The fate of state rules requiring disclosure of special interest election spending rests with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court is scheduled to hear the case early next month. Justice David Prosser has said he plans to participate in the case despite close personal and political ties to attorney Jim Troupis who is representing the tea party groups and conservative organizations like Americans for Prosperity that are challenging the rules.
Prosser acknowledges a longstanding friendship with Troupis. More importantly, Prosser's campaign paid the Troupis Law Office $75,000 to look out for his interests during the statewide recount that followed his narrow victory in this spring's Supreme Court election.
By the way, the Troupis Law Office is one of two firms with strong Republican ties that have run up a huge tab at taxpayer expense, billing the state more than $700,000 under no-bid contracts paying up to $395 an hour to represent Governor Scott Walker and GOP legislative leaders in defending the controversial collective bargaining law and state redistricting plan. It was Prosser who wrote the majority opinion upholding the law stripping most public workers of their collective bargaining rights. The ruling overturned a circuit court judge who had thrown out the law on the grounds that lawmakers ignored state Open Meetings Law requirements in acting on the bill and therefore it was illegally passed. With a presumably straight face, Prosser argued the judge was wrong to rely on laws that “apply to the Legislature except when the Legislature says they do not.”
Now, with all the appearances of coziness and the obvious conflict of interest that results from the Prosser campaign's payments to the Troupis Law Office, Justice Prosser is asking the parties involved in the state campaign finance disclosure case whether he should step aside from that case.
He shouldn't have to ask.
Wisconsin's Code of Judicial Conduct is clear-cut on the matter. It says "a judge shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding when the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know establish" that the "judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer...." Or "when reasonable, well-informed persons knowledgeable about judicial ethics standards and the justice system and aware of the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know would reasonably question the judge's ability to be impartial."
Three national experts on judicial ethics say it's a no-brainer. Prosser should recuse himself. These law professors from Hofstra University, New York University and Indiana University certainly qualify as reasonable, well-informed persons knowledgeable about judicial ethics standards and the justice system. And they all question Prosser's ability to be impartial in this case.
So do state newspapers including the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Appleton Post-Crescent and the Oshkosh Northwestern, all of which have editorialized that Prosser should recuse himself. As have national papers like the New York Times.
Prosser has no business participating in this case. His ability to be impartial has been reasonably questioned. When that happens, the state judicial ethics code says a judge shall recuse. Not may. Shall.
If Prosser cannot follow clear ethics rules on his own, then the state Government Accountability Board whose disclosure rules are being challenged should insist that he does. That should happen if the state Justice Department attorneys who are representing the GAB and work under the direction of Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen do what is in the best interest of the people of Wisconsin and the public agency that is their client in this case.
That's a big if.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
It's Time For A Small-Donor Revolution
Wisconsin – and our entire country – needs a totally new approach to election financing.
In the senate recall elections, candidates are raising record sums of money, yet outside interest groups have a virtual monopoly on election advertising. In the current environment, candidates end up being twice cursed. The large sums of private special interest money they accept raise eyebrows to say the least. Most anyone paying attention reaches the unavoidable conclusion that they are beholden to – and corrupted by – their donors. But at the same time, all the tainted money candidates raise barely gets them noticed as their campaign messages are swamped by the advertising sponsored by outside interest groups. They end up bystanders in their own elections.
Wisconsin needs elections where candidates actually matter. That means candidates must have enough money to run competitively for state office. And enough to avoid being totally overwhelmed by outside groups.
But it’s not enough for them to have enough money. Wisconsin also needs an election financing system allowing candidates to remain relevant without creating an appearance of corruption or otherwise laying waste to public trust in the integrity of elected officials.
Traditional approaches to campaign finance reform – like the 34-year-old Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund or the year-old Impartial Justice Act that were just repealed – cannot possibly accomplish both of these goals. Public financing was traditionally provided to candidates who agreed to limit their spending. The availability of public financing does free candidates from the need to raise large amounts of private special interest money. But if that public financing comes with strings attached, namely spending limits, then candidates are hamstrung in their ability to respond to attacks by outside groups.
Both the Ellis-Erpenbach bill and the Impartial Justice Act made candidates eligible for extra public money known as “rescue funds” or “trigger matching funds” if they faced high-spending opponents. But the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down just such a provision in Arizona’s public financing program in its ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. As a result, any candidate agreeing to the spending limits in Ellis-Erpenbach or the Impartial Justice Act would be left at the mercy of the interest groups and would most likely wind up being a spectator on the sidelines in any competitive election.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did away with any kind of limits on election spending for all intents and purposes. This ruling makes the spending limits that were part of traditional public financing programs obsolete.
