Some have asked why the Democracy Campaign did not include the votes in the Senate and Assembly on the constitutional amendment purporting to ban the so-called "Frankenstein veto" in the analysis of roll call votes on democracy reform issues that we issued yesterday.
There are three reasons.
1. It wasn't much of a reform. Even with the constitutional amendment, Wisconsin's governor still possesses the most extensive – and abusive – veto power in the country. And there are still ways the state's current governor or any future governor will be able to stitch together pieces of laws to create whole new laws that the Legislature never approved. It is this capability that the governor retains that inspired the nickname "Frankenstein veto" in the first place. In short, this "reform" doesn't do much. It certainly doesn't kill Frankenstein. At best, it wounds him slightly. Very slightly.
2. It was an easy vote. There is a reason why the vote was 33-0 in the Senate and 94-1 in the Assembly. The vote on the constitutional amendment was a chance for legislators to appear to favor reform without doing anything of real consequence and, most notably, without doing a thing to clean up their own act. It is telling that the lone "no" vote was cast by a member of the Assembly who is not running for re-election and thus has no need to posture as a reformer. That member, retiring 22-year legislative veteran Frank Boyle, said he voted against the constitutional amendment because it was confusing and pointless. Boyle was the only one in the Legislature willing to call it what it was, but there were plenty of voices outside the Capitol who agreed with him.
3. Including it in our analysis wouldn't have changed the rankings. Because only one member of the Legislature voted against the Frankenstein veto amendment, including the Senate and Assembly roll call votes would not have narrowed the gap in scores between legislators and thus would not have altered the rankings. The same legislators still would have been in the same categories.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Does The Bill Of Rights Really Guarantee The Right To Secretly Buy Elections?
The Democracy Campaign recently estimated that special interest groups spent $4.8 million to influence the state Supreme Court race. A spokesman for the top spender, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, insisted our estimate was inaccurate but wouldn’t say why and refused to offer up any numbers to prove it wrong. He repeated for the umpteenth time the company line that groups like WMC have a First Amendment right to keep the public in the dark about how much is spent to sway voters and where that money comes from.
In effect, those who are taking ownership of our courts and our state legislature and our governor are saying that they have a constitutional right not only to wield daggers in the political arena but also to hide under cloaks while they do it.
What they also are effectively saying – over and over and over again until even people who ought to know better accept it as a universal truth – is that we have to choose between judicial independence and free speech. Or choose between open, honest government and the right to speak.
Those are false choices.
No constitutional right is absolute or unconditional. Among other things, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. But ask any of the countless journalists who have been jailed or the judges who put them behind bars if there are limits to that freedom.
Or take the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Put aside for a moment that some believe the “well regulated militia” clause means the Second Amendment bestows a collective right to bear arms, not an individual right. Most people, and most courts, believe it protects an individual’s right to possess weapons. But that doesn’t mean that individuals have an unconditional right to keep and bear any and all arms. For instance, no one in their right mind would say the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right to possess nuclear arms.
Just as an individual’s possession of a weapon of mass destruction would pose an intolerable threat to other community members’ rights to life, liberty and security, the First Amendment right of free speech likewise can be exercised in a way that does violence to citizen rights and the common good.
We have reached that point in Wisconsin politics.
In the Supreme Court election, two lobbying groups and three very shadowy front groups did 90 percent of the television advertising. With five interest groups doing almost all of the talking, the candidates in the race largely became bystanders in their own election. They had the right to speak, but virtually no way to be heard. A lot of good the First Amendment did them.
Voters got even more of a raw deal. Elections are supposed to be dialogues between candidates and voters. This one was a special interest monologue. The First Amendment wasn’t worth the paper it’s written on to ordinary citizens in this election. On top of that, in the name of the First Amendment voters were denied essential information about who paid for the more than 12,000 TV ads that were aired in the Supreme Court race, or even how much they cost.
It’s time we start distinguishing between the exercise of free speech and the abuse of it.
In effect, those who are taking ownership of our courts and our state legislature and our governor are saying that they have a constitutional right not only to wield daggers in the political arena but also to hide under cloaks while they do it.
What they also are effectively saying – over and over and over again until even people who ought to know better accept it as a universal truth – is that we have to choose between judicial independence and free speech. Or choose between open, honest government and the right to speak.
Those are false choices.
No constitutional right is absolute or unconditional. Among other things, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. But ask any of the countless journalists who have been jailed or the judges who put them behind bars if there are limits to that freedom.
Or take the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Put aside for a moment that some believe the “well regulated militia” clause means the Second Amendment bestows a collective right to bear arms, not an individual right. Most people, and most courts, believe it protects an individual’s right to possess weapons. But that doesn’t mean that individuals have an unconditional right to keep and bear any and all arms. For instance, no one in their right mind would say the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right to possess nuclear arms.
