An effort by several candidates to post their latest campaign finance reports on the state Government Accountability Board's new electronic filing system has gotten fouled up again - cheating the public of information it may want to look at before they vote in next Tuesday's election.
The latest glitch occurred Monday - the day the last campaign reports before the April 7 spring election were due. The board said several reports filed by candidates got stuck in the system's innards so the public could not view them.
Unfortunately, the board's effort to work around the problem and post the reports didn't work so well either.
For instance, 841 contributions totaling $157,325 on Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's report are unidentified - no names, addresses, cities, states or zips. Those contributions represent more than half of the $296,819 she raised between February 3 and March 23.
And the numbers in the latest campaign finance report for Rose Fernandez, a state school superintendent candidate, don't come close to adding up. We were told by board staff she raised $65,611. But the report posted for her shows only $9,287 worth of contributions.
We've found many candidates make some mistakes on their report - simple math errors, not putting contributions from individuals and political action committees in the correct sections and an inexplicable knack for not being able to record the ending cash balance on one report as the beginning cash balance on the next report they file.
But we highly doubt Abrahamson or Fernandez messed up their reports this badly, given the myriad of problems the Government Accountability Board has had with electronic reporting since last fall.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Most Offensive AIG Payouts Of All
Everybody's howling this week about insurance giant AIG's recent payouts to its executives and foreign banks, and with good reason, but payouts the company made over a much longer period – to politicians – have been largely overlooked. But one is surely tied to the other.
In the last 20 years AIG contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties. The company carefully hedged its bets over the years, giving almost exactly half of its donations to Democrats and the other half to Republicans. AIG showed a meteorologist's fixation with the direction of the winds. When they blew in the Republicans' direction, the company's money followed. When they began to fill the Democrats' sails, AIG redirected its largesse.
These "investments" paid handsome dividends. Lax government oversight. Tens of billions of dollars in handouts to save the company from itself.
P.S. What kind of company obligates itself to pay employee bonuses? Aren't bonuses, by definition, supposed to be discretionary? Something a manager can choose to give an employee whose performance exceeds expectations? AIG insists it had no choice but to pay all those bonuses to people who ran the company into the ground. A contract is a contract. Washington pundits have been fond of saying AIG is "too big to fail." I'm thinking the company is actually too stupid to live.
In the last 20 years AIG contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties. The company carefully hedged its bets over the years, giving almost exactly half of its donations to Democrats and the other half to Republicans. AIG showed a meteorologist's fixation with the direction of the winds. When they blew in the Republicans' direction, the company's money followed. When they began to fill the Democrats' sails, AIG redirected its largesse.
These "investments" paid handsome dividends. Lax government oversight. Tens of billions of dollars in handouts to save the company from itself.
P.S. What kind of company obligates itself to pay employee bonuses? Aren't bonuses, by definition, supposed to be discretionary? Something a manager can choose to give an employee whose performance exceeds expectations? AIG insists it had no choice but to pay all those bonuses to people who ran the company into the ground. A contract is a contract. Washington pundits have been fond of saying AIG is "too big to fail." I'm thinking the company is actually too stupid to live.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Priorities, Priorities. . . .
Earlier this month the Democracy Campaign released a report showing the state's new electronic reporting system is generating current and past campaign finance reports that are riddled with errors for dozens of candidates and political action committees.
The board's staff has yet to publicly respond - or worse yet - address the problem. The same incorrect reports cited by WDC, including ones for the state's biggest fundraiser Governor Jim Doyle, remain up for public viewing, and more are added every day.
Apparently the board's staff has more important stuff to do than correct erroneous public documents or figure out what to do about another floundering IT project - important stuff like creating a pronunciation guide for the names of all the spring election candidates.
And it tackles all of them, even the toughies like:
Marc A. Hammer Mark A. HAMM-er
Paul W. Baxter Pawl W. BAXX-ter
Michael W. Hoover MI-kul W. HOO-ver
Steve Gibbs Steev Gibbs
Daniel W. Blank DAN-yul W. Blank
Jerry Wright JERR-ee Rite
Joe Donald Jo DON-uld
Unfortunately, in trying to make some tough names easy to pronounce they managed to list some wrong - the pronunciation for John P. Anderson is shown as Jon D. AN-der-sun
The board's staff has yet to publicly respond - or worse yet - address the problem. The same incorrect reports cited by WDC, including ones for the state's biggest fundraiser Governor Jim Doyle, remain up for public viewing, and more are added every day.