For all of these reasons, it is abundantly clear that a new approach to election financing is required. For public financing to have a meaningful impact – or even relevance – in today’s elections, receiving public funds can no longer be conditioned on acceptance of spending limits. Public financing can and should help free candidates from heavy reliance on private special interest donations, but not at the cost of making candidates unilaterally disarm and become irrelevant participants in elections.
There is a way to keep candidates relevant but also free of undue special interest influence. A report from the national Campaign Finance Institute outlines the one constitutionally permissible form of public financing that can incentivize small-donor fundraising while not tying the hands of candidates by limiting their campaign spending.
With the dawn of Internet activism and online fundraising, a small-donor revolution became feasible. As the Web's political utility becomes more and more refined, small-donor-driven campaigns become more and more practical.
Look over CFI’s report and consider the dramatic impact a small-donor incentive program could have on Wisconsin’s elections. The Democracy Campaign has put forward a new approach to election financing for our state that is based on this model.
If this summer's recall elections have made anything clear, it's that election financing is in serious need of some major paradigm shifting.
In the senate recall elections, candidates are raising record sums of money, yet outside interest groups have a virtual monopoly on election advertising. In the current environment, candidates end up being twice cursed. The large sums of private special interest money they accept raise eyebrows to say the least. Most anyone paying attention reaches the unavoidable conclusion that they are beholden to – and corrupted by – their donors. But at the same time, all the tainted money candidates raise barely gets them noticed as their campaign messages are swamped by the advertising sponsored by outside interest groups. They end up bystanders in their own elections.
Wisconsin needs elections where candidates actually matter. That means candidates must have enough money to run competitively for state office. And enough to avoid being totally overwhelmed by outside groups.
But it’s not enough for them to have enough money. Wisconsin also needs an election financing system allowing candidates to remain relevant without creating an appearance of corruption or otherwise laying waste to public trust in the integrity of elected officials.
Traditional approaches to campaign finance reform – like the 34-year-old Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund or the year-old Impartial Justice Act that were just repealed – cannot possibly accomplish both of these goals. Public financing was traditionally provided to candidates who agreed to limit their spending. The availability of public financing does free candidates from the need to raise large amounts of private special interest money. But if that public financing comes with strings attached, namely spending limits, then candidates are hamstrung in their ability to respond to attacks by outside groups.
Both the Ellis-Erpenbach bill and the Impartial Justice Act made candidates eligible for extra public money known as “rescue funds” or “trigger matching funds” if they faced high-spending opponents. But the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down just such a provision in Arizona’s public financing program in its ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. As a result, any candidate agreeing to the spending limits in Ellis-Erpenbach or the Impartial Justice Act would be left at the mercy of the interest groups and would most likely wind up being a spectator on the sidelines in any competitive election.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did away with any kind of limits on election spending for all intents and purposes. This ruling makes the spending limits that were part of traditional public financing programs obsolete.
For all of these reasons, it is abundantly clear that a new approach to election financing is required. For public financing to have a meaningful impact – or even relevance – in today’s elections, receiving public funds can no longer be conditioned on acceptance of spending limits. Public financing can and should help free candidates from heavy reliance on private special interest donations, but not at the cost of making candidates unilaterally disarm and become irrelevant participants in elections.
There is a way to keep candidates relevant but also free of undue special interest influence. A report from the national Campaign Finance Institute outlines the one constitutionally permissible form of public financing that can incentivize small-donor fundraising while not tying the hands of candidates by limiting their campaign spending.
With the dawn of Internet activism and online fundraising, a small-donor revolution became feasible. As the Web's political utility becomes more and more refined, small-donor-driven campaigns become more and more practical.
Look over CFI’s report and consider the dramatic impact a small-donor incentive program could have on Wisconsin’s elections. The Democracy Campaign has put forward a new approach to election financing for our state that is based on this model.
If this summer's recall elections have made anything clear, it's that election financing is in serious need of some major paradigm shifting.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
But Can They Read The Handwriting On The Wall?
I know one thing for sure about Republicans. They can read. I was already aware of their fondness for Ayn Rand, but it's also clear they've got much more than passing familiarity with George Orwell.
They regularly condemn class warfare, even though they are waging an astonishingly effective class war and have been for years. Every time someone suggests that maybe millionaires and billionaires should share in the sacrifice that everyone else is expected to make, they shout "Class War! Class War!" at the top of their lungs. The class war card has become an all-purpose inoculant against any attempt to promote economic and social justice.