Just as an individual’s possession of a weapon of mass destruction would pose an intolerable threat to other community members’ rights to life, liberty and security, the First Amendment right of free speech likewise can be exercised in a way that does violence to citizen rights and the common good.
We have reached that point in Wisconsin politics.
In the Supreme Court election, two lobbying groups and three very shadowy front groups did 90 percent of the television advertising. With five interest groups doing almost all of the talking, the candidates in the race largely became bystanders in their own election. They had the right to speak, but virtually no way to be heard. A lot of good the First Amendment did them.
Voters got even more of a raw deal. Elections are supposed to be dialogues between candidates and voters. This one was a special interest monologue. The First Amendment wasn’t worth the paper it’s written on to ordinary citizens in this election. On top of that, in the name of the First Amendment voters were denied essential information about who paid for the more than 12,000 TV ads that were aired in the Supreme Court race, or even how much they cost.
It’s time we start distinguishing between the exercise of free speech and the abuse of it.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Brogan 'Smear' And The Rest Of The Story
Green Bay business executive John Brogan says the Democracy Campaign is "smearing" him by pointing out that campaign finance reports filed by candidates for state office show that he made more than the legal limit of $10,000 in campaign contributions in 2007.
And Brogan says the Democracy Campaign also "falsely accused" him in 2003 of exceeding the $10,000 limit, because the Elections Board ruled back then that his use of a joint checking account to make the donations meant that no violation occurred.
Some pertinent facts . . . .
When the Elections Board let Brogan and 16 others off the hook in 2003, the board ignored a 1999 state appeals court ruling that campaign contributions made from joint accounts are made by an individual – not a couple – from his or her portion of those shared funds.
The candidates who received contributions from John Brogan in 2007 reported them as coming from him alone, not as joint contributions from him and his wife. We frequently see candidates report split or joint donations from a married couple, but did not see it in Brogan's case.
Both John Brogan and his wife, Gisela, are active donors. They often give to the same candidates but not always. For example, in 2007 Gisela gave Tom Nelson a $500 contribution on June 4 while John made a $500 donation on the same day to Jim Soletski. Governor Jim Doyle's campaign reported receiving separate $2,500 donations from both John and Gisela Brogan on January 5, 2007.
We did not count any part of Gisela Brogan's $2,500 donation to Doyle among the $12,500 in total campaign contributions John Brogan gave to various candidates in 2007. But John Brogan now says the donations that candidates reported receiving from him alone should be considered as coming from both him and his wife.
Over the years, the Brogans have given to 25 different candidates or campaign committees. Only one candidate reported a donation as coming from them jointly. The other 24 candidates or committees all reported receiving donations from either John or Gisela, but not both of them jointly. Maybe it's a coincidence that two dozen campaigns all considered these individual donations coming from just one of them, but it's a hell of a coincidence.
Looking at Gisela Brogan's giving history, on at least eight different occasions she's made contributions on days when her husband did not make any donations. On other occasions, she made donations on the same day as her husband did, but not always to the same candidate.
When all this evidence is considered, we believe John Brogan's argument that his donations were all jointly made with his wife is very weak. The Elections Board bought this argument in the past (and even encouraged donors to use it to appear to be in compliance), but hopefully the new Government Accountability Board that replaced the Elections Board will not allow the law to be gamed in this way.
We believe Brogan is in violation of the law now and was in violation of the same law when he made more than $10,000 in donations in 2002, but as I made clear in remarks to the GAB at the board's January 28 meeting, the old Elections Board's approach to enforcement of this particular section of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws left a great deal to be desired. We are hopeful that the new board will take a stronger stand and faithfully enforce the law.
Finally, it's worth noting that the other violator we identified, Patricia Kern, can't make the argument that her donations were jointly made because her husband, Robert, maxed out for the year when he gave $10,000 to Annette Ziegler in 2007. So if any portion of Patricia Kern's donations are considered to be from her husband, that would put him over the legal limit.
Now the question is whether there will be a double standard with respect to enforcement of the law in these two cases, with one donor punished because a reallocation of some portion of the excess amount of donations to a spouse is not an option while the other donor is again let off the hook. We obviously hope the new board will not repeat the mistakes of the old board, and will develop a more consistent and defensible approach to enforcement.
And Brogan says the Democracy Campaign also "falsely accused" him in 2003 of exceeding the $10,000 limit, because the Elections Board ruled back then that his use of a joint checking account to make the donations meant that no violation occurred.
Some pertinent facts . . . .
