Department of Safety and Professional Services and pay an annual $1,000 fee for the surety to be compensated. Under current law sureties receive no compensation.

Employee Trust Funds –Wisconsin Retirement System Eligibility Requirements – Require that individuals first hired after the effective date of the bill work at least 2/3 of full-time employment rather than working the current 1/3 of full-time employment to be eligible for Wisconsin Retirement System benefits.

Employee Trust Funds –Study of Modifications to the State of Wisconsin Retirement System – Require a study by June 30, 2012 of the structure and benefits of the Wisconsin Retirement System, including providing a defined contribution plan option and permitting employees to not make employee-required contributions and limiting those employees to a money purchase annuity.

Employee Trust Funds –Study of Group Insurance Board Health Insurance Options – Require a study by October 31, 2011 on: a) offering eligible employees beginning January 1, 2013, a low-cost health coverage plan, a high deductible health plan, and a health savings account as defined under federal law; b) implementing a three-tiered health care premium structure for single employees, married couples with no dependents and married couples with dependents; c) providing by January 1, 2012, an on-line marketplace for pharmacy purchases as a supplement under the pharmacy benefits management plan; d) requiring state employees to receive their health care coverage through an exchange established under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010; and e) creating a health insurance purchasing pool for all state and local employees and individuals receiving care under the state’s Medicaid program.

Employee Trust Funds – Group Insurance Board Study of Certified Nurse Mid-Wife Benefits – Require a study by January 1, 2012 of the cost to use mid-wives to assist during at-home or at stand-alone birth centers.

Employment Relations Commission – Retirement Contributions for New Local Police and Fire-fighting Personnel and State Troopers and Motor Vehicle Inspectors – Prohibit municipal employers and the state from paying the employee retirement contribution for any such new employees hired after the effective date of the bill.

Employment Relations Commission –Memorandum Of Understanding to Collective Bargaining Agreements – Permit a local school district or state technical college district and a collective bargaining unit representative to use a memorandum of understanding to make changes to compensation and fringe benefits in a collective bargaining agreement that was entered into before February 11, 2011. The memorandum process may only be used to reduce salaries and benefits.

Employment Relations Commission –Police and Fire Personnel Arbitrations – Require that municipal economic conditions be given greatest weight in police and fire personnel arbitrations.

Employment Relations Commission –Design and Selection of Health Care Coverage for Municipal Safety Employees – Prohibit a municipality from bargaining over the design and selection of health care coverage plans for municipal safety employees.

Employment Relations Commission –Payment of Milwaukee Police Salaries and Benefits after Discharge – Require that fired Milwaukee Police officers receive their full salary and benefits while they appeal their dismissal, unless felony or class A or B misdemeanor charges are also brought against the officer for an offense related to the discharge.

Employment Relations Commission – Public Employee Collective Bargaining Modifications – Provide that the state’s compensation plan may include other provisions related to pay, benefits and working conditions that would supersede the provisions of the civil service and other statutes and rules promulgated by the Director of the Office of State Employment Relations and the Administrator of the Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection.

Financial Institutions –Permitted Methods of Calculating Interest on Loans – Specify that annual interest on a loan, bond or other financial transaction may be computed by using each day of interest as 1/360, rather than 1/365, if disclosed to the borrower. This would increase the interest paid by the borrower.

Financial Institutions –Conversion of a Credit Union to a Bank or Savings Bank – Permit a credit union to convert to either a state chartered bank or state chartered savings bank. Under current law a credit union may convert to a federally chartered credit union, but not a bank or savings bank.

Financial Institutions –Payday Loans– Repeal part of a 2009 law prohibiting a lender from charging interest on a loan that has matured. Permit a lender to use a credit report as a suitable way to verify a borrower’s income.

Financial Institutions –Motor Vehicle Title Loans – Repeal the current law prohibiting auto title loans in Wisconsin.

Financial Institutions –Affiliates of Financial Institutions – Specify that banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, trust companies and credit unions are not subject to the laws governing licensed lenders or paydays loans.

General Fund Taxes/Sales Taxes –Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Advertising and Promotional Direct Mail – Create an exemption beginning July 1, 2013, that is expected to cost $500,000 beginning in 2013-2014. This is an advance commitment that is not fully funded in the 2011-13 budget. . It also appears this exemption has not yet been reviewed by the Joint Survey Committee on State Tax Exemptions.

General Fund Taxes/Sales Taxes –Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Snowmaking and Snow Grooming Equipment – Create an exemption for the equipment, fuel and utilities for snowmaking and grooming beginning July 1, 2013. The exemption is expected to cost $150,000 beginning in 2013-14. This is an advance commitment that is not fully funded in the 2011-13 budget. It also appears this exemption has not yet been reviewed by the Joint Survey Committee on State Tax Exemptions.

General Fund Taxes/Sales Taxes –Weight-Based Taxation of Moist Snuff – Convert the current tax on moist snuff from a price-based tax that is 100% of the manufacturer’s list price to a weight-based tax rate of $1.76 per ounce. The provisions are not expected to change state tax revenues during 2011-13 but can be expected to reduce taxes on premium snuff brands and increase taxes on lower premium brands.

General Fund Taxes/Regulation of Alcohol Beverages –Three-Tiered Beer Laws – Create a single state permit to replace the current system which provides for a locally issued brewer’s permit, a state manufacturer’s license and a state wholesaler’s license.

General Fund Taxes/Regulation of Alcohol Beverages –Sales of Alcoholic Beverages at Movie Theatres – Authorize class B liquor license holders to sell beer in movie theatres they own.

General Provisions – Conduit Revenue Bond Commission/Public Finance Authority – Modify current municipal law in several areas including allowing proceeds of a bond to be used for one or more state projects as well as projects in other states.

General Provisions –Tenants in Foreclosure Actions – Repeal sections 704.35 and 846.35 of 2009 Wisconsin Act 2 that established renter protections in cases where landlords lose their apartment buildings in foreclosure actions.

General Provisions –Ronald W. Reagan Day – Designate February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day to honor the former President.

General Provisions –Payment of Chiropractic Fees – Require that unpaid fees owed to a chiropractor for services rendered to the victim of an auto accident shall be paid out of fees paid to the person’s attorney under certain conditions.

Government Accountability Board – Public Financing of Campaigns for Supreme Court Justice/Democracy Trust Fund – Eliminate the Democracy Trust Fund and the state income tax form check-off for the fund. Restore previous individual and committee campaign contribution limits for Supreme Court candidates.

Government Accountability Board –Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund – Eliminate the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund and income tax check-off for the fund and deposit the fund’s $940,900 balance in the general fund.

Government Accountability Board –Requiring Identification in Order to Vote – Appropriate $1,800,000 and create five two-year project positions to implement the provisions of 2011 Act 23 which requires identification to vote beginning in 2012.