Every chance they get they rail against judicial activism and label every liberal judge a judicial activist. The judges they appoint then throw judicial restraint to the wind and take judicial activism to unprecedented heights, radically reinterpreting the First Amendment to serve the purposes of their class war and otherwise reordering society by judicial fiat to usher in a new Gilded Age.
They beseech the American people not to ever allow their elected representatives to raise taxes on the "job creators." Never mind that the U.S. economy was far healthier and producing more jobs here at home when tax rates on businesses and the wealthy were much higher than they are now. And never mind that today's "job creators" are really just profit takers. For working people, economic recovery is when the jobs come back. For those on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms, economic recovery is when the profits come back. For them, there's a recovery underway. That it's been a jobless one does not concern them in the least. But when someone suggests that perhaps some of their newfound profits should be plowed back into education or infrastructure repair or green energy investments, a panic attack ensues. They trot out their "don't tax the job creators" line and people fall for it and the profits from their jobless recovery are once again safe.
I know one thing for sure about Democrats. They can read. A.A. Milne at least. They clearly are on cousinly terms with the bear of little brain. And they've got Eeyore's angst and depression and indecision down pat. When the Democrats see the remotest risk, the slightest possibility of a political setback, they sit on their hands.
The Republicans wage class war and the Democrats whine about it and the Republicans accuse them of promoting class warfare. They feed the profit-hungry and the Democrats whine about it and they yell "you can't tax the job creators!" They stack the courts and get the judiciary's blessing of their class war. The Democrats whine about it and are accused of pushing judicial activism.
So Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers and their minions take away worker rights, roll back child labor laws, slash school spending, cut health care assistance to the elderly and poor and disabled, bring back poll taxes and deregulate the phone companies. And they are just getting warmed up.
Hundreds of thousands of working people are inflamed. Walker's collective bargaining bill alone triggered mass protests, the largest ever seen at the State Capitol. Nine senators were targeted for recall, the most ever in Wisconsin history.
Over at Democratic Party headquarters, Pooh sighed "Oh, bother" and Eeyore mumbled "Oh well." The chairman of the state party made remarks widely interpreted as throwing cold water on the idea of mounting an effort to recall Walker as soon as possible. He later backtracked some. Some grassroots Democrats have made it known that top party brass were cool to the idea of ever trying to recall the governor when the subject came up at the party's state convention.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: One party is scary and the other is scared.
One is Ayn Rand's dream and George Orwell's nightmare. The other is A.A. Milne minus the innocence of childhood.
Neither is what our society needs.
They regularly condemn class warfare, even though they are waging an astonishingly effective class war and have been for years. Every time someone suggests that maybe millionaires and billionaires should share in the sacrifice that everyone else is expected to make, they shout "Class War! Class War!" at the top of their lungs. The class war card has become an all-purpose inoculant against any attempt to promote economic and social justice.
Every chance they get they rail against judicial activism and label every liberal judge a judicial activist. The judges they appoint then throw judicial restraint to the wind and take judicial activism to unprecedented heights, radically reinterpreting the First Amendment to serve the purposes of their class war and otherwise reordering society by judicial fiat to usher in a new Gilded Age.
They beseech the American people not to ever allow their elected representatives to raise taxes on the "job creators." Never mind that the U.S. economy was far healthier and producing more jobs here at home when tax rates on businesses and the wealthy were much higher than they are now. And never mind that today's "job creators" are really just profit takers. For working people, economic recovery is when the jobs come back. For those on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms, economic recovery is when the profits come back. For them, there's a recovery underway. That it's been a jobless one does not concern them in the least. But when someone suggests that perhaps some of their newfound profits should be plowed back into education or infrastructure repair or green energy investments, a panic attack ensues. They trot out their "don't tax the job creators" line and people fall for it and the profits from their jobless recovery are once again safe.
I know one thing for sure about Democrats. They can read. A.A. Milne at least. They clearly are on cousinly terms with the bear of little brain. And they've got Eeyore's angst and depression and indecision down pat. When the Democrats see the remotest risk, the slightest possibility of a political setback, they sit on their hands.
The Republicans wage class war and the Democrats whine about it and the Republicans accuse them of promoting class warfare. They feed the profit-hungry and the Democrats whine about it and they yell "you can't tax the job creators!" They stack the courts and get the judiciary's blessing of their class war. The Democrats whine about it and are accused of pushing judicial activism.
So Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers and their minions take away worker rights, roll back child labor laws, slash school spending, cut health care assistance to the elderly and poor and disabled, bring back poll taxes and deregulate the phone companies. And they are just getting warmed up.