When the Elections Board let Brogan and 16 others off the hook in 2003, the board ignored a 1999 state appeals court ruling that campaign contributions made from joint accounts are made by an individual – not a couple – from his or her portion of those shared funds.
The candidates who received contributions from John Brogan in 2007 reported them as coming from him alone, not as joint contributions from him and his wife. We frequently see candidates report split or joint donations from a married couple, but did not see it in Brogan's case.
Both John Brogan and his wife, Gisela, are active donors. They often give to the same candidates but not always. For example, in 2007 Gisela gave Tom Nelson a $500 contribution on June 4 while John made a $500 donation on the same day to Jim Soletski. Governor Jim Doyle's campaign reported receiving separate $2,500 donations from both John and Gisela Brogan on January 5, 2007.
We did not count any part of Gisela Brogan's $2,500 donation to Doyle among the $12,500 in total campaign contributions John Brogan gave to various candidates in 2007. But John Brogan now says the donations that candidates reported receiving from him alone should be considered as coming from both him and his wife.
Over the years, the Brogans have given to 25 different candidates or campaign committees. Only one candidate reported a donation as coming from them jointly. The other 24 candidates or committees all reported receiving donations from either John or Gisela, but not both of them jointly. Maybe it's a coincidence that two dozen campaigns all considered these individual donations coming from just one of them, but it's a hell of a coincidence.
Looking at Gisela Brogan's giving history, on at least eight different occasions she's made contributions on days when her husband did not make any donations. On other occasions, she made donations on the same day as her husband did, but not always to the same candidate.
When all this evidence is considered, we believe John Brogan's argument that his donations were all jointly made with his wife is very weak. The Elections Board bought this argument in the past (and even encouraged donors to use it to appear to be in compliance), but hopefully the new Government Accountability Board that replaced the Elections Board will not allow the law to be gamed in this way.
We believe Brogan is in violation of the law now and was in violation of the same law when he made more than $10,000 in donations in 2002, but as I made clear in remarks to the GAB at the board's January 28 meeting, the old Elections Board's approach to enforcement of this particular section of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws left a great deal to be desired. We are hopeful that the new board will take a stronger stand and faithfully enforce the law.
Finally, it's worth noting that the other violator we identified, Patricia Kern, can't make the argument that her donations were jointly made because her husband, Robert, maxed out for the year when he gave $10,000 to Annette Ziegler in 2007. So if any portion of Patricia Kern's donations are considered to be from her husband, that would put him over the legal limit.
Now the question is whether there will be a double standard with respect to enforcement of the law in these two cases, with one donor punished because a reallocation of some portion of the excess amount of donations to a spouse is not an option while the other donor is again let off the hook. We obviously hope the new board will not repeat the mistakes of the old board, and will develop a more consistent and defensible approach to enforcement.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Representatives Of The Machine
Read this and weep. No, it only resembles a script from an episode of the Sopranos. It's real life in Wisconsin politics. It's the plea agreement in the Allan Kehl case, which is the latest offshoot of the casino corruption scandal that led to the criminal convictions of Dennis Troha, John Erickson and Achille Infusino.
Mr. County Executive, here's an envelope stuffed with $10,000 in cash. Oh, Mr. Kehl, there's something for you in your car. Hey, a stack of bills. Five grand.
This chapter stings because it's still being written. But with history as our guide, we know how the book will end. Read this and be cheered.
Mr. County Executive, here's an envelope stuffed with $10,000 in cash. Oh, Mr. Kehl, there's something for you in your car. Hey, a stack of bills. Five grand.
This chapter stings because it's still being written. But with history as our guide, we know how the book will end. Read this and be cheered.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
It's A Symbol Alright
State lawmakers were four months late passing a state budget, and the budget they did eventually pass is already badly out of balance. And now they can't come to an agreement on how to patch up the holes. They also couldn't bring themselves to do a thing about the broken health care system. And even after we all had to shower after the most recent Supreme Court election, campaign finance reform seems the furthest thing from their minds.
But, hey, give credit where credit is due, they agreed on something . . . a new state symbol. On Monday, Governor Doyle signed into law legislation approved by both houses that designates an official state tartan.
Meanwhile, there's a new toll-free hotline citizens can use to report waste, fraud and abuse in Wisconsin. The number to call is 877-372-8317. Or you can go here and report what's bugging you via the Internet.
Maybe the first phone or Web tip should be about the Legislature.
But, hey, give credit where credit is due, they agreed on something . . . a new state symbol. On Monday, Governor Doyle signed into law legislation approved by both houses that designates an official state tartan.
Meanwhile, there's a new toll-free hotline citizens can use to report waste, fraud and abuse in Wisconsin. The number to call is 877-372-8317. Or you can go here and report what's bugging you via the Internet.