Apparently the board's staff has more important stuff to do than correct erroneous public documents or figure out what to do about another floundering IT project - important stuff like creating a pronunciation guide for the names of all the spring election candidates.
And it tackles all of them, even the toughies like:
Marc A. Hammer Mark A. HAMM-er
Paul W. Baxter Pawl W. BAXX-ter
Michael W. Hoover MI-kul W. HOO-ver
Steve Gibbs Steev Gibbs
Daniel W. Blank DAN-yul W. Blank
Jerry Wright JERR-ee Rite
Joe Donald Jo DON-uld
Unfortunately, in trying to make some tough names easy to pronounce they managed to list some wrong - the pronunciation for John P. Anderson is shown as Jon D. AN-der-sun
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Special Interest Control Of Another Court Election, With A Twist
What do Michael Gableman and Randy Koschnick have in common? A lot. Both grew up in the Milwaukee area. Graduated from the same law school. Became circuit court judges in small rural counties. Virtually indistinguishable judicial philosophies. Same physical build, for crying out loud.
Both developed a desire to sit on the state Supreme Court, and articulated almost identical reasons for their aspirations. But that's where their stories begin to diverge.
Gableman, of course, won his election and claimed a seat on the high court. Koschnick appears to stand no chance. He has almost no money and his opponent, incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, has raised over $1 million. Even a poll by a newly created right-wing group shows him running almost 30 points behind.
So what sets apart Koschnick and Gableman, these virtual clones? Other than the fact that Koschnick is actually the far more polished candidate of the two, the one big difference is that Gableman had three special interest groups and about $2.7 million of their money going for him.
While the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court races made most every legal professional cringe and citizens of just about every stripe recoil in horror, this year's race is turning out to be an equally vivid illustration of the extent of special interest control over the fate of those who aspire to sit on Wisconsin's highest court.
I say that not only because of what was done for Gableman but is being denied his twin. I say it also because of the campaign Abrahamson is waging. As I pointed out in a recent newspaper commentary, the looming threat of another special interest hijacking surely lit a fire under the chief justice hot enough to inspire her campaign to raise funds with such vigor that she long ago surpassed the seven-figure mark. She saw that a few interest groups did almost all of the TV advertising in last year's high court contest and controlled most of what voters were able to read, see and hear about the candidates. She understandably wanted no part of a similar fate.
But all those donations will come back to bite her. At least some of her biggest donors will inevitably stand before her in court one day. And perfectly legitimate questions about whether she can rule fairly and impartially on those cases will arise.
Which is why this year's election may well turn out to be every bit as powerful a case study in why we need Supreme Court election reform in the worst way.
Both developed a desire to sit on the state Supreme Court, and articulated almost identical reasons for their aspirations. But that's where their stories begin to diverge.
Gableman, of course, won his election and claimed a seat on the high court. Koschnick appears to stand no chance. He has almost no money and his opponent, incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, has raised over $1 million. Even a poll by a newly created right-wing group shows him running almost 30 points behind.
So what sets apart Koschnick and Gableman, these virtual clones? Other than the fact that Koschnick is actually the far more polished candidate of the two, the one big difference is that Gableman had three special interest groups and about $2.7 million of their money going for him.
While the 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court races made most every legal professional cringe and citizens of just about every stripe recoil in horror, this year's race is turning out to be an equally vivid illustration of the extent of special interest control over the fate of those who aspire to sit on Wisconsin's highest court.
I say that not only because of what was done for Gableman but is being denied his twin. I say it also because of the campaign Abrahamson is waging. As I pointed out in a recent newspaper commentary, the looming threat of another special interest hijacking surely lit a fire under the chief justice hot enough to inspire her campaign to raise funds with such vigor that she long ago surpassed the seven-figure mark. She saw that a few interest groups did almost all of the TV advertising in last year's high court contest and controlled most of what voters were able to read, see and hear about the candidates. She understandably wanted no part of a similar fate.
But all those donations will come back to bite her. At least some of her biggest donors will inevitably stand before her in court one day. And perfectly legitimate questions about whether she can rule fairly and impartially on those cases will arise.
Which is why this year's election may well turn out to be every bit as powerful a case study in why we need Supreme Court election reform in the worst way.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Something's Missing
One thing you would normally see by now on wisdc.org is a write-up of campaign fundraising and spending shown on year-end reports filed by candidates by the end of January. Last year, we posted our analysis of those end-of-year filings on February 20.
In 2007, we were able to put a pricetag on the 2006 race for governor by February 6. Two days later, we reported the total cost of the attorney general race. On February 21, we were able to issue an analysis of spending by candidates and interest groups in all state races, including all of the state legislative contests.
The year before that, it was also February 21 when we put out final numbers for campaign fundraising in 2005 reflected on year-end reports filed in late January 2006. In 2005, we reported final figures for 2004 on February 14. In 2004, it was February 18.
In 2003, we tallied the total cost of the 2002 governor's race by February 6, and reported year-end totals for fundraising and campaign spending in state legislative elections on February 24.
Notice that every year these reports were made public before the end of February. Also notice that we're already into March and we have not yet posted anything on the year-end reports filed in January that cover campaign activity in the 2008 elections. We're not able to because we can't get all of the reports from the state's new campaign finance reporting system.
This new electronic filing system was supposed to enhance public access to information about campaign fundraising and spending in state elections. So far, it's not living up to that promise. What's worse, there are substantial problems with the reliability of the data in the system. We discovered a number of glaring problems and reported on them a little less than four weeks ago. Now we've unearthed even more glitches and issued another report today.
The agency responsible for the new electronic reporting system, the Government Accountability Board, has done a lot of things right in its first year of operation, most notably standing up to the special interests and voting to restore meaning to state laws requiring full disclosure of electioneering and limiting campaign contributions. The new board also imposed stiff penalties on wealthy donors flagged by the Democracy Campaign for breaking campaign donation limitations, something the old Elections Board was loathe to do. And don't forget the new board's baptism by fire – the unenviable task of administering the 2008 election. The GAB deserves stellar marks for its maiden electoral voyage, as voting went smoothly and the controversies that marred the 2000 and 2004 elections were noticeably absent in Wisconsin last November.
But the GAB still is plagued by the Achilles' heel of the staff the new board inherited from the old one it replaced – utter haplessness when it comes to managing information technology projects. The current mess with campaign finance recordkeeping is hardly the lone example of IT work bungled by this crew. The ill-fated attempted privatization of voter registration was an even more publicized and costly misadventure.
One state senator has gone so far as to suggest candidates for state office in Wisconsin be given the option of going back to filing paper reports on their campaign finances. While the frustration that inspires such a proposal is totally understandable, there's no going back. We live in an electronic age and an increasingly paperless society. Besides, we fought long and hard for the enactment of the Citizens Right to Know law that created electronic disclosure of campaign finances. And then we fought a years-long battle to get the law implemented. Members of the public should not have to make a pilgrimage to a state agency office and paw through thousands of pages of paper reports to see who's giving money to our elected state officials.
But just as it became clear a couple three years ago that we needed a "paper trail" bill requiring any electronic voting machine to produce a verifiable paper record, and we got it, now the obvious shortcomings of the state's new campaign finance reporting system cry out for a paper trail of campaign contributions and election expenses. Wisconsin needs a mandatory paper backup to the campaign finance reports that are being stored in this new, all-too-fallible electronic filing cabinet.
In 2007, we were able to put a pricetag on the 2006 race for governor by February 6. Two days later, we reported the total cost of the attorney general race. On February 21, we were able to issue an analysis of spending by candidates and interest groups in all state races, including all of the state legislative contests.
The year before that, it was also February 21 when we put out final numbers for campaign fundraising in 2005 reflected on year-end reports filed in late January 2006. In 2005, we reported final figures for 2004 on February 14. In 2004, it was February 18.
In 2003, we tallied the total cost of the 2002 governor's race by February 6, and reported year-end totals for fundraising and campaign spending in state legislative elections on February 24.
Notice that every year these reports were made public before the end of February. Also notice that we're already into March and we have not yet posted anything on the year-end reports filed in January that cover campaign activity in the 2008 elections. We're not able to because we can't get all of the reports from the state's new campaign finance reporting system.
This new electronic filing system was supposed to enhance public access to information about campaign fundraising and spending in state elections. So far, it's not living up to that promise. What's worse, there are substantial problems with the reliability of the data in the system. We discovered a number of glaring problems and reported on them a little less than four weeks ago. Now we've unearthed even more glitches and issued another report today.
The agency responsible for the new electronic reporting system, the Government Accountability Board, has done a lot of things right in its first year of operation, most notably standing up to the special interests and voting to restore meaning to state laws requiring full disclosure of electioneering and limiting campaign contributions. The new board also imposed stiff penalties on wealthy donors flagged by the Democracy Campaign for breaking campaign donation limitations, something the old Elections Board was loathe to do. And don't forget the new board's baptism by fire – the unenviable task of administering the 2008 election. The GAB deserves stellar marks for its maiden electoral voyage, as voting went smoothly and the controversies that marred the 2000 and 2004 elections were noticeably absent in Wisconsin last November.
But the GAB still is plagued by the Achilles' heel of the staff the new board inherited from the old one it replaced – utter haplessness when it comes to managing information technology projects. The current mess with campaign finance recordkeeping is hardly the lone example of IT work bungled by this crew. The ill-fated attempted privatization of voter registration was an even more publicized and costly misadventure.
One state senator has gone so far as to suggest candidates for state office in Wisconsin be given the option of going back to filing paper reports on their campaign finances. While the frustration that inspires such a proposal is totally understandable, there's no going back. We live in an electronic age and an increasingly paperless society. Besides, we fought long and hard for the enactment of the Citizens Right to Know law that created electronic disclosure of campaign finances. And then we fought a years-long battle to get the law implemented. Members of the public should not have to make a pilgrimage to a state agency office and paw through thousands of pages of paper reports to see who's giving money to our elected state officials.
But just as it became clear a couple three years ago that we needed a "paper trail" bill requiring any electronic voting machine to produce a verifiable paper record, and we got it, now the obvious shortcomings of the state's new campaign finance reporting system cry out for a paper trail of campaign contributions and election expenses. Wisconsin needs a mandatory paper backup to the campaign finance reports that are being stored in this new, all-too-fallible electronic filing cabinet.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Astronauts, Judges And Stupid People
In our last blog post, I said it was only a matter of time before the Wisconsin State Journal used a federal court ruling that judges can join political parties as evidence that voters can no longer be trusted to decide who sits on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. Nothing if not predictable, the State Journal fulfilled the prophecy yesterday.
Opinion page editor Scott Milfred praised Federal Judge Barbara Crabb's decision as "smart and strong." Despite the fact Crabb took pains to stress that nothing in the ruling should make states consider abandoning elections, Milfred interpreted Crabb's opinion to mean just that. After reading the same decision, John Nichols came to the exact opposite conclusion. As did we.
But the most striking thing about Milfred's column was this statement: "We don’t elect school principals, hospital administrators or astronauts. Unlike politicians, they actually need to know what they’re doing. The same is true with our high court justices...."
Perhaps it hasn't yet dawned on the State Journal's editorial board, but realizing their dream of replacing an elected Supreme Court with an appointed one depends on amending the state constitution. That takes approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by the voters in a statewide referendum. In other words, the newspaper's braintrust will need those politicians who don't know what they're doing to go along with them not once but twice. And then they'll need those pesky voters who are too stupid to pick good judges to agree with them too.
And people give me a hard time for believing this is the year the Cubs will end that World Series drought.
Opinion page editor Scott Milfred praised Federal Judge Barbara Crabb's decision as "smart and strong." Despite the fact Crabb took pains to stress that nothing in the ruling should make states consider abandoning elections, Milfred interpreted Crabb's opinion to mean just that. After reading the same decision, John Nichols came to the exact opposite conclusion. As did we.
But the most striking thing about Milfred's column was this statement: "We don’t elect school principals, hospital administrators or astronauts. Unlike politicians, they actually need to know what they’re doing. The same is true with our high court justices...."
Perhaps it hasn't yet dawned on the State Journal's editorial board, but realizing their dream of replacing an elected Supreme Court with an appointed one depends on amending the state constitution. That takes approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by the voters in a statewide referendum. In other words, the newspaper's braintrust will need those politicians who don't know what they're doing to go along with them not once but twice. And then they'll need those pesky voters who are too stupid to pick good judges to agree with them too.
And people give me a hard time for believing this is the year the Cubs will end that World Series drought.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Another Blame-The-Voters Editorial In 3, 2, 1....
Here's betting the Wisconsin State Journal pounces on the federal court ruling striking down a ban on judges joining political parties as further evidence Wisconsin needs to do away with court elections.
Before readers swallow what the State Journal will almost certainly serve up, they really should read the ruling judge's own insights on the matter.
In her decision, Federal Judge Barbara Crabb wrote "it is no small task to determine the best way to promote judicial integrity" but goes on to say that "(d)espite the challenges, it does not follow that the government, the legal community and the general public should simply throw in the towel and adopt an 'anything goes' approach. Nor does it mean that states must abandon elections if they wish to have any meaningful influence over judicial conduct. Although many in the legal community demonize judicial elections and exalt a system of appointment, a 'merit' selection process has its own flaws and is no guarantee that the judiciary will be free from partisan bias or the perception of it."
To underscore her point, Judge Crabb cited a study of federal appeals court decisions showing that the political party of the appointing president is an accurate predictor of how judges will vote and that decisions are more extreme when an appellate panel is made up of three judges appointed by a president of the same party. She also discussed the common assumption that Bush v. Gore would have been decided differently if the candidates' positions in the deadlock had been reversed.
Crabb observes that "(e)ven if it could be demonstrated that a nonelective selection process were superior, it is unlikely that the more than 30 states that use elections will abandon them any time soon."
She concludes, "Whatever route the government takes, it should be hesitant in seeking to improve the judiciary by limiting the discussions that candidates may have with the public. Such measures not only risk violating the rights of the candidates and keeping voters ignorant, but 'signal disrespect for the equality of citizens with their decision-makers' by assuming that voters must be protected from their own bad judgment."
Hear, hear.
Before readers swallow what the State Journal will almost certainly serve up, they really should read the ruling judge's own insights on the matter.
In her decision, Federal Judge Barbara Crabb wrote "it is no small task to determine the best way to promote judicial integrity" but goes on to say that "(d)espite the challenges, it does not follow that the government, the legal community and the general public should simply throw in the towel and adopt an 'anything goes' approach. Nor does it mean that states must abandon elections if they wish to have any meaningful influence over judicial conduct. Although many in the legal community demonize judicial elections and exalt a system of appointment, a 'merit' selection process has its own flaws and is no guarantee that the judiciary will be free from partisan bias or the perception of it."
To underscore her point, Judge Crabb cited a study of federal appeals court decisions showing that the political party of the appointing president is an accurate predictor of how judges will vote and that decisions are more extreme when an appellate panel is made up of three judges appointed by a president of the same party. She also discussed the common assumption that Bush v. Gore would have been decided differently if the candidates' positions in the deadlock had been reversed.
Crabb observes that "(e)ven if it could be demonstrated that a nonelective selection process were superior, it is unlikely that the more than 30 states that use elections will abandon them any time soon."
She concludes, "Whatever route the government takes, it should be hesitant in seeking to improve the judiciary by limiting the discussions that candidates may have with the public. Such measures not only risk violating the rights of the candidates and keeping voters ignorant, but 'signal disrespect for the equality of citizens with their decision-makers' by assuming that voters must be protected from their own bad judgment."
Hear, hear.
Friday, February 13, 2009
State Agencies Support Special Interest Group Opposed To Closing Tax Loophole
Two state agencies, parts of the University of Wisconsin System and the state’s technical college system are among the financial sponsors of a special interest lobby group that wants to protect a state business tax loophole and opposes a legislative proposal to require workers’ wage claims be paid ahead of debts owed to banks by bankrupt businesses.
The association, a registered lobbying organization, describes itself as a nonprofit group dedicated to expanding the state’s economy. “It is critical that the collective voice of economic development professionals is heard as public policy matters affecting our economy and workforce are debated and acted upon,” according to its website.
The state agencies, UW and technical colleges are among dozens of businesses and trade associations that pay varying amounts to support the lobby group. The UW-Madison Office of Corporate Relations is listed as a silver sponsor at $3,500. The UW-Extension’s economic development center and the Department of Financial Institutions are listed as bronze sponsors at $1,500 each and the University Research Park, Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority and Wisconsin Technical College System are associate sponsors at $500 each.
The association is among 17 bank, business, insurance and trade groups in a front group called the Coalition to Save Wisconsin Jobs that recently said it will fight Governor Jim Doyle's plan to enact a new $94 million a year business tax - called combined reporting - as part of Doyle's state stimulus package.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Election Law Charge Reduced To Fine
A Republican state representative accused of making false statements in campaign literature last fall has paid a $250 fine on a reduced charge.