Hundreds of thousands of working people are inflamed. Walker's collective bargaining bill alone triggered mass protests, the largest ever seen at the State Capitol. Nine senators were targeted for recall, the most ever in Wisconsin history.
Over at Democratic Party headquarters, Pooh sighed "Oh, bother" and Eeyore mumbled "Oh well." The chairman of the state party made remarks widely interpreted as throwing cold water on the idea of mounting an effort to recall Walker as soon as possible. He later backtracked some. Some grassroots Democrats have made it known that top party brass were cool to the idea of ever trying to recall the governor when the subject came up at the party's state convention.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: One party is scary and the other is scared.
One is Ayn Rand's dream and George Orwell's nightmare. The other is A.A. Milne minus the innocence of childhood.
Neither is what our society needs.
Friday, July 22, 2011
P.T. Barnum's Kind Of Taxpayer
It's easy to fathom why a great many people can't seem to bring themselves to care about redistricting. After all, it boils down to drawing maps, which seems dweebish. And it's always been seen as insider politics in its purest form, which most people hate with a passion.
But it's much harder to figure why so few taxpayers are steamed about how their money is being used for dweebish insider politics.
The redistricting process starts with politicians voting to help themselves to as much taxpayer money as they want to pay expensive private lawyers to assist them with their map drawing. This time around, the party in power wrote themselves a blank check while denying the other side any public funds for their own lawyers. So far, about $350,000 of the taxpayers' money has been spent and the meter is still running.
Taxpayers aren't allowed to see the work being done at their expense. The redistricting plans are kept secret until they are ready to be passed by the Legislature. When finally the plans are made public, it becomes apparent why they are kept secret for so long. The new district lines benefit the politicians, not the public.
All of us taxpayers end up paying to have the power of our votes diminished. We all pay to make incumbent office holders more secure. We all pay to make the party in power more likely to stay in power. We all pay and what we get for our money is less responsive representation in the state Legislature and in Congress. We also pay for more partisan division and political polarization because our money is used to draw lines creating as many strongly Republican and overwhelmingly Democratic districts as possible. Politicians hate being in 50-50 districts. So they make us pay to enhance their job security.
And very few of us squawk about it.
Wow. Just wow.
But it's much harder to figure why so few taxpayers are steamed about how their money is being used for dweebish insider politics.
The redistricting process starts with politicians voting to help themselves to as much taxpayer money as they want to pay expensive private lawyers to assist them with their map drawing. This time around, the party in power wrote themselves a blank check while denying the other side any public funds for their own lawyers. So far, about $350,000 of the taxpayers' money has been spent and the meter is still running.
Taxpayers aren't allowed to see the work being done at their expense. The redistricting plans are kept secret until they are ready to be passed by the Legislature. When finally the plans are made public, it becomes apparent why they are kept secret for so long. The new district lines benefit the politicians, not the public.
All of us taxpayers end up paying to have the power of our votes diminished. We all pay to make incumbent office holders more secure. We all pay to make the party in power more likely to stay in power. We all pay and what we get for our money is less responsive representation in the state Legislature and in Congress. We also pay for more partisan division and political polarization because our money is used to draw lines creating as many strongly Republican and overwhelmingly Democratic districts as possible. Politicians hate being in 50-50 districts. So they make us pay to enhance their job security.
And very few of us squawk about it.
Wow. Just wow.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Drawn To Power
Article IV, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires state legislative districts to be "bounded by county, precinct, town or ward lines, to consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable."
A contiguous district is one where all parts of the district are connected to each other. In other words, a district where you can travel from any point in the district without crossing the district boundary.
The map for the 78th Assembly District in Madison proposed under the Republican redistricting plan that is set to sail through both houses of the Legislature this week is one example of line drawing that clearly does not meet that constitutional standard.
There are numerous islands floating inside the 78th district that are in fact attached to the 47th, 79th and 80th districts.
It certainly is possible to draw new districts that don't take constitutional requirements like contiguity with a grain of salt. The Democracy Campaign demonstrated that it could be done in the alternative redistricting plan we put forward.
Our plan also does not unnecessarily divide communities like Sheboygan, Marshfield and Beloit into different senate districts the way the GOP plan does. Nor does it divide little towns like Clintonville into two different assembly districts. Or DeForest into three. Or West Allis into four.
It is possible to account for population changes in Wisconsin that have occurred over the last decade without splitting up communities and without playing fast and loose with constitutional obligations . . . if you are not setting out to create distinctly Republican and Democratic districts.
A contiguous district is one where all parts of the district are connected to each other. In other words, a district where you can travel from any point in the district without crossing the district boundary.
The map for the 78th Assembly District in Madison proposed under the Republican redistricting plan that is set to sail through both houses of the Legislature this week is one example of line drawing that clearly does not meet that constitutional standard.
There are numerous islands floating inside the 78th district that are in fact attached to the 47th, 79th and 80th districts.
It certainly is possible to draw new districts that don't take constitutional requirements like contiguity with a grain of salt. The Democracy Campaign demonstrated that it could be done in the alternative redistricting plan we put forward.
Our plan also does not unnecessarily divide communities like Sheboygan, Marshfield and Beloit into different senate districts the way the GOP plan does. Nor does it divide little towns like Clintonville into two different assembly districts. Or DeForest into three. Or West Allis into four.
It is possible to account for population changes in Wisconsin that have occurred over the last decade without splitting up communities and without playing fast and loose with constitutional obligations . . . if you are not setting out to create distinctly Republican and Democratic districts.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Military For Nothing, Benefit Checks For Free
I want my, I want my, I want my Fox TV. I want my, I want my, I want MSNBC.
Our country has a truth problem. Pretty much no politician can handle telling it. And the American people can't handle hearing it.
The truth is we've been getting a lot of things from our government that we are not paying for. For a very long time.
When we are feeling the least bit afraid or insecure, a new war is started on our behalf. But there is no war tax. There is no rationing of food, gas or clothing like there used to be when we went to war. No scrap drives, no rubber drives.
Not only do we take for granted that our shores will be defended and the mail will be delivered, we expect the food supply to be inspected, hot lunches at school for our kids, our bank accounts insured. We've grown accustomed to a thousand other things big and small, from parks and libraries and police and fire departments to roads and bridges and water treatment and garbage pick-up and financial security in our old age.
No politician of any stripe is telling the American people to stop taking all this for granted. Yet they keep telling us we are overtaxed. Never mind that we are paying less of our incomes in taxes than any time in the last 60 years.
The maddening debt-ceiling talks in Washington are but a political manifestation of America's juvenile attitude about paying our bills. Politicians of every stripe have been telling the American people that they deserve more and more from their government but should pay less and less for what we get. That has sounded like a good deal and we've happily accepted the bargain. But it is a lie we're living.
The truth is government spending must be cut. And taxes need to be raised. Getting less from government while paying more for it sounds like a lousy deal, but if we want to avert financial disaster, it is the truth. We don't want to hear the truth, and the politicians can't bear to tell it. Leaving America in dire straits.
Our country has a truth problem. Pretty much no politician can handle telling it. And the American people can't handle hearing it.
The truth is we've been getting a lot of things from our government that we are not paying for. For a very long time.
When we are feeling the least bit afraid or insecure, a new war is started on our behalf. But there is no war tax. There is no rationing of food, gas or clothing like there used to be when we went to war. No scrap drives, no rubber drives.
Not only do we take for granted that our shores will be defended and the mail will be delivered, we expect the food supply to be inspected, hot lunches at school for our kids, our bank accounts insured. We've grown accustomed to a thousand other things big and small, from parks and libraries and police and fire departments to roads and bridges and water treatment and garbage pick-up and financial security in our old age.
No politician of any stripe is telling the American people to stop taking all this for granted. Yet they keep telling us we are overtaxed. Never mind that we are paying less of our incomes in taxes than any time in the last 60 years.
The maddening debt-ceiling talks in Washington are but a political manifestation of America's juvenile attitude about paying our bills. Politicians of every stripe have been telling the American people that they deserve more and more from their government but should pay less and less for what we get. That has sounded like a good deal and we've happily accepted the bargain. But it is a lie we're living.
The truth is government spending must be cut. And taxes need to be raised. Getting less from government while paying more for it sounds like a lousy deal, but if we want to avert financial disaster, it is the truth. We don't want to hear the truth, and the politicians can't bear to tell it. Leaving America in dire straits.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, July 01, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
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.
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:
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.
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
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:
- 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.
- Maintain current separate appropriations for the UW System Administration, the Lab of Hygiene and the veterinary diagnostic lab, and delete all other appropriations.
- 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.
- Authorize the Board of Regents to create a new personnel system for all UW employees.
- Create two new bargaining units for UW System and UW Madison employees except faculty and academic staff.
- 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.
- Modify current law to exempt UW employees from receiving only up to $12,000 from outside income sources.
- Exempt the UW System from requiring Building Commission approval for projects costing less than $500,000 which are funded entirely from gifts and grants.
- 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.
- 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 –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.
Friday, June 17, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 06, 2011
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.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
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 possi
ble 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.
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 possi
ble 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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
'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."
"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."
Monday, May 16, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, May 13, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
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?
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?