Maybe the first phone or Web tip should be about the Legislature.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Half Remembering Dr. King
Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr. As we all reflect on Dr. King's legacy, it is sure that one part of the man will be celebrated. That's the sanitized, historical King. What is too often glossed over is the subversive, prophetic King.
I ask you to read two things. First, a column by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. Second, a speech Dr. King made one year to the day before his assassination. As "I Have a Dream" stirs the soul, this speech gnaws at the conscience. Now more than ever.
It's important to remember the life of this amazing man. But it's even more important to remember the whole man and his whole life. To do otherwise is to allow enemies of Dr. King's vision of humanity to rob that vision of its true power.
I ask you to read two things. First, a column by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. Second, a speech Dr. King made one year to the day before his assassination. As "I Have a Dream" stirs the soul, this speech gnaws at the conscience. Now more than ever.
It's important to remember the life of this amazing man. But it's even more important to remember the whole man and his whole life. To do otherwise is to allow enemies of Dr. King's vision of humanity to rob that vision of its true power.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Casualties Of War
A war is being waged for control of our courts. And, as with all wars, there are casualties. It's said that truth is the first casualty, and that certainly was the case in this year's Supreme Court election. The campaigning was ceaselessly deceptive and misleading, often downright untruthful, and with very few exceptions unrelentingly trashy.
Two other casualties also stand out. One is judicial independence. Wisconsin is well on its way to special interest ownership of our courts. A handful of special interest lobbying groups and phony front organizations did over 90% of the campaign advertising in the race. The candidates were for the most part bystanders in this election. The interest groups defined the candidates, decided which issue would be discussed, and controlled what was said about that issue. The issue was crime, even though it has virtually nothing to do with the work of the Supreme Court.
Another casualty is the state's judicial code of ethics, which is no longer worth the paper it's written on. This election was conducted in a way that is not remotely in keeping with the requirements of the ethics code. The code is dead as a doornail unless the state Judicial Commission and ultimately the Supreme Court itself take forceful action to enforce these rules and hold candidates for the high court accountable for obeying them.
The court is in a no-win position. If they vigorously enforce the code, that means punishing one of their own (well, actually, two of their own). That would require them to throw cordiality out the window and let the chips fall where they may. If on the other hand they opt to maintain constructive working relationships (if that's even possible anymore), they sign the ethics code's death certificate. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The Supreme Court is in the midst of a hostile takeover. Many in the legal community and many more in the broader community of Wisconsin citizens have pulled a Switzerland. But as Dante famously said, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, remain neutral.
Two other casualties also stand out. One is judicial independence. Wisconsin is well on its way to special interest ownership of our courts. A handful of special interest lobbying groups and phony front organizations did over 90% of the campaign advertising in the race. The candidates were for the most part bystanders in this election. The interest groups defined the candidates, decided which issue would be discussed, and controlled what was said about that issue. The issue was crime, even though it has virtually nothing to do with the work of the Supreme Court.
Another casualty is the state's judicial code of ethics, which is no longer worth the paper it's written on. This election was conducted in a way that is not remotely in keeping with the requirements of the ethics code. The code is dead as a doornail unless the state Judicial Commission and ultimately the Supreme Court itself take forceful action to enforce these rules and hold candidates for the high court accountable for obeying them.
The court is in a no-win position. If they vigorously enforce the code, that means punishing one of their own (well, actually, two of their own). That would require them to throw cordiality out the window and let the chips fall where they may. If on the other hand they opt to maintain constructive working relationships (if that's even possible anymore), they sign the ethics code's death certificate. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The Supreme Court is in the midst of a hostile takeover. Many in the legal community and many more in the broader community of Wisconsin citizens have pulled a Switzerland. But as Dante famously said, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, remain neutral.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Why Do New York Financial Interests Like Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate?
Four employees of a New York hedge firm and one of their spouses have contributed a total of $50,000 to Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman in the past two weeks.
The question is: Why?
None of these employees or any company employees since 1993 has contributed to any Wisconsin candidates for the legislature or statewide office until Gableman.
The five $10,000 contributions since March 17 came from Paul Singer, Gordon and Jenny Singer, Bonnie Loeb and Jay Newman with Elliot Management Corporation in New York.Federal campaign contribution records show Paul and Gordon Singer, Loeb and Newman have given several thousand dollars to the campaigns of former GOP presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and several Republican political party committees and congressional candidates over the years.
Billionaire Paul Singer was the sole donor – of $175,000 – in 2007 to a Missouri-based group called Take Initiative America, which put the money behind an unsuccessful effort to change the way
Oil Sheiks For A Greater Wisconsin
In a recent program aired on the WisconsinEye public affairs TV network, moderator John Powell questioned Wisconsin Right to Life legislative director Susan Armacost about her views on disclosure of election campaign activity. Powell, the former State Capitol reporter for Wisconsin Public Radio, asked hypothetically:
"Some wealthy oil sheik could dump $10 million on a race to influence a Wisconsin election and no one would know where the money came from. Now isn't that possible?"
Armacost's answer was a jaw-dropper.
"So what? If he has a . . . you know, so what? It's like this argument about if you don't live in the district of a legislator you shouldn't be giving them money. Why not?"
"Some wealthy oil sheik could dump $10 million on a race to influence a Wisconsin election and no one would know where the money came from. Now isn't that possible?"
Armacost's answer was a jaw-dropper.
"So what? If he has a . . . you know, so what? It's like this argument about if you don't live in the district of a legislator you shouldn't be giving them money. Why not?"
Friday, March 28, 2008
Every Kid Deserves A Misleading, Lurid TV Ad
Quite a few observers of Wisconsin politics were wondering where the state's largest teachers union was in this year's Supreme Court race. All the questions were answered with this ad sponsored by the Wisconsin Education Association Council. WEAC, the voters and the condition of our state's democracy all would have been better off if the union had kept everyone wondering.
What WEAC chose to put on the air is one of the trashiest political ads I've ever seen. Pure sleaze.
If you look at the issues WEAC works on, there's no mention of street crime. No mention of sexual predators. But yet that's what the union thought needed to be addressed in the Supreme Court race. And WEAC raised it in the most distorting, misleading and tawdry way possible.
The only thing that sets WEAC's smear campaign apart from the smear campaigns of the other interest groups trying to take ownership of our Supreme Court is that the teachers union has registered with the state and is filing reports fully disclosing its spending.
That's important, but it hardly makes this political drive-by shooting appear any less ugly.
What WEAC chose to put on the air is one of the trashiest political ads I've ever seen. Pure sleaze.
If you look at the issues WEAC works on, there's no mention of street crime. No mention of sexual predators. But yet that's what the union thought needed to be addressed in the Supreme Court race. And WEAC raised it in the most distorting, misleading and tawdry way possible.
The only thing that sets WEAC's smear campaign apart from the smear campaigns of the other interest groups trying to take ownership of our Supreme Court is that the teachers union has registered with the state and is filing reports fully disclosing its spending.
That's important, but it hardly makes this political drive-by shooting appear any less ugly.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Hidden Lie
The University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Public Policy Center's latest Political Fact Check on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race focuses not only on Mike Gableman's Willie Horton ad, but also on the most recent ad by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce that mangles the truth in what's been called the "letter from the grave" case.
The Annenberg Center spells out in considerable detail how WMC takes liberties with the facts and hypocritically ridicules Louis Butler for doing what the big business lobby says it wants all judges to do, which is adhere strictly to the constitution. But the critique doesn't touch on the more fundamental lie hidden beneath the surface.
Aside from how the truth is distorted in the letter-from-the-grave ad, the subject of the ad is itself deceptive because it conceals WMC's true motivations for wanting to influence the outcome of this year's high court race. Fighting crime appears nowhere on WMC's legislative agenda and nowhere on the group's agenda for reforming the legal system.
The reason WMC's campaign advertising fans the public's fear of violent crime is that WMC knows it can't very well square with the voters and say they want a court that will favor corporations in product liability cases or tax cases. The kingmakers at WMC know if they air an ad effectively saying "we want judges who won't hold corporations liable for defective products" or "we want a Supreme Court that won't make corporations pay the taxes they owe," the public will reject those messages.
WMC is not alone in keeping the public in the dark about the real reasons for opposing one candidate or supporting another. Not a one of the shadowy front groups has come clean and told voters what is really driving them to try to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. They know if they did they would lose.
So they spend their loot trying to scare the bejesus out of voters instead. In other words, they live a lie.
The Annenberg Center spells out in considerable detail how WMC takes liberties with the facts and hypocritically ridicules Louis Butler for doing what the big business lobby says it wants all judges to do, which is adhere strictly to the constitution. But the critique doesn't touch on the more fundamental lie hidden beneath the surface.
Aside from how the truth is distorted in the letter-from-the-grave ad, the subject of the ad is itself deceptive because it conceals WMC's true motivations for wanting to influence the outcome of this year's high court race. Fighting crime appears nowhere on WMC's legislative agenda and nowhere on the group's agenda for reforming the legal system.
The reason WMC's campaign advertising fans the public's fear of violent crime is that WMC knows it can't very well square with the voters and say they want a court that will favor corporations in product liability cases or tax cases. The kingmakers at WMC know if they air an ad effectively saying "we want judges who won't hold corporations liable for defective products" or "we want a Supreme Court that won't make corporations pay the taxes they owe," the public will reject those messages.
WMC is not alone in keeping the public in the dark about the real reasons for opposing one candidate or supporting another. Not a one of the shadowy front groups has come clean and told voters what is really driving them to try to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. They know if they did they would lose.
So they spend their loot trying to scare the bejesus out of voters instead. In other words, they live a lie.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Part-Timers Get $47K a Year Plus Expenses? Only In The Legislature
The Assembly spent only 27 days in session doing the public's business from the beginning of 2007 through March 13, 2008 because Wisconsin has a part-time legislature, according to Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch.
That's a revelation because being a Wisconsin legislator has been considered a full-time job since the mid-1990s, with a salary to boot.
It seems unlikely most Wisconsin residents think part-timers should get $47,413 plus an average $8,771 in food and lodging expenses a year. And by the way, Huebsch and other legislative leaders - Assembly and Senate Republicans and Democrats - voted 8-1 to increase legislative pay 6.3 percent to $50,438 in 2009.
Legislators make more than most people. The state's average personal income is $34,476 and we're betting most of the people that earn that and less are expected to put in 40 hours a week.
The Legislature worked little and accomplished little because powerful special interests like the insurance industry, big business led by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the construction industry, realtors and unions like the Wisconsin Education Association Council that gave legislators $7 million in 2005-06 to keep their jobs have told them not to address real solutions that may cost their pay masters.
Voters ought to show their outrage about this whenever they see these so-called policymakers between now and Election Day. Doggedly question why they did so little, why they worked only one month in 15 and why they should earn more than many Wisconsin residents who are real full-time wage earners.
Tell them to get back to work instead of throwing candy at you from a shiny parade car.
That's a revelation because being a Wisconsin legislator has been considered a full-time job since the mid-1990s, with a salary to boot.
It seems unlikely most Wisconsin residents think part-timers should get $47,413 plus an average $8,771 in food and lodging expenses a year. And by the way, Huebsch and other legislative leaders - Assembly and Senate Republicans and Democrats - voted 8-1 to increase legislative pay 6.3 percent to $50,438 in 2009.
Legislators make more than most people. The state's average personal income is $34,476 and we're betting most of the people that earn that and less are expected to put in 40 hours a week.
The Legislature worked little and accomplished little because powerful special interests like the insurance industry, big business led by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the construction industry, realtors and unions like the Wisconsin Education Association Council that gave legislators $7 million in 2005-06 to keep their jobs have told them not to address real solutions that may cost their pay masters.
Voters ought to show their outrage about this whenever they see these so-called policymakers between now and Election Day. Doggedly question why they did so little, why they worked only one month in 15 and why they should earn more than many Wisconsin residents who are real full-time wage earners.
Tell them to get back to work instead of throwing candy at you from a shiny parade car.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Gableman 'Willie Hortons' Butler
Michael Gableman must be desperate. Or else he's as sinisterly cynical as they come. Gableman's smear of Louis Butler – his opening salvo in the ad wars – is offensive on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. The ad clearly and intentionally misleads viewers, playing fast and loose with the facts and leaning heavily on deceptive insinuations. And its not-so-subtle appeal to racism evokes memories of the infamous Willie Horton ad in the 1988 presidential campaign.
That's not all that's wrong with this ad. It commits the same act of violence against public understanding of the Supreme Court's role in our justice system that the interest group ads are committing. Virtually all of the advertising in this year's race creates the impression that fighting crime is the primary if not sole function of the Supreme Court, as if candidates for the high court were running for sheriff or district attorney. But the Supreme Court is not a sheriff's office or a DA's office. And it is not a trial court that is responsible for conducting trials and sentencing convicted criminals.
The public's knowledge of the third branch of government has long left a great deal to be desired. It surely will be worse after this election is over.
That's not all that's wrong with this ad. It commits the same act of violence against public understanding of the Supreme Court's role in our justice system that the interest group ads are committing. Virtually all of the advertising in this year's race creates the impression that fighting crime is the primary if not sole function of the Supreme Court, as if candidates for the high court were running for sheriff or district attorney. But the Supreme Court is not a sheriff's office or a DA's office. And it is not a trial court that is responsible for conducting trials and sentencing convicted criminals.
The public's knowledge of the third branch of government has long left a great deal to be desired. It surely will be worse after this election is over.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Lying...Er...Vying For Power
Even though state Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman has been caught in a lie that he curiously will neither confess nor stop repeating, it is the phony front groups and special interest organizations that are doing almost all of the talking in this year's high court race and they are traveling the lowest of low roads.
Some of the ads peddle outright lies. One claims incumbent Louis Butler overturned a murder conviction despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, but neglects to mention that new DNA evidence seriously undercut a key part of the prosecution's case. Both anti-Butler ads and anti-Gableman ads have gotten the facts wrong or have been found unfair or misleading.
But the dishonesty in the campaign advertising isn't limited to such twisting of the facts. A significant part of the deception is simply the subjects the ads focus on in the first place. By far the most common advertising theme is crime fighting. What these law-and-order ads don't tell viewers is that the Supreme Court deals almost exclusively with civil cases, not criminal ones, and almost all criminal cases are decided in lower courts.
What's more, the groups sponsoring these ads call them "issue advocacy," but more times than not the issues they are advocating on are not even on their agendas. Like most of the TV spots, ads launched by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce focus on crime fighting. Yet if you look at WMC's legislative agenda, fighting crime is nowhere to be found. And if you look specifically at WMC's agenda for reforming the legal system, again there's no mention of making sure our streets and neighborhoods are safe.
Other big advertisers in the Supreme Court race are similarly keeping the public in the dark about their real motivations for backing a particular candidate. Their so-called "issue advocacy" is a hoax. They are trying to buy the court, pure and simple.
Some of the ads peddle outright lies. One claims incumbent Louis Butler overturned a murder conviction despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, but neglects to mention that new DNA evidence seriously undercut a key part of the prosecution's case. Both anti-Butler ads and anti-Gableman ads have gotten the facts wrong or have been found unfair or misleading.
But the dishonesty in the campaign advertising isn't limited to such twisting of the facts. A significant part of the deception is simply the subjects the ads focus on in the first place. By far the most common advertising theme is crime fighting. What these law-and-order ads don't tell viewers is that the Supreme Court deals almost exclusively with civil cases, not criminal ones, and almost all criminal cases are decided in lower courts.
What's more, the groups sponsoring these ads call them "issue advocacy," but more times than not the issues they are advocating on are not even on their agendas. Like most of the TV spots, ads launched by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce focus on crime fighting. Yet if you look at WMC's legislative agenda, fighting crime is nowhere to be found. And if you look specifically at WMC's agenda for reforming the legal system, again there's no mention of making sure our streets and neighborhoods are safe.
Other big advertisers in the Supreme Court race are similarly keeping the public in the dark about their real motivations for backing a particular candidate. Their so-called "issue advocacy" is a hoax. They are trying to buy the court, pure and simple.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
When A Supermajority Isn't Enough
The star of the show at today's "Unfinished Business" rally at the Capitol by the People's Legislature surely was former Department of Natural Resources Secretary and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation director George Meyer.
The one-time member of Tommy Thompson's cabinet issued a stinging indictment of the Legislature’s stonewalling of a bipartisan measure restoring independence to the DNR by giving the authority to appoint the agency’s secretary back to the Natural Resources Board. Under Thompson, the authority was taken from the board and given to the governor.
The state Conservation Congress overwhelmingly supports an independent DNR, Meyer said, and not a single citizen testified against the legislation at public hearings. The only opposition came from a handful of business lobby groups.
Meyer saved his most damning remarks for the end, when he said there's a “supermajority” of legislators who have either sponsored the legislation or voted for it, yet Assembly leaders have blocked a final vote. He said legislative leaders have acknowledged to him that the Senate-passed bill would get somewhere between 70 and 75 votes in the Assembly, but it will not be debated because of “business opposition.”
Friday, March 07, 2008
Robin In Boy Wonderland
Yesterday, an Assembly committee shot down a proposed ban on campaign fundraising during the state budget process. Committee chair Sheryl Albers, a co-sponsor of the legislation, voted against her own bill.
Even stranger than that was the reason committee member Robin Vos, a Racine Republican, gave for opposing the bill. Vos urged his colleagues not to "give in" to the "perception" that state lawmakers are corrupt. One of his compatriots, Waukesha Republican Bill Kramer, eagerly seconded that notion.
We've passed through the looking glass here. Politicians engage in the smarmy business of shaking down special interests for campaign donations while they are making budget decisions that directly affect those interests, but are indignant when anyone suggests these transactions are crooked. And then when 2% of state residents tell a conservative pollster that they trust state legislators to do the right thing and 82% say lobbying groups determine what the state spends money on, they say it's imperative not to "give in" to these mere perceptions and they kill a decidedly modest reform plan that takes a baby step toward changing the unseemly game they are playing.
Is it something in the water at the Capitol?
Even stranger than that was the reason committee member Robin Vos, a Racine Republican, gave for opposing the bill. Vos urged his colleagues not to "give in" to the "perception" that state lawmakers are corrupt. One of his compatriots, Waukesha Republican Bill Kramer, eagerly seconded that notion.
We've passed through the looking glass here. Politicians engage in the smarmy business of shaking down special interests for campaign donations while they are making budget decisions that directly affect those interests, but are indignant when anyone suggests these transactions are crooked. And then when 2% of state residents tell a conservative pollster that they trust state legislators to do the right thing and 82% say lobbying groups determine what the state spends money on, they say it's imperative not to "give in" to these mere perceptions and they kill a decidedly modest reform plan that takes a baby step toward changing the unseemly game they are playing.
Is it something in the water at the Capitol?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Assembly GOP Helps Big Contributors At The Expense Of Autistic Children
Assembly Republicans bent on not requiring insurance companies to cover treatments for autistic children have accepted $2.5 million in campaign contributions since 1993 from insurance, business, manufacturing and banking interests that oppose the measure.
Instead, the Assembly GOP caucus supports a corporate welfare proposal that gives insurers a pass by putting $6 million in state taxpayer dollars into a program to help 325 autistic children on the program's waiting list. It doesn't help those who are not on the list or the one in 192 children born in Wisconsin with autism in the future.
The four special interests that oppose expanding insurance coverage for autistic children are among the Assembly Republicans' most generous benefactors. Their $2.5 million in contributions comprise 30 percent of the $8.41 million Assembly Republicans have accepted since 1993 from all 23 major special interest groups.
The most affected group - insurers - has contributed $1.26 million to current legislators since 1993. Assembly Republicans got $474,609, or 38 percent - the biggest cut of the four legislative caucuses.
Keep an eye on how they vote today on their pro-insurance industry change to Senate Bill 178.
Instead, the Assembly GOP caucus supports a corporate welfare proposal that gives insurers a pass by putting $6 million in state taxpayer dollars into a program to help 325 autistic children on the program's waiting list. It doesn't help those who are not on the list or the one in 192 children born in Wisconsin with autism in the future.
The four special interests that oppose expanding insurance coverage for autistic children are among the Assembly Republicans' most generous benefactors. Their $2.5 million in contributions comprise 30 percent of the $8.41 million Assembly Republicans have accepted since 1993 from all 23 major special interest groups.
The most affected group - insurers - has contributed $1.26 million to current legislators since 1993. Assembly Republicans got $474,609, or 38 percent - the biggest cut of the four legislative caucuses.
Keep an eye on how they vote today on their pro-insurance industry change to Senate Bill 178.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
GOP Handler Biting Other Republicans In High Court Race
Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman's campaign has been firing broadsides on numerous fronts in recent weeks and two longtime Republican Party soldiers are among the hits.
One of the targets of Gableman's Republican campaign manager Darrin Schmitz has been the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee. The State Bar group was created to police the honesty of the candidates' comments, advertising and other campaign activities.
Schmitz says some comments in a series of emails among committee members in December and January shows the committee is a bunch of liberals who support incumbent Justice Louis Butler in the race. Schmitz says the emails disparage him and other Republican supporters and suggest strategies for pressuring Gableman to sign the committee's clean campaign pledge.
Ironically, the emails Schmitz cites came from the eight-member committee's two Republican members at the time - former GOP state representative and retired appellate court judge David Deininger and Republican campaign strategist Bill Kraus. Deininger has since left the committee, citing his workload as a member of the state Government Accountability Board.
Kraus served in the administration of former Republican Governor Lee Dreyfus between 1979 and 1982 and is a longtime Republican strategist. Before serving as an appeals court judge from 1996 through January 2007, Deininger was a Green County circuit court judge for two years and a Republican member of the state Assembly for eight years.
One of the targets of Gableman's Republican campaign manager Darrin Schmitz has been the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee. The State Bar group was created to police the honesty of the candidates' comments, advertising and other campaign activities.
Schmitz says some comments in a series of emails among committee members in December and January shows the committee is a bunch of liberals who support incumbent Justice Louis Butler in the race. Schmitz says the emails disparage him and other Republican supporters and suggest strategies for pressuring Gableman to sign the committee's clean campaign pledge.
Ironically, the emails Schmitz cites came from the eight-member committee's two Republican members at the time - former GOP state representative and retired appellate court judge David Deininger and Republican campaign strategist Bill Kraus. Deininger has since left the committee, citing his workload as a member of the state Government Accountability Board.
Kraus served in the administration of former Republican Governor Lee Dreyfus between 1979 and 1982 and is a longtime Republican strategist. Before serving as an appeals court judge from 1996 through January 2007, Deininger was a Green County circuit court judge for two years and a Republican member of the state Assembly for eight years.