Government Accountability Board –Reimbursement of Certain Local Election Administration Costs and Voter Identification Implementation – Delete the program which reimburses municipalities for cost of opening polling places at 7 a.m. and use the funds to pay for 2011 Act 23 which requires identification to vote beginning in 2012.

Government Accountability Board –Statements of Economic Interests – Increase the threshold from $1,000 to $10,000 when a statement filer needs to report the name of payers to a business from which the filer received income. Require that statements of economic interest filed by political appointees, candidates and officeholders may only be viewed and copied at the Government Accountability Board office in Madison.

Health Services/Medical Assistance Services – Family Planning Services Waiver – Eliminate family planning services for males and also require the state to request federal approval to require parental notification for family planning services provided to females under age 18. In addition, require the income of the family to be considered for eligibility purposes rather than the income of the minor.

Health Services/MA Administration and Foodshare – Centralize Administration of Income Maintenance Programs – Delete the governor’s proposal to consolidate all income maintenance programs and instead, require all counties except Milwaukee County to organize into consortia of not more than 10 counties to administer these programs.

Health Services/MA Administration and Foodshare –Study of Photo ID and Nutritional Food and Beverages – Study requiring Medical Assistance and Foodshare recipients to have a photo on their ID cards and that they purchase nutritional food and beverages.

Health Services/SSI and Public Health Funding –Family Planning Funding – Retain current state funding for the Family Planning program but rename the program the Women’s Health Block Grant program. Require that no grants from the program be made to organizations that provide abortions or abortion related services unless the abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life or the pregnancy was a result of a sexual assault. Require that women’s health funds only be distributed to public entities.

Higher Educational Aids Board –Minnesota/Wisconsin Tuition Reciprocity Expenditures – Direct the Board to renegotiate the agreement with Minnesota so that no tuition supplement will be paid to Minnesota by Wisconsin, and that Wisconsin students attending a Minnesota institution will no longer receive a supplement beginning in the 2012-2013 school year.

Insurance –Coverage Requirements for Dependents – Repeal current law so insurers are no longer required to provide dependent coverage to an insured individual’s adult child under the age of 27, and require coverage under the age of 26 to conform with the requirements under the federal Patients Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010. Repeal a current law that requires an insurer or a self-insured health plan to determine the premium for coverage of a dependent who is over 18 on the same basis as a dependent who is 18 or under.

Insurance –Aggregate Claims Data to Policyholders – Prohibit an insurer from changing the rating methodology between community rating and experience rating or otherwise penalizing a policyholder or employer for requesting aggregate group health claims experience.

Investment Board –Position and Budget Authority – Authorize the Investment Board director to create or abolish positions and the board to establish and monitor the budget for the agency. Require the board to report to the Joint Finance Committee quarterly on board expenditures and job actions.

Investment Board –Open Records Exemption – Exempt the board from open records requests for purchase or investment commissions, records related to investments made in or considered by the board in securities or entities that are in the venture capital stage.

Natural Resources/Stewardship Program –Stewardship Bonding for Dam Safety – Specify that the Department of Natural Resources set aside $6 million in stewardship bonding proceeds for the maintenance, repair or removal of county-owned dams ordered by the DNR. This provision reduces land acquisition funds by expanding the type of projects eligible to receive stewardship funds.

Natural Resources/Stewardship Program –Stewardship Bonding for the DATCP PACE Program – Require the DNR to set aside up to $5.2 million of stewardship bonding proceeds to pay for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection’s Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE) program. This program pays for conservation easements on private agricultural property so it cannot be developed. The money would be used to fund 16 projects identified by the agriculture department in 2010. This provision reduces land acquisition funds by expanding the type of projects eligible to receive program funds.

Natural Resources/Forestry and Parks –Copper Culture State Park – Earmark $25,000 from the parks account for facility repairs and upgrades at this park near Oconto and require two tourism directional signs be constructed on State Highway 41 near Oconto directing motorists to this park.

Natural Resources/Water Quality –Repeal and Recreate Non Point Source Pollution Performance Standards – Prohibit the DNR from enforcing any provision of an administrative rule governing nonagricultural runoff pollution control standards if the standard requires a reduction of more than 20% from no control for a municipality holding a Wisconsin pollution discharge permit.

Natural Resources/Water Quality –Water Use Fees – Provide that no person or municipality holding a water use permit would be required to pay more than $1,000 for all such permits. The current permit fee is $125 per water system but would now be capped at 8 times that amount regardless of what the fee would otherwise be for more than 8 systems. There are 24 persons that would otherwise be subject to higher fees.

Office of State Employment Relations –Pay Progression Plans for State Agency Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys) – Require the Wisconsin State Attorneys Association and the Director of the Office of State Employment Relations to develop a pay progression plan for attorneys covered by the state compensation plan on July 1, 2011 and beyond.

Public Defender –Public Defender Indigency Standard – Base the State Public Defender indigency standard on Wisconsin Works (W2) financial eligibility requirements for an employment position so that income above 115% of the federal poverty limit would exceed the limit for public defender representation.

Public Instruction –Delete Children at Risk Aid – Retain statutory authority for the current program but delete all funding for it. Also delete current language limiting school districts from contracting for more than 30% of the services purchased under this program. This action appears to retain children at risk provisions as a state school district educational standard but provides no specific funding for it while allowing more contracting for services to meet the standard.

Public Instruction –Milwaukee Parental Choice Program – Expand the number of students and schools allowed to participate in the program.Retain the current law requirement that choice schools continue to test pupils on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) but require DPI to calculate the percentage of students at each proficiency level for a choice school based on the number of students that actually completed the WKCE at each grade level in the school rather than based on the number of students enrolled at the school at that grade level.

Public Instruction –Racine Parental Choice Program – Create a parental choice program in Racine based on the Milwaukee school choice program as modified in the budget bill. In addition, allow school districts in cities of the second class to have a school choice program if certain conditions are met.

Public Instruction – Development of New Pupil Assessments – Require DPI to replace the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam with pupil assessments developed by the Smarter Balance Consortium or a similar entity. Require the new assessment be standards based, measure Common Core standards, facilitate a transition to online testing and allow for the results to be available within specific timeframes. These requirements may be so specific that they limit the selection to a specific test or testing company.

Public Instruction –Community Partnerships – Require the state to develop a plan to fund non-government organizations to partner with schools to serve as liaisons between students’ families and district staff, improve educational outcomes and teach greater self-sufficiency.

Public Instruction –Race-Based Nicknames, Logos, Mascots and Team Names – Deadlines for Compliance – Allow school districts under orders by the state school superintendent to change such names to delay the change until January 15, 2013.

Public Service Commission –Utility Contributions for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Resources – Effective January 1, 2012, prohibit the Public Service Commission from requiring any energy utility to spend more than 1.2% of their annual operating revenues on energy efficiency and renewable resource programs.

Safety and Professional Services –Building Code Changes that Increase the Cost of One and Two-Family Dwellings – Prohibit any rule that would increase the cost of constructing or remodeling a one- or two-family dwelling by more than $1,000 unless certain new procedures are followed involving economic impact analysis and additional legislative oversight.

Safety and Professional Services –Underground Storage Tank Regulations for Secondary Containment – Delay to December 31, 2020 implementation of an existing state rule requiring owners of existing underground storage tanks to have tank pipe connections within secondary containment sumps to contain possible spills.

Safety and Professional Services – Pharmacist Vaccinations to Children – Allow pharmacists to vaccinate individuals age 6 and older. Currently they may not vaccinate individuals under age 18.

Safety and Professional Services – Chiropractic Exams – Specify that an applicant for a chiropractic license would not have to complete an examination of the Chiropractic Examining Board until January 1, 2012.

Shared Revenue and Tax Relief –Property Tax Exemption for Student Housing – Repeal in 2013 a property tax exemption for a student housing facility in the city of Madison that meets certain criteria. This appears to be a very specific repeal of a very specific tax exemption.

Shared Revenue and Tax Relief –City of New Lisbon TIF District – Permit New Lisbon to amend a Tax Incremental Financing district during the second half of 2011. In addition, exempt the district from certain other state requirements for TIF districts, including the requirement that the valuation of all districts in a city not exceed 12% of the total equalized value in a city. Modifying TIF requirements in a budget bill is usually done to better enable a specific project to advance.

Supreme Court –Creation of Judicial Compensation Commission – Create a seven-member commission to study judicial compensation for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and circuit court judges. Require the study to be submitted by December 31, 2012, and require Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) review and approval of the recommendations, unless a majority of JCOER members do not want to approve or modify the recommendations. Require the Governor to fund the recommendations in his 2013-15 budget. It is unusual for a budget bill to contain a provision binding a governor to fund the recommendations of a study commission before the study is done. Also, proposing a study to raise the salaries of relatively high paid judges is inconsistent with how the salary and benefits of other public employees is being handled.

Transportation – Transportation Finance and Policy Commission – Create a 10-member Transportation Finance and Policy Commission to make recommendations by March 1, 2013 to the four legislative leaders and the governor on financing transportation programs.

Transportation – Repeal of Regional Transit Authorities – Repeal the authority of local governments to create the Chequamegon Bay RTA, Chippewa Valley RTA, Dane County RTA and Southeast Wisconsin RTA; eliminate state funding of those entities and their board’s ability to impose a sales or use tax; and dissolve the entities.

Transportation –Bidding Requirements for Highways and Other Improvement Projects – Restrict the ability of counties to use their employees for certain highway improvement projects.

Transportation –Minimum Service Hour Requirements for Division of Motor Vehicles Service Centers – Provide $6 million in 2011-12, $4 million in 2012-13 and 55 positions annually to ensure motor vehicle service centers in each county are open and staffed at least 20 hours per week. This budget provision is a result of a new law requiring citizens to show identification to vote.

Transportation – Eliminate License Plate Stickers – Delete the governor’s proposal to repeal the requirement for license plate expiration stickers. Require the Department of Transportation to report to the Joint Finance Committee on a proposal to have a third party issue redesigned stickers that would associate the sticker’s markings with the specific vehicle.

Transportation –Third Party Testing for Class D Drivers Licenses – Permit the Department of Transportation to contract with a third party, such as a driving school, to administer driving tests for class D non-commercial vehicle driver’s licenses. A driving school may not give a test to a student they have given instruction to.

University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority –Prohibit the Use of Public Funds to Pay for Abortion – Include the Authority in the definition of state agency so no public funds may be used to perform abortions except as specified in current state law.

University of Wisconsin System –Allow 5.5% Increases in Resident Undergraduate Tuition – Cap undergraduate tuition increases to not more than 5.5% in 2011-12 and 2012-13 except for any differential tuition increases approved prior to June 1, 2011.

University of Wisconsin System –WISCNET – Federal Broadband Grant Funding – Telecommunications Services – Modify current law to allow the UW to be a member of WiscNet under certain conditions including not reselling any telecommunications services not provided to the general public before June 15, 2011 unless the UW’s involvement is related to university research. Prohibit the UW from being part of any entity that resells telecommunications services after July 1, 2013.

University of Wisconsin System – Liability Protections for Scientific Researchers – Provide that current law provisions regarding crimes against animals do not apply to UW researchers doing experiments with animals for research that is regulated by federal law.
University of Wisconsin System –Budgeting and Operational Flexibilities – Modify current state law to create a series of budgeting and operational flexibilities to the UW including:

1. Fund the UW system with state block grants for operations and for debt service which would be allocated to individual campuses by the Board of Regents.


2. Maintain current separate appropriations for the UW System Administration, the Lab of Hygiene and the veterinary diagnostic lab, and delete all other appropriations.


3. Authorize the Board of Regents to develop a supplemental pay plan for UW faculty and staff in addition to any developed by the Office of State Employment Relations.


4. Authorize the Board of Regents to create a new personnel system for all UW employees.


5. Create two new bargaining units for UW System and UW Madison employees except faculty and academic staff.


6. Provide that the Board of Regents and the UW Madison would have the authority to create new positions from all funding sources except the block grants.


7. Modify current law to exempt UW employees from receiving only up to $12,000 from outside income sources.


8. Exempt the UW System from requiring Building Commission approval for projects costing less than $500,000 which are funded entirely from gifts and grants.


9. Require the UW system to prepare annual accountability reports to the governor and legislature on several issues, including: academic performance of students; finances, access and affordability; undergraduate education; graduate and professional education; faculty; economic development; and collaboration.


10. Create a 17 member Task Force on UW System Flexibilities to review and report by January 1, 2012 on newly provided flexibility measures and ways to provide additional flexibility.

Workforce Development –Child Labor – Modify current law to end most restrictions on when persons under 18 may work, except that they may not work when they are required to be in school. The changes generally conform state law to federal laws for minors under 16, and would eliminate most restrictions for minors 16 and older.

Workforce Development –Prevailing Wage – Modify current law requiring payment of prevailing wages. Exempt a proposed nursing home in a county with less than 50,000 residents from the law if ground is broken within one year of the bill’s effective date; raise project cost thresholds for when prevailing wages must be paid; and prohibit local ordinances from conflicting with these changes.

Workforce Development – Unemployment Insurance Benefits Drug Test – Specify that if an unemployment claimant or an employee refuses to take a drug test, the person would be prohibited from receiving unemployment under the suitable work provision.

Walker's Law And The First Amendment

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court's current interpretation of the First Amendment is correct or not, it does – for the time being anyway – represent the law of the land. By the Supreme standard articulated in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the union-busting bill passed by the Wisconsin Legislature and signed into law by Governor Scott Walker is unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

To this day nearly every news story about the legislation includes a line about how the governor claims it was needed to balance the budget. But Walker has publicly acknowledged on more than one occasion – including congressional testimony – that the law isn't about budget balancing and doesn't save the state any money. In an infamous recorded telephone conversation, he made it clear it's about breaking unions.

Indeed, the law will do just that. The law not only requires annual union certification elections. It requires a majority of all bargaining unit members to recertify the union, not just a majority of those who attend the annual meeting. Can you imagine what would happen if all our elections were conducted that way? If it were no longer enough just to get the most votes but instead candidates needed to win the support of a majority of all eligible voters, hardly anyone would ever be elected to any public office in this country.

Forced to jump through this hoop year after year, it is a foregone conclusion that some unions will at some point fail and will be decertified. Those that repeatedly survive will still be badly weakened because of new restrictions the law places on how unions may raise money from their members.

This is where the First Amendment comes in. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and, most recently in Citizens United, ruled that any limit on election spending by corporations chills their speech and is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy proclaimed that the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restriction on corporate election spending “permits the Government to ban the political speech of millions of associations of citizens" and said "(m)ost of these are small corporations without large amounts of wealth." Kennedy went on to call it "censorship" that was "vast in its reach."

Kennedy continued: "By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests."

He further wrote, "The purpose and effect of this law is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public" and went on to say "certain disfavored associations of citizens – those that have taken on the corporate form – are penalized for engaging in . . . political speech."

All of which led to this conclusion: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."

Walker's law is vast in its reach. Its purpose and effect is to use the full power of state government to kneecap certain disfavored associations of citizens. It hinders their ability to raise funds to engage in political speech.

By the U.S. Supreme Court's own line of reasoning, Walker's law is censorship. It is unlawful. It violates the First Amendment.

Skunky Plan Threatens Good Beer

Special interests that support a legislative proposal to prohibit beer makers from owning distributorships contributed more than $937,000 in the last two years to candidates for statewide office and the legislature but small brewers say it’s meant to hurt their business.

Those backing the plan inserted into the proposed 2011-2013 state budget include MillerCoors, liquor distributors, the state’s powerful tavern league, convenience stores and grocers. They claim the measure is meant to prevent the nation’s No. 1 brewer – St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch – from buying up liquor distributors in Wisconsin and stifling competition.

But the state’s small, specialty breweries says it’s a skunky plan aimed at making it harder to sell their products. Small beer brewers have done well in recent years under the current system at the expense of major brewers, they say.

Leading the list of the plan’s supporters were liquor distributors who contributed $350,287 in 2009 and 2010 to all candidates for statewide office and the legislature. Present legislators got $170,146 from the wholesale liquor industry.

Trade groups representing convenience stores and grocers contributed $319,865 to all statewide and legislative candidates, including $107,242 to current legislators, in 2009-2010.

The tavern industry contributed $201,850 to all legislative and statewide candidates, including $104,230 to current legislators, and MillerCoors doled out $65,167 to all candidates including $9,270 to current legislators.

The plan could be removed when the Assembly or Senate consider the proposed state budget later this month. Barring that, Republican Governor Scott Walker could veto it.

Walker did not include the liquor plan in the original 2011-2013 budget proposal he sent to the legislature, however, he did receive $224,000 in campaign contributions in 2009 and 2010 from the special interests that support it, including $125,024 from tavern, convenience store and grocer interests, $74,101 from liquor wholesalers and $24,875 from MillerCoors executives.

Drawing A Redder Wisconsin

As I've said before, Wisconsin is not a Republican red state or a Democratic blue state. It is purple. Republicans currently hold five of the eight U.S. House seats, but Barack Obama carried seven of the eight in the last presidential election. Only the suburban Milwaukee area's 5th district went for John McCain.

Republicans will have to draw some fancy congressional lines just to maintain their 5-3 edge in the House delegation, but it's definitely doable. Fairly minor tweaks to the 1st district in the southeastern corner and the lower Fox Valley's 6th could turn them into marginal McCain districts. Rest assured they also will try making the 7th district in the central and northwestern parts of the state into one that perhaps would never elect John McCain but might keep around Sean Duffy.

If they want to get really flagrant about gerrymandering, it's even possible to create a solid 6-2 Republican advantage for U.S. House seats. But it would take a map like this one, with Madison represented by the same member of Congress as the Apostle Islands.

This is a preposterous map, but it is a testimony to what is possible by means of partisan gerrymandering.

The mere fact that such political mischief is conceivable is reason enough for Wisconsin to move to a system of nonpartisan redistricting along the lines of the system already in place in Iowa.

The nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau or the Government Accountability Board or both agencies together could draw the lines. And there could be a requirement added to state law compelling the map drawers to maximize the political competitiveness of the districts.

We would then have voters choosing their representatives instead of the other way around. We would be drawing a better Wisconsin, not a redder or bluer one.

Swapping Clean Elections For Voter Suppression

Members of the Legislature's budget writing committee voted yesterday to eliminate any public financing of state elections and use the funds instead for implementation of the new law requiring a photo ID to vote in Wisconsin.

In effect, they are handing the keys to elections entirely over to wealthy special interests and using the money from the public financing program to fund the scheme to make it more difficult to vote.

In defending the action, committee chairman Robin Vos said, "I want the money to go through the candidates. I want them to go to the people and ask for $5, $10 or even $100."

Or $500 . . . the maximum amount an Assembly member like Robin Vos can legally accept. The amount Vos got from KochPAC. And from the Tavern Industry PAC. And General Electric PAC. And Pfizer PAC and a bunch of others. Or $250 . . . the amount Vos took from Walmart's WAL-PAC and six other industry PACs.

Everyone – even Luther Olsen, one of the senators facing recall – knows what having money "go through the candidates" gets us.

A quick glance at the list of donors to Robin Vos brings into sharp focus what it really means when it is suggested that he and his colleagues "go to the people" and ask for money.

Opponents of public financing like Vos are fond of saying that taxpayer participation in the income tax check-off that funds the program is a referendum on the system, and that it has been rejected by the citizenry considering that only 4.2% of taxpayers opted to give money to the public campaign fund via their tax returns in 2009.

The likes of Robin Vos don't realize it, but in claiming that check-off participation is a valid measure of support for public financing, they are unwittingly calling attention to how much citizens must despise them. After all, the percentage of people giving money to candidates through the check-off is something on the order of five times greater than the proportion of the population that donates privately to office seekers.

'An Easier Way'

Quoting Senator Luther Olsen:

"Money flows freely all the time. So it does play a part in politics. I've seen it. I understand that folks who contribute have an easier way to get to the leadership."

The 5% Solution

I've written and spoken often about the fact that less than 1 percent of the population of Wisconsin pays for the election campaigning in state-level contests. It's the same story at the federal level.

If our state and nation would commit to policies aimed at significantly boosting that percentage it would be game changing. It could revolutionize politics. Elected officials could say no to wealthy special interests and still find a path to reelection by getting enough donations of modest size to replace the large contributions they would lose.

It wouldn't be necessary to get half of the population or a quarter or even a tenth to start donating to political candidates in order to have a landscape-altering impact. Five percent would do. Five percent of the population making contributions of no more than $100 could collectively match or exceed the total amount given by the tiny segment of society giving vastly larger sums. Five percent of the population making modest political donations could free elected representatives from the clutches of the wealthy special interests that now control everything.

The point can be illustrated using national campaign contribution figures for 2009 and 2010. In that two-year election cycle, one quarter of 1% of Americans made political donations large enough to itemize; that is, big enough for federal law to require that the donors be identified. Those donors – a hair shy of 819,000 people out of the nation's estimated population of nearly 311 million – doled out just under $1.6 billion. That's an average donation of almost $2,000. Roughly the same amount of money would be generated if 5 percent of the 311 million, or about 15.5 million people, made contributions averaging $100.

Creating incentives for small-dollar giving is central to the Democracy Campaign's Ending Wealthfare proposal. We could have just as well called it The 5% Solution. Or One Way Out of the Trap We're In.

Designing Division

If it looks to you like elected officials can't work across party lines to save their lives – or the country – that's because they aren't working across party lines. By design.

Partisanship is growing more intense and extreme in our government, that's an undeniable fact. The reasons for the increasing polarization of our politics are many and they are complex, but there is one very powerful reason that is usually overlooked. The way legislative and congressional districts are drawn.

Wisconsin is not a Republican red state, or a Democratic blue state. It is purple. Recent statewide elections decided by razor-thin margins show that clearly. Yet most of our congressional districts are either bright red or brilliant blue. They are so tilted in favor of one party or the other that we rarely see competitive elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Before the last round of redistricting after the 2000 census, most of the U.S. House districts already were politically lopsided. But when the new boundaries were drawn the powers-that-be took good care of the incumbent office holders, making two districts even safer for them than they were before. The 1st and 2nd congressional districts were manipulated to give both Democratic congresswoman Tammy Baldwin and Republican congressman Paul Ryan an even easier path to reelection and and even tighter grip on power.

Baldwin’s district was made more urban, taking from Ryan's the Democratic stronghold of Beloit and shedding rural, Republican-leaning counties. Ryan got rid of the part of Rock County containing Beloit but kept his hometown of Janesville while his district expanded into Waukesha County, one of the most Republican parts of the state.

At the state legislative level, the lack of competitive districts is equally conspicuous. Of the 132 legislative districts, no more than about two dozen can regularly be expected to produce elections that are remotely close. This in a state that is as purple as any in the country, where the electorate is as evenly divided as they come.

The result is that those who are elected to represent bright red Republican districts only have to be good at preaching the GOP gospel. And those chosen in vivid blue Democratic districts only have to be skilled at spewing liberal dogma. We get exactly what Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel documented. More extreme partisanship. Lots of hot air . . . ideologically pure hot air. Lockstep, party-line voting. Political paralysis. Huge problems left unsolved. A nation spinning its wheels when there is no time to waste.

One step Wisconsin and all of America need to take is removing politics from redistricting. With politicians in charge of designing their own districts, we have the foxes guarding the chicken coop, the inmates in charge of the asylum, pick your metaphor. We need to take this task out of the hands of the politicians and give it to a nonpartisan agency or commission. Then we'll get more districts that aren't so red or blue. And we'll get more elected representatives who can work across party lines.

Enemies Of The State

Restricted access to the State Capitol is in its third month now. All the doors at six of the eight ground-floor entrances to the building remain locked during normal business hours. The two that are open change periodically. Visitors wandering outside searching for an unlocked door have become a common sight.

Once you find one of the unlocked entrances, yellow crime scene tape herds you through a security checkpoint complete with a walkthrough scanner. This morning there were five uniformed officers at one of the checkpoints, standing there with nothing to do as traffic coming into the building was exceptionally light. A dubious use, to say the least, of state patrol personnel at a time when we are told the state is broke.

The waste of taxpayer money aside, exactly what threat is this tight security guarding against? The scene at the Capitol this morning was positively tranquil. Even at the height of mass demonstrations in February and early March, there were no legitimate security concerns. Protesters were remarkably civil and peaceful. They also were respectful – bordering on reverential – of the Capitol grounds. There was nary a scratch to be seen on the building's innards or on its exterior walls. The administration lied about the cost of repairing damage.

In the 30 years I have worked in or around the Capitol, I have seen tightened security only once before and that was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Even then, both the manpower and technology employed paled in comparison to what we are seeing now. And the duration of the heightened state of alert after 9/11 was much more brief than today's.

What state of emergency exists to justify continued restriction of public access to the people's house? Why are ordinary taxpaying citizens still being made to feel like enemies of the state when visiting their own State Capitol?

If nothing else, a locked-down Capitol building is a fitting metaphor. After all, those elected to represent us there are moving at breakneck speed this week to ram through a new law that, in the name of security, will make it a little more difficult for all of us to vote and a lot more difficult for some.

Those most burdened by a new requirement to produce photo identification in order to exercise the right to vote include the elderly, the young, the poor and racial minorities. According to New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, 11 percent of U.S. citizens – more than 21 million people – do not have government-issued photo identification. Both senior citizens and young people are significantly less likely to possess photo ID. Eighteen percent of citizens over the age of 65 and between the ages of 18 and 24 do not.

According to the Brennan Center's findings, 15 percent of people earning less than $35,000 a year lack a valid government-issued photo ID. And African Americans are three times less likely than whites to have such identification. Twenty-five percent of African American voting-age citizens do not have a photo ID compared to only 8 percent of white voting-age citizens.

As with the Capitol lockdown, the push for voter ID begs the question: Exactly what threat is this security measure guarding against? By any measure, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in Wisconsin, nearly to the point of being nonexistent. There have been only a handful of documented cases in Wisconsin, and not one has involved the kind of identity fraud that a photo ID requirement could presumably prevent.

What state of emergency exists to justify this discriminatory restriction of public access to the ballot box? Why should ordinary taxpaying citizens be made to feel like enemies of the state when visiting their polling place?

Ahead To The Past

We are living through what I have described as the third stage of ownership in American politics, as I've written a time or two before.

At the start of the American experiment, the instruments of social control and the way the ruling class kept political power in the hands of a very few were slavery and disenfranchisement. You had to be a white, male property owner to have a vote and thus a voice. At the time that whittled the electorate down to about 10% of the nation's population. That was the first stage of ownership.

It took a civil war, but eventually the abolitionists won and slavery was ended. The suffragettes won too after decades of struggle, and the right to vote was extended to nearly all of the adult population. That did not mean the ruling class was about to surrender control and relinquish power. In slavery's place they put Jim Crow. When women and former slaves got the vote, they moved on to voter suppression. Poll taxes. Literacy tests. The second stage of ownership.

The women's rights, voting rights and civil rights movements brought to an end legal segregation and the second-stage voter suppression tactics. Prompting the ruling class to embark on the design and construction of a third stage of ownership. One of the first telltale signs of what was emerging was the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo radically reinterpreting the First Amendment (which was 185 years old at the time) to equate money and speech. Goodbye "free speech," hello "fee speech." What has been designed and built is a political marketplace where meaningful participation is prohibitively expensive for all but a very few in our society. This is the new instrument of social and political control. The wicked genius of this design is that the primary weapon of the third stage is called a donation. A gift. Makes social and political control sound downright philanthropic.

This is not to say there are not remnants of the earlier stages that remain with us. The current push to require a photo ID in order to vote is a throwback to the second stage. Requiring voters to show photo identification to cast a ballot would be a very modest inconvenience for most of us. It creates another hoop to jump through on election day and might make some lines at polling places a bit longer. But it will make voting much more difficult for three classes of people – the poor, the elderly and students.

More than a few poor people can't afford a car and don't drive, and as a result many haven't bothered to get a driver's license. Poor people also tend to be more mobile than the general population. This is particularly true of course for the homeless. Even if they do drive, the chances are far greater that their current address is not on their driver's license. Having a driver's license would do them no good when it comes to voting.

A photo ID law for voting would have a similarly discriminatory impact on many seniors. As their eyesight and reflexes have deteriorated, they've given up driving and stopped renewing their driver's permits.

Same story for students, another highly mobile population. I was speaking in a class on the UW-Platteville campus and asked how many students have a driver's license with their current address on it. Fewer than half raised their hands.

If the current version of the Wisconsin photo ID bill passes, those without a valid photo ID with their current address on it would have a problem when it comes to voting. They would have to go to a Division of Motor Vehicles office and get an updated driver's license or go to some other government agency to get a different state-issued ID card.

It should be noted that not every county in Wisconsin has a DMV office. So for some, securing a right to vote will mean paying to travel to another county. And if you need your birth certificate to prove you are who you say you are for the purposes of getting that state-issued ID and don't happen to have a copy handy, you'll have to go to yet another government office and pay for one. These are poll taxes, folks.

It should be further noted that the way the bill is written, students wouldn't be able to use their student IDs. Never mind these are photo IDs issued by a state government agency. Nope, if they don't have a driver's license with their current address on it, they'll have to go to the trouble to get yet another form of photo identification.

The political motivations behind the discriminatory treatment of poor people, seniors and students are obvious. So is the fact that this bill effectively calls for poll taxation, one of the second stage of ownership's crudest and most vile instruments of political control.

The Real Debate Over How To Pick Judges

Less than a week ago, the Wisconsin State Journal published the latest in a three-year-long string of editorials calling for Wisconsin to stop electing judges. This came just over a week after the newspaper ran an editorial headlined "Wisconsin Supreme Court elections must go."

The State Journal started its editorial crusade in support of "merit selection" of judges in January 2008 and has been devoting copious amounts of ink to the topic ever since. A Google search for "Wisconsin State Journal and merit selection" a few moments ago produced 57,400 results. There has been a steady stream of editorials with headlines like "Judicial elections are a ruse" and "Let merit replace mud in Wisconsin Supreme Court selection process" and "Keep partisan politics off the court" and "Restore public's trust in court."

The real ruse is the idea that merit selection will remove politics from judicial selection. Under a merit selection system, a nominating commission is established. The commission reviews applicants and the commission's selection is appointed, usually by the governor. Then after the appointee has served in office for a period of time, a "retention election" is held to allow voters to decide whether the appointed judge should remain on the bench.

Where merit selection has been put in place, it has been far from free of politics. Missouri's nominating commission has come under attack for being too partisan, too easily manipulated by legal insiders, as well as insufficiently diverse and consequently unfair to minority applicants. And retention elections look conspicuously like plain old every day judicial elections. You need look no further than Iowa for evidence of that.

Another real ruse is that merit selection is remotely doable in our state. More than three years worth of editorials has moved the public policy debate in Wisconsin over judicial selection not one inch. Amending the state constitution is necessary to move to the system the State Journal favors. That is a years-long process requiring the approval of state lawmakers in two successive sessions of the Legislature, and then voter approval in a statewide referendum. There have been no votes in either house of the Legislature on a proposed constitutional amendment establishing merit selection for judges in the three years since the State Journal started campaigning for it. That's because not a single legislator in either party has been willing to even introduce such an amendment.

One former member of the Assembly, Mark Gottlieb of Port Washington, did introduce a proposed constitutional amendment calling for appointment of Supreme Court justices. But Gottlieb didn't propose merit selection, he called for members of the state's highest court to be directly appointed by the governor. The proposal went nowhere and Gottlieb is no longer in the Legislature.

There is a reason why neither Republican nor Democratic legislators are calling for a constitutional amendment ending judicial elections. They know voters of every stripe oppose it. Even if lawmakers did approve such an amendment and then return two years later and approve it again, the voters would not ratify it. The politicians know the path to merit selection leads nowhere.

In a very thoughtful New York Times commentary published this week two law professors, one at Hofstra and the other at the University of California in Irvine, state the obvious: judicial elections are here to stay.

Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges. For more than a quarter of a century, voters in state after state have rejected switching from electing judges to appointing them. Just last year, despite a campaign led by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Nevada voters became the latest to reject such a change.

Look, judicial selection is inherently political. Appointing judges does not take politics out of the process, it only removes the voters. The highest appointed court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, also easily qualifies as one of the nation's most politicized.

Instead of spinning our wheels arguing over whether it's better to appoint or elect judges, we should accept that we've been electing judges in Wisconsin for over 150 years and we will be electing them 150 years from now. The real question is whether future elections will look like they did for the better part of a century and a half in Wisconsin or instead resemble the auctions we've had for state Supreme Court since 2007.

The sooner we can get down to the business of answering that question, the better off we'll be.

Who Pays The Fare Rides The Train

Talk about bad timing. On Monday Governor Scott Walker announced $25.5 million in state grants for freight rail upgrades in Wisconsin. That same day Wisconsin & Southern Railroad's CEO William Gardner was criminally charged with making illegal campaign donations, many of them to Walker's campaign. Over half of the state grants go to – you guessed it – Wisconsin & Southern Railroad.

Walker has been all over the board on rail issues. As a member of the Assembly he voted for Tommy Thompson's 1993 state budget proposal to commit $50 million to kickstart the development of passenger rail from Madison to Milwaukee or Milwaukee to Green Bay. He also supported Thompson’s 1997 state budget plan exempting passenger train projects from the normal state bidding process.

That was before he got religion. And the financial backing of the road builders.

Upon becoming governor he rejects $810 million in federal funds earmarked for a Milwaukee-to-Madison passenger rail project, insisting the money be used for road improvements instead. Then he applies for some of the federal funds he just turned down to make upgrades to Amtrak's Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha line. Sheesh, this train ride is making all of us dizzy.

Now Walker is doling out more than $25 million in new state subsidies for railroad companies, nearly $14 million of which is being steered to the company run by the wealthy donor who is pleading guilty to felony campaign money laundering charges.

Now this train ride is making us sick.

Wisconsin's No-Win Scenario

After all hell broke loose in Wisconsin in mid-February I wrote that of all the paths our state government could take, the one chosen was the most polarizing and divisive imaginable, a path that leads to "ripping Wisconsin in two."

As it turns out, almost exactly in two.

I also wrote back in February that it was easy to see how Scott Walker wins in all this, but harder to see how Wisconsin could emerge victorious. As of this morning it has become infinitely more difficult for even Walker's most ardent supporters to find plausible grounds to declare him a winner, regardless of the eventual outcome of the inevitable ballot recount.

Seven weeks ago, hardly anyone knew who JoAnne Kloppenburg was. David Prosser was coming off a resounding primary election win, outpolling Kloppenburg by a whopping 30-point margin. Kloppenburg had never held public office. Had never even run for one before. Prosser was a 13-year Supreme Court incumbent with a political career spanning more than three decades. Yet the general election turned out to be a photo finish.

Yes, some of Prosser's wounds were self inflicted. Even those who endorsed him did so in some of the most heavily caveated terms ever seen. But his biggest wound was opened by Scott Walker.

What's known for sure at the moment is that much remains unknown, including which of the candidates will end up sitting on the state Supreme Court for the next 10 years. What's certain is that a lot of lawyers will be very busy and will be getting a lot richer in the weeks to come, that conspiracy theories about ballot box stuffing and voting irregularities will abound, and that partisans on both sides will be more or less perpetually overheated.

Against this backdrop, we all are left to puzzle over how anything resembling a consensus on how to move Wisconsin ahead can possibly be reached in this totally polarized and completely divided state. For the time being anyway, any attempt to quench the citizenry's thirst for a way forward will involve dipping from a thoroughly poisoned well.

Speech Nazis

The second century of the American experiment was just coming to a close and the First Amendment was 185 years old when the U.S. Supreme Court radically reinterpreted the meaning of free speech. In 1976 the court ruled that money is speech.

Having legislated from the bench that money talks, the nation's highest and most activist court dictated early last year that money can talk as much as it wants. No limit can be placed on election spending by corporations and other interest groups.

Now the Supremes have an Arizona public financing law in their sights. Judging from this week's oral arguments, it's certainly possible if not likely that the court will strike down a key component of the law as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. It's a foregone conclusion that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas will vote to invalidate the law approved by Arizona voters back in 1998. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan seem likely to uphold it. The law's fate rests with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said he is "tempted" to strike it down.

If the court does indeed do that, it will be effectively ruling that not only does money talk and not only can it talk as much as it wants, but any effort by the public to enable those who are not well-endowed financially to get a word in edgewise violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

As Jerry Seinfeld would say, we are entering Bizarro World. When it comes to free speech, the United States Supreme Court seems poised to take us to a place where up is down and everything is opposite of what common sense tells you.

Arizona's law bans no speech. It places no restriction of any kind on any sort of speech. If candidates or interest groups are speaking, the law enables others to speak too. It creates more speech. But by the Bizarro logic that five of the nine Supreme Court justices seem to be applying to the situation, creating more speech infringes free speech.

The First Amendment is 45 words long. It does not say money is speech. Nowhere does the word money appear. Nowhere does it say a state cannot take steps to prevent politicians from being bought and our government from being owned. The money-is-speech doctrine does not come from an act of Congress or any state law. It is a judicial invention.

Nowhere in those 45 words does it say that corporations are people. In fact, the word corporation does not appear a single time in the entire U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments. The money-can-talk-all-it-wants doctrine granting corporations free speech rights and allowing unlimited corporate spending on elections cannot be found in the text of the Constitution or the First Amendment, and it does not owe its origins to an act of Congress or any state law. It is another judicial invention.

These unelected judges-for-life are now working on the completion of an unholy trinity in campaign finance jurisprudence. Money talks. Money can talk as much as it wants. Money should do all the talking. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that speech is a privilege that must be purchased at great expense. Nowhere in our founding documents or in the law does it say it is impermissible to try to establish a more level playing field in elections by enabling those who are not outlandishly wealthy to be heard. For the court's current five-member to say so would be the latest judicial invention.

Sleaze Begets Sleaze

Hate begets hate. Violence begets violence. Words variously attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Words inspired by scripture. Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52. Words thrown into sharp relief by the current race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Justice David Prosser has responded angrily to what he calls a "despicable ad" aired by a shadowy front group known as the Greater Wisconsin Committee. Prosser is correct. The ad is despicable.

He also claimed it is "the worst ad that has ever been run in a judicial campaign." Now that is a real stretch. It's vile, but when it comes to taking liberties with the truth, Greater Wisconsin's ad isn't nearly as bad as Michael Gableman's Willie Horton ad. When it comes to cynically playing on fear of crimes against children, this one is no worse than the lurid ad the state teachers union sponsored a few years ago. Then there were the hit jobs by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, including the infamous "Loophole Louie" ad and another that twisted the facts in the so-called "letter from the grave" case beyond recognition. Greater Wisconsin Committee is up against stiff competition in the sleaziest ad category.

David Prosser has every reason to be upset. There's no excuse for the kind of raw sewage this group is slinging in his direction. Just as there is no excusing Prosser for letting Gableman off the hook for telling an outright lie in what likely does qualify as the worst ad ever run in a judicial campaign in Wisconsin. What goes around comes around. Prosser allowed slime to go around without consequence. Now it has come around and he's been slimed.

Big Biz's Non-Denial Denial

Organized boycotts of companies that supported Governor Scott Walker's election are unquestionably giving some businesses around the state a bad case of heartburn. So bad that Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce was moved to condemn the actions, and the state car dealers' association sent their members a script on how to respond to angry customers.

Boycott websites like this one and Facebook pages including one with nearly 23,000 followers as of today are directing people to our website to see who donated to Walker. Traffic to wisdc.org has spiked dramatically with nearly 9 million hits to the site in just the last six weeks. In 2009 we had 3.2 million hits the whole year, which was by far the most we'd ever seen in a odd-numbered year.

Businesses that have become targets of boycotts are singing from a common hymnal in defending themselves. Their stock answer is to say individuals employed by their companies may have donated to Walker, but the companies themselves didn't. In most cases, that statement is true, as far as it goes. But it's what Woodward and Bernstein used to call a non-denial denial.

A business claiming it has not directly contributed to a candidate in Wisconsin out of its corporate coffers is not saying much. It has been illegal for corporations to give directly to candidates for over 100 years, and it remains illegal today. But companies can and some do establish political action committees (PACs) for the purpose of making campaign donations. Like KochPAC and M&I Political Awareness Fund.

Then there are the individual donations. Business leaders base their response to boycotts on a claim that company employees make their own decisions about campaign contributions and are free to support whoever they please. But if you look at the timing of individual donations by employees of a particular company – like, say, Kwik Trip – it's amazing how often you see a bunch of contributions all come in at the same time. If these employees are all making their own decisions, then how is it that they so frequently write checks to the same candidate on the same day? The unmistakable pattern that emerges when you follow the money makes it obvious that top executives and managers are doing the bidding of their companies.

Finally, there's one more pertinent piece of information some businesses aren't volunteering when they say they shouldn't be boycotted because they didn't financially back Scott Walker. Namely the sizeable donations they made to non-candidate committees and front groups that used the money to sponsor advertising supporting Walker. Koch Industries made $43,000 worth of donations directly to Walker's campaign through its PAC. But the company also gave $1 million to the national Republican Governors Association, which spent $5 million on advertising to help elect Walker. Kwik Trip chipped in $25,000 to the RGA. Top execs at Menard's gave a lot directly to candidates, but the company also sent the RGA $25,000.

The Great Recession's Great Divide

I've never seen people in Wisconsin more divided politically than right now. Our elected officials are hopelessly polarized, but we need to come to terms with the fact that it's because the people they represent are just as polarized.

Two messages that showed up in my e-mail inbox within minutes of each other yesterday were vivid reflections of that polarity.

One said "I looked at your website and unfortunately, your claim to be non-partisan must only mean you don't include political parties. Your (website) speaks loudly for who you really are – pure liberal and leftist. Why lie about who you are? Oh wait...that's an attempt to mask yourself in a cloak of darkness so the 'un-thinkers' of the world only see your false face. Such poor behavior."

The other said "I counted 8 articles written about Scott Walker in the last 6 years on your blog. Maybe there were more, but I didn’t see them when I did a search on your site. And I found 91 articles which were less than flattering about Governor Jim Doyle. (T)he propensity to attack a Democrat and not attack a Republican so much is a little questionable here. So, do you really think you made things 'better' by making it easier to get Democrats to switch over and vote for Walker? I don't. You might want to consider that, the next time you work at being 'neutral.'"

With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Or maybe, at this moment of foul moods, there's no pleasing much of anyone.

The First Recall Election

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

David Prosser is a partisan. Started out as an aide to a Republican congressman. Went on to serve as a Republican district attorney. Then as a longtime Republican assemblyman. Eventually became speaker of the house. Was appointed to the officially nonpartisan Supreme Court by his friend Tommy Thompson, both a reward for Prosser's years of labor for their party and salve on the wound opened when he lost his bid for a seat in Congress to a TV anchorman.

While on the bench Prosser agreed to be a character witness for his friend Scott Jensen. And he carried water for key GOP backers Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, allowing the two groups to write new judicial ethics rules permitting Wisconsin judges to rule on cases involving their biggest campaign supporters.

Prosser hired a Republican operative to run his reelection campaign, and when Scott Walker was elected governor, Prosser's campaign was eager to hitch his wagon to Walker's. The campaign issued a statement saying that, if reelected, Prosser would serve as a complement to the new governor and his allies in the Legislature.

As Walker's push to strip public workers of their bargaining rights whipped up into a political firestorm, Prosser has tried to back away from his campaign's statement. But he undercut his attempt to distance himself in recent days when he told newsman Bill Lueders that he has "the most partisan background of any member of the court" and both parroted Walker's message and seemed to give the governor friendly advice by saying it is "imperative that the state get its fiscal house in order (and) send a message that this is a great place to do business. (And) it would seem to me that the governor makes his strongest case when he can show a linear relationship between the proposal he makes and our fiscal situation."

Them's fightin' words to those inflamed by Walker's union-busting actions and Robin Hood-in-reverse budget plan. Walker's opponents see a linear relationship between the governor and Justice Prosser, and they see it because Prosser himself has gone to great lengths to make it plainly apparent. April 5 will be the first opportunity for those who have been marching in mass and circulating recall petitions and boycotting business donors to voice their displeasure through the ballot box. Making the election for the supposedly nonpartisan Supreme Court a very partisan referendum on Scott Walker and his allies. Making it the first recall election.

Justice Prosser's Scott Problem

Next month's state Supreme Court election got a lot more interesting in the last two weeks. On the surface the contest is between sitting Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg and will decide whether the conservative faction on the high court maintains its majority or control of the court swings to the left. But with historic demonstrations erupting over Governor Scott Walker's union-busting "budget repair" bill, this election will be more than anything a referendum on Walker.

Prosser has a Scott problem, to put it mildly. In announcing last December that he was hiring a Republican operative to run his reelection campaign, Prosser made no bones about the fact that he sees himself as a teammate of Scott Walker and his GOP allies in the Legislature. Despite the fact the Supreme Court is supposed to be a nonpartisan office and despite the constitutional separation of powers between co-equal branches of government that is central to the checks and balances in our system, Prosser said if reelected he would be "acting as a common sense complement to both the new administration and Legislature."

Prosser already has demonstrated his loyalty, siding with two of Walker's biggest political supporters – Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association – in voting for new judicial ethics rules written by the two groups allowing Wisconsin judges to rule on cases involving their biggest campaign supporters.

Walker is not the only Scott who looms large in Prosser's reelection bid. Prosser is an ex-Assembly speaker who agreed to serve as a character witness for Scott Jensen when his friend and former colleague was accused of criminal misconduct in public office. Prosser also was prepared to testify that when he was speaker he did the same things Jensen was criminally charged for.