Representative Dan Knodl of Germantown was originally charged in late October with a violation of state election law that carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. Knodl was accused of naming numerous people as supporters who did not support him or give him permission to use their names in a campaign flier.
Knodl pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct that was approved in Ozaukee County Circuit Court in late January.
Knodl handily defeated Democrat Charlene Brady in the November elections to win the 24th Assembly District seat formerly held by Republican Sue Jeskewitz.
Representative Dan Knodl of Germantown was originally charged in late October with a violation of state election law that carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. Knodl was accused of naming numerous people as supporters who did not support him or give him permission to use their names in a campaign flier.
Knodl pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct that was approved in Ozaukee County Circuit Court in late January.
Knodl handily defeated Democrat Charlene Brady in the November elections to win the 24th Assembly District seat formerly held by Republican Sue Jeskewitz.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Wisconsin Donors Gave Record $3.8 Million To Shadow Groups
The $3.78 million
The key findings and highlights of the 527 groups’
A big beneficiary was the Greater
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Hard Times
A week rarely goes by without word of another state newspaper reporter leaving the trade. Our state's not unique . . . it's happening everywhere. NPR just aired an excellent story focusing on the Hartford Courant and what it means to our democracy if newspapers like the Courant go away. In These Times just ran an article about the vanishing press corps in our nation's capital.
Democracy cannot long survive without a vigorous and always inquiring news industry. If newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, something will have to take its place. I just heard of a new enterprise called Your News. Visitors to this web-based news service not only can consume the site's content, they can contribute to it. Check it out.
Maybe this is what the future looks like.
Democracy cannot long survive without a vigorous and always inquiring news industry. If newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, something will have to take its place. I just heard of a new enterprise called Your News. Visitors to this web-based news service not only can consume the site's content, they can contribute to it. Check it out.
Maybe this is what the future looks like.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Two Years and Four Convictions Later Doyle Still Holding Troha Contributions
Governor Jim Doyle has yet to return any of the more than $100,000 federal prosecutors say was contributed to his campaign in a conspiracy that has seen three businessmen and a county executive convicted and sentenced for giving or getting bribes in connection with landing a proposed Indian casino in
The ringleader, Dennis Troha, was indicted nearly two years ago on charges he funneled nearly $250,000 in corporate funds through family members and business acquaintances to the campaigns of more than 20 state and federal politicians and the Democratic and Republican parties.
Troha got six months probation, his business associates Achille Infusino and John Erickson each got 18 months probation and former Kenosha County Executive Allan Kehl was sentenced to two years in prison.
Hanging your hat on one charge being dropped in a plea deal is pretty flimsy cover. Federal investigators found the contributions were made with corporate funds, which is illegal, and on behalf of Troha by others, which is also illegal.
Doyle’s resistance to giving back the Troha conspiracy contributions is curious given other contributions he has returned to donors in the past.
In May 2006 Doyle returned $10,000 to 10
Doyle also returned a 2003 contribution in 2006 from a former associate of a convicted
Sounds like a good description of Doyle’s standard for returning questionable campaign contributions.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Enemy Within
With the shape our country is in, I can't help but think we've been pretty lousy stewards of the rich inheritance we were given by those who came before us. What we are fixing to pass on to my 9-year-old son's generation is not the America I want him to inherit. It is damaged goods.
We all should have known better. It's been 30 years, but I still remember sitting in economics classes in college and on more than one occasion listening to professors say with a straight face that America's economy was depression-proof because of monetary and fiscal policy tools and regulatory protections that didn't exist when the country descended into the Great Depression.
Seemed to make sense at the time. But now their instruction seems flimsier with each passing day.
Those professors failed to account for the possibility that bought-and-paid-for politicians might one day t
ear down the post-Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. And they seriously erred in placing such faith in the infallibility of the Fed and the public-spiritedness of the Congress and White House.
College professors aren't the only ones who should have known better. That goes for all of us.
We should have gotten to know Charles Ponzi better so we could recognize him when he came our way again. We didn't. He did return, this time by the name of Bernard Madoff. Despite 10 years' worth of warnings, Ponzi wasn't noticed until after Madoff made off with tens of billions of dollars of our money.
Hollywood warned us 20-some years ago with Gordon Gekko. Real life warned us with the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. The warnings went unheeded.
We should have learned the lessons of Vietnam. Instead we idly watched most all the same mistakes repeated in Iraq. And then some.
Even the best and brightest among us – from college professors and high-ranking public officials to captains of industry and the media intelligentsia – are living proof of what a comic strip told us about ourselves over 35 years ago.
Extremely difficult days lie ahead. Yes, to a sometimes substantial degree we are victims of forces beyond our control. But we also are largely to blame for our fate.
We all should have known better. It's been 30 years, but I still remember sitting in economics classes in college and on more than one occasion listening to professors say with a straight face that America's economy was depression-proof because of monetary and fiscal policy tools and regulatory protections that didn't exist when the country descended into the Great Depression.
Seemed to make sense at the time. But now their instruction seems flimsier with each passing day.
Those professors failed to account for the possibility that bought-and-paid-for politicians might one day t
ear down the post-Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies. And they seriously erred in placing such faith in the infallibility of the Fed and the public-spiritedness of the Congress and White House.College professors aren't the only ones who should have known better. That goes for all of us.
We should have gotten to know Charles Ponzi better so we could recognize him when he came our way again. We didn't. He did return, this time by the name of Bernard Madoff. Despite 10 years' worth of warnings, Ponzi wasn't noticed until after Madoff made off with tens of billions of dollars of our money.
Hollywood warned us 20-some years ago with Gordon Gekko. Real life warned us with the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. The warnings went unheeded.
We should have learned the lessons of Vietnam. Instead we idly watched most all the same mistakes repeated in Iraq. And then some.
Even the best and brightest among us – from college professors and high-ranking public officials to captains of industry and the media intelligentsia – are living proof of what a comic strip told us about ourselves over 35 years ago.
Extremely difficult days lie ahead. Yes, to a sometimes substantial degree we are victims of forces beyond our control. But we also are largely to blame for our fate.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Will Doyle Give The Money Back Now?
Embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's top campaign fundraiser, adviser and close friend Christopher Kelly made a $10,000 donation to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle back in June 2006. It was well known at the time that Kelly was under federal investigation. Still, Doyle accepted the contribution. Even after Kelly was indicted last December on tax fraud charges, Doyle kept the money. When it was reported in February that Kelly received a loan from an Iraqi billionaire who had been convicted of fraud in France, Doyle still held on tight to Kelly's donation.
It was reported yesterday that a court filing shows Kelly is set to plead guilty in his federal corruption case.
Now that Kelly will be convicted of a federal crime, will Governor Doyle finally part company with this tainted cash?
It was reported yesterday that a court filing shows Kelly is set to plead guilty in his federal corruption case.
Now that Kelly will be convicted of a federal crime, will Governor Doyle finally part company with this tainted cash?
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Real Scandal
Wisconsin has been frequently visited by political scandal in recent years, and that's one good reason to take the advice the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gave the other day and not get too smug about what's happening in Illinois.
Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green's failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor's office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.
A check of the Democracy Campaign's database of campaign donors shows that another lead actor in the Illinois corruption scandal and indicted Friend of Rod, Blagojevich's close adviser and top fundraiser Christopher Kelly, gave Doyle $10,000 in June 2006. It was public knowledge that Kelly was under federal investigation at the time he made the donation. Even after he was indicted, Doyle kept the money. For more on Kelly, go here, here and here.
Such links alone ought to be enough to keep in check any superiority complex Wisconsin might have. But the biggest reason we cannot afford to be smug is that the real scandal is so much more vast than what the U.S. Attorney's office has on Rod Blagojevich.
The real scandal is what's perfectly legal in our political system.
It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people's life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.
The same thing is perfectly legal at the state level in Wisconsin, albeit on a proportionately smaller scale.
That's why we cannot afford to be complacent. And why we cannot allow reform to be a scandal-driven undertaking.
Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green's failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor's office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.
A check of the Democracy Campaign's database of campaign donors shows that another lead actor in the Illinois corruption scandal and indicted Friend of Rod, Blagojevich's close adviser and top fundraiser Christopher Kelly, gave Doyle $10,000 in June 2006. It was public knowledge that Kelly was under federal investigation at the time he made the donation. Even after he was indicted, Doyle kept the money. For more on Kelly, go here, here and here.
Such links alone ought to be enough to keep in check any superiority complex Wisconsin might have. But the biggest reason we cannot afford to be smug is that the real scandal is so much more vast than what the U.S. Attorney's office has on Rod Blagojevich.
The real scandal is what's perfectly legal in our political system.
It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people's life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.
The same thing is perfectly legal at the state level in Wisconsin, albeit on a proportionately smaller scale.
That's why we cannot afford to be complacent. And why we cannot allow reform to be a scandal-driven undertaking.
Monday, December 08, 2008
A No-Tax Pledge That Costs Too Much
Politicians are fond of saying that taxpayers don't want their money used to pay for political campaigns. Actually, they do.
A national bipartisan poll done by two top D.C.-area political polling firms – one that caters almost exclusively to Republicans and corporate interests and the other that works primarily for Democrats, labor unions and progressive advocacy groups – shows strong public support for publicly financed elections. Support for taxpayer-funded elections is high in every region of the country, and actually is slightly higher in the conservative South than it is in the more liberal Northeast and Midwest. Support cuts across gender and age lines, not to mention political party affiliation. More than two-thirds of Democrats back public financing, but an even higher percentage of Republicans do too.
Over two-thirds of voters (69%) believe we need changes to the way elections are financed, and the polling provides a strong clue as to why. An overwhelming majority of voters make the connection between large campaign donations and the lack of progress in dealing with the nation's most pressing problems. A supermajority (77%) of those surveyed agreed with the statement “I am worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today, like the economic crisis, rising energy costs, reforming health care, and global warming.”
And a large majority see big campaign contributions as a major cause of the economic meltdown. Over two-thirds (70%) of voters agree with the statement “Large campaign contributions from the banking industry to members of Congress have resulted in lax oversight and have been a major factor in causing the current financial crisis on Wall Street.”
In the weeks and months to come, we'll undoubtedly hear politicians of just about every stripe claim that we can't afford public financing of election campaigns in these tough economic times. The people these politicians are supposed to be representing have a distinctly different view, as this latest poll shows. From coast to coast, from young to old, from left to right, Americans have reached the conclusion that we cannot afford the way political campaigns are financed today. The cost to our country is far too high.
A national bipartisan poll done by two top D.C.-area political polling firms – one that caters almost exclusively to Republicans and corporate interests and the other that works primarily for Democrats, labor unions and progressive advocacy groups – shows strong public support for publicly financed elections. Support for taxpayer-funded elections is high in every region of the country, and actually is slightly higher in the conservative South than it is in the more liberal Northeast and Midwest. Support cuts across gender and age lines, not to mention political party affiliation. More than two-thirds of Democrats back public financing, but an even higher percentage of Republicans do too.
Over two-thirds of voters (69%) believe we need changes to the way elections are financed, and the polling provides a strong clue as to why. An overwhelming majority of voters make the connection between large campaign donations and the lack of progress in dealing with the nation's most pressing problems. A supermajority (77%) of those surveyed agreed with the statement “I am worried that large political contributions will prevent Congress from tackling the important issues facing America today, like the economic crisis, rising energy costs, reforming health care, and global warming.”
And a large majority see big campaign contributions as a major cause of the economic meltdown. Over two-thirds (70%) of voters agree with the statement “Large campaign contributions from the banking industry to members of Congress have resulted in lax oversight and have been a major factor in causing the current financial crisis on Wall Street.”
In the weeks and months to come, we'll undoubtedly hear politicians of just about every stripe claim that we can't afford public financing of election campaigns in these tough economic times. The people these politicians are supposed to be representing have a distinctly different view, as this latest poll shows. From coast to coast, from young to old, from left to right, Americans have reached the conclusion that we cannot afford the way political campaigns are financed today. The cost to our country is far too high.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Gladstonewalling Justice
Former state Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen was originally charged with felony misconduct in public office on October 18, 2002. More than six years now have passed – 2,234 days to be exact – and Jensen's legal fate still has not been decided.Jensen went on trial once already and was convicted. That was back in March 2006. He appealed his conviction and was granted a new trial on a legal technicality. That was in November 2007. A date for the new trial still has not been set.
One-time British prime minister William Gladstone died in 1898, but nevertheless knew all you need to know about the Jensen case.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Reader's Digest Version Of Law School Forum
Last Friday, we posted a 56-minute video of the discussion at last week's Justice, Money and Politics forum at the UW Law School. If you don't have an hour to spare to watch the whole thing, you can watch this 7-minute version.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Justice, Money and Politics on YouTube
Tuesday night's forum at the UW Law School featured state Supreme Court Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks, Wisconsin State Journal editorial page editor Scott Milfred and yours truly.