Articulating a need for a separation of church and state was enough to get Thomas Jefferson cut out of history textbooks by the Texas Board of Education earlier this year.
Imagine how many calls to ban Jefferson there would be if more people were aware that Jefferson less famously emphasized a similar need for a distinction between commerce and democracy, a separation of corporation and state if you will.
Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Jefferson was deeply wary of corporate power and believed if the people were to govern themselves corporations needed to be kept on a short leash politically. And he wasn't alone. For the better part of the new nation's first century, corporations operated under revocable charters confining them to strictly commercial activities and requiring them to serve the public interest.
With the Tea Party movement all the rage in our current moment, people forget that the original Boston Tea Party was not only a protest of British rule but also specifically an act of civil disobedience against the British East India Trading Company. Those tea partiers understood how unrestrained corporate power went hand in hand with political oppression.
My, how that understanding has waned. Target Corporation is now in the news for its decision to pump $150,000 into the race for governor in Minnesota, one of the early manifestations of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in January that corporations can spend as much as they like to influence elections.
By backing a candidate who strongly opposes gay rights, Target now finds itself scrambling to reassure gay customers and employees there is no bigotry behind the company's political activities. In trying to smooth things over, Target's top management is revealing something other corporate execs have been loathe to publicly acknowledge, namely that they sink money into elections strictly to enhance their bottom line. Or as Target's CEO said in a letter to employees, "to advance policies aligned with our business objectives."
To hell with civil rights. To hell with social justice. To hell with what's best for the whole country. To hell with any concern for the common good. Governing this nation is about nothing more than a single-minded pursuit of "business objectives."
This is what will be reaped from what the Supreme Court sowed with its decision in the Citizens United case.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Where Campaign Cash Really Comes From
In the hours before political candidates file their campaign finance reports, their campaigns issue ritual statements showcasing their numbers and generally boasting about their fundraising prowess, complete with a stock claim that most of the donors gave small amounts of money. What they don't tell you is that most of the funds raised came from a few who gave exceedingly large sums.
Mark Neumann's campaign for governor didn't deviate from the standard boilerplate in summarizing its fundraising over the first half of the year. The statement issued a few days ago says the campaign raised $1.96 million in the six-month period, adding that 96% of the donors are from Wisconsin and 85% gave $99 or less.
There's a lot in the Neumann camp's statement that leaves you scratching your head. The actual report his campaign filed with the state Government Accountability Board lists $2,844,282 in contributions, not $1.96 million. And if you look at who gave the slightly more than $2.8 million the campaign reported, you find that $2,525,170 came from Neumann's own pocket.
Scott Walker and Tom Barrett also closely followed the well-worn script in describing their fundraising. Both claim a substantial majority of their supporters donate small amounts. Like Neumann, neither Walker nor Barrett says anything about where most of their money comes from.
We will be filling in that blank in the weeks to come. I'm betting that what we find will look an awful lot like what we found in the last race for governor in 2006.
Our findings mirror those of the national Campaign Finance Institute, which monitors election financing at the state and national levels. As the bar chart below illustrates, CFI's analysis of fundraising by candidates for state office in Wisconsin the last time we had a race for governor in 2006 shows that less than one-seventh of campaign money came from individuals giving $100 or less, while the lion's share of funds were donated by far more generous donors.
It could be worse. Like Illinois.
Mark Neumann's campaign for governor didn't deviate from the standard boilerplate in summarizing its fundraising over the first half of the year. The statement issued a few days ago says the campaign raised $1.96 million in the six-month period, adding that 96% of the donors are from Wisconsin and 85% gave $99 or less.
There's a lot in the Neumann camp's statement that leaves you scratching your head. The actual report his campaign filed with the state Government Accountability Board lists $2,844,282 in contributions, not $1.96 million. And if you look at who gave the slightly more than $2.8 million the campaign reported, you find that $2,525,170 came from Neumann's own pocket.
Scott Walker and Tom Barrett also closely followed the well-worn script in describing their fundraising. Both claim a substantial majority of their supporters donate small amounts. Like Neumann, neither Walker nor Barrett says anything about where most of their money comes from.
We will be filling in that blank in the weeks to come. I'm betting that what we find will look an awful lot like what we found in the last race for governor in 2006.
Our findings mirror those of the national Campaign Finance Institute, which monitors election financing at the state and national levels. As the bar chart below illustrates, CFI's analysis of fundraising by candidates for state office in Wisconsin the last time we had a race for governor in 2006 shows that less than one-seventh of campaign money came from individuals giving $100 or less, while the lion's share of funds were donated by far more generous donors.
It could be worse. Like Illinois.
On the other hand, Wisconsin could do much better. Like Minnesota.
There's a reason why Minnesota candidates have come to rely so much more heavily on donors who give smaller amounts of money. For years, Minnesota has had a program that provided rebates of up to $50 to state residents who make small donations to political candidates.
Wisconsin could adopt such a program and join our neighbor to the west in encouraging citizen participation in state elections and weaning candidates from their reliance on big-money donors. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Wisconsin could trade places with Minnesota. Our neighbor to the west just suspended its small-donor incentive program.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Hold Your Nose And Vote Already
You can hardly blame people for having a tough time telling the difference between the two major parties, what with their slavish devotion and ceaseless pandering to big-money interests. On the other hand, there are obvious distinctions. For starters one party is scary, the other scared.
Some other distinguishing features are caricatures. One is the party of government, the other the party of free markets. To the extent there is truth in that exaggerated simplification, both parties have their work cut out for them.
The latest poll by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center shows most state residents don't have much use for public officials. Two-thirds of respondents said they trust state officials "only some of the time." Two-thirds also said public officials "don't care much what people like me think."
Well over half of those polled believe that government is "run by a few big interests" looking out for themselves and agree with the statement, "People like me don't have any say about what the government does." When asked how many people running the state are crooked, only 7% said "none" and 28% answered "only a few," while 42% said "some" and almost one in five said "most" or "nearly all."
As disillusioned as Wisconsinites clearly are with politics and politicians, the UW poll shows even deeper misgivings with the suits in the corporate boardrooms. Asked where they place their faith when it comes to fixing the economy, 52% of respondents said they trust a "strong government" while 40% said "the free market."
Given the low regard people have for government and public officials these days, that's like saying if there has to be either a child molester or an ax murderer living next door, they'll take the child molester.
Some other distinguishing features are caricatures. One is the party of government, the other the party of free markets. To the extent there is truth in that exaggerated simplification, both parties have their work cut out for them.
The latest poll by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center shows most state residents don't have much use for public officials. Two-thirds of respondents said they trust state officials "only some of the time." Two-thirds also said public officials "don't care much what people like me think."
Well over half of those polled believe that government is "run by a few big interests" looking out for themselves and agree with the statement, "People like me don't have any say about what the government does." When asked how many people running the state are crooked, only 7% said "none" and 28% answered "only a few," while 42% said "some" and almost one in five said "most" or "nearly all."
As disillusioned as Wisconsinites clearly are with politics and politicians, the UW poll shows even deeper misgivings with the suits in the corporate boardrooms. Asked where they place their faith when it comes to fixing the economy, 52% of respondents said they trust a "strong government" while 40% said "the free market."
Given the low regard people have for government and public officials these days, that's like saying if there has to be either a child molester or an ax murderer living next door, they'll take the child molester.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
In Search Of Better Redistricting
Milwaukee Mayor and Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett yesterday put forward a plan for changing the way legislative and congressional redistricting is handled. May he not be the last public official in the state to tackle this issue.
Lord knows the current system needs improving. The way it's worked is that legislators get to draw new district lines every 10 years after each census, and the lines they draw are tailor-made for their reelection. Democrats find ways to pack as many Democratic voters as possible in their districts, and Republicans load their districts with GOP voters.
In the vast majority of congressional and state legislative contests, the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of the lopsided political makeup of the districts. Much is made of how Wisconsin is a purple state, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. But individual districts are bright red or dark blue.
At present Wisconsin arguably has only one competitive congressional district, the Green Bay area's 8th district. In fact, since 2000 only two U.S. House races have been competitive (with a margin of victory within 10 points), the 2000 election in the 2nd district and the 2006 election in the 8th.
Depending on the election year, either 116 or 117 state legislative seats are up for grabs. Over the last 10 years, the number of competitive elections has ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 29.
While this is a raw deal for voters, it's great for incumbent office holders. Since 2000,
state legislative incumbents have been reelected 95% of the time. In 2000, incumbents won 102 times and lost three. In 2002, they went 89-6. In 2004, 91-4. In 2006, 97-9. And in 2008, 99-3.
State politicians go to great lengths to achieve these results. They spent somewhere between $2.6 million and $2.9 million of our money on consultants, personnel and legal expenses for the 2000 redistricting. And sometimes they had to draw weirdly shaped districts to enhance the job security of incumbents. The 64th Assembly district (pictured at right - click on image to enlarge) in the Kenosha area was named one of the 10 ugliest districts in America in a state-by-state analysis released this April by the Rose Institute.
Lord knows the current system needs improving. The way it's worked is that legislators get to draw new district lines every 10 years after each census, and the lines they draw are tailor-made for their reelection. Democrats find ways to pack as many Democratic voters as possible in their districts, and Republicans load their districts with GOP voters.
In the vast majority of congressional and state legislative contests, the outcome is a foregone conclusion because of the lopsided political makeup of the districts. Much is made of how Wisconsin is a purple state, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. But individual districts are bright red or dark blue.
At present Wisconsin arguably has only one competitive congressional district, the Green Bay area's 8th district. In fact, since 2000 only two U.S. House races have been competitive (with a margin of victory within 10 points), the 2000 election in the 2nd district and the 2006 election in the 8th.
Depending on the election year, either 116 or 117 state legislative seats are up for grabs. Over the last 10 years, the number of competitive elections has ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 29.
While this is a raw deal for voters, it's great for incumbent office holders. Since 2000,
state legislative incumbents have been reelected 95% of the time. In 2000, incumbents won 102 times and lost three. In 2002, they went 89-6. In 2004, 91-4. In 2006, 97-9. And in 2008, 99-3.State politicians go to great lengths to achieve these results. They spent somewhere between $2.6 million and $2.9 million of our money on consultants, personnel and legal expenses for the 2000 redistricting. And sometimes they had to draw weirdly shaped districts to enhance the job security of incumbents. The 64th Assembly district (pictured at right - click on image to enlarge) in the Kenosha area was named one of the 10 ugliest districts in America in a state-by-state analysis released this April by the Rose Institute.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
High Court Sinks To New Low
Yesterday a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court quietly finalized new rules allowing state judges to decide cases involving their biggest campaign supporters. This new ethical standard was proposed by two of the state's most powerful lobbying groups, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.
The rules stand in direct contradiction with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Caperton v. Massey that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice had a duty to withdraw from a case involving a major campaign supporter and his failure to do so violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that protects the right to a fair trial.
Four of the state Supreme Court's seven justices - Patience Roggensack, David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman - ignored the Caperton decision and sided with WMC and the Realtors on the amendment to Wisconsin's judicial ethics code.
This move came on the heels of Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack blocking disciplinary action against Gableman for authorizing an untruthful campaign ad. Gableman stood accused of judicial misconduct for violating the part of the ethics code prohibiting judges from making false statements about an election opponent. Gableman's ad claimed Louis Butler "found a loophole" and implied a child molester got off on a technicality of Butler's making and "went on to molest another child." Trouble is, the man Butler was representing as a public defender didn't get off. He was never released until he had served his entire sentence. Only after that did he commit another crime. The ad was a lie. And an obvious violation of the judicial ethics code.
Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack overlooked the plain facts in Gableman's misconduct case and ignored the plain meaning of the judicial ethics code. They refused to conclude that Gableman's ad was untruthful. It was just "distasteful," they ruled. And protected speech under the First Amendment.
The justices don't have a leg to stand on between the three of them on the truthfulness of the ad. It was way beyond distasteful. It was a lie. Invoking free speech was a far more clever maneuver. It made letting Gableman off appear somehow principled.
There is no disputing that Gableman had the right to say what he said about Butler. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for violating the judicial ethics code. Employees have the right to publicly say their bosses are total losers. But they shouldn't be at all surprised if that free speech gets them fired. General Stanley McCrystal and his aides had every right to say what they said to Rolling Stone magazine. President Obama also was entirely within his rights when he relieved McCrystal of his duties.
The right to speak is constitutionally protected. But that doesn't mean speech has no consequences under any circumstances. Justices Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack waived application of that common sense to their colleague and ideological soulmate Michael Gableman. Some might even be tempted to say they found a loophole in the state judicial ethics code.
Columnist Joel McNally said it best: "This time a lowlife really did get off on a technicality."
The rules stand in direct contradiction with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Caperton v. Massey that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice had a duty to withdraw from a case involving a major campaign supporter and his failure to do so violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that protects the right to a fair trial.
Four of the state Supreme Court's seven justices - Patience Roggensack, David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman - ignored the Caperton decision and sided with WMC and the Realtors on the amendment to Wisconsin's judicial ethics code.
This move came on the heels of Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack blocking disciplinary action against Gableman for authorizing an untruthful campaign ad. Gableman stood accused of judicial misconduct for violating the part of the ethics code prohibiting judges from making false statements about an election opponent. Gableman's ad claimed Louis Butler "found a loophole" and implied a child molester got off on a technicality of Butler's making and "went on to molest another child." Trouble is, the man Butler was representing as a public defender didn't get off. He was never released until he had served his entire sentence. Only after that did he commit another crime. The ad was a lie. And an obvious violation of the judicial ethics code.
Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack overlooked the plain facts in Gableman's misconduct case and ignored the plain meaning of the judicial ethics code. They refused to conclude that Gableman's ad was untruthful. It was just "distasteful," they ruled. And protected speech under the First Amendment.
The justices don't have a leg to stand on between the three of them on the truthfulness of the ad. It was way beyond distasteful. It was a lie. Invoking free speech was a far more clever maneuver. It made letting Gableman off appear somehow principled.
There is no disputing that Gableman had the right to say what he said about Butler. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for violating the judicial ethics code. Employees have the right to publicly say their bosses are total losers. But they shouldn't be at all surprised if that free speech gets them fired. General Stanley McCrystal and his aides had every right to say what they said to Rolling Stone magazine. President Obama also was entirely within his rights when he relieved McCrystal of his duties.
The right to speak is constitutionally protected. But that doesn't mean speech has no consequences under any circumstances. Justices Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack waived application of that common sense to their colleague and ideological soulmate Michael Gableman. Some might even be tempted to say they found a loophole in the state judicial ethics code.
Columnist Joel McNally said it best: "This time a lowlife really did get off on a technicality."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Elect The U.S. Supreme Court
A strong case for electing members of the U.S. Supreme Court is being made in Washington, by the unlikeliest of advocates, namely the latest nominee to the nation's highest court and the senators charged with evaluating her qualifications and ultimately deciding her fate.
The selection process for Supreme Court justices has become a very bad joke. Nominations are nakedly political. The confirmation hearings are cynical, thoroughly political exercises. Senators make complete fools of themselves, like Alabama's Jeff Sessions when he compared corporations to black children suffering discrimination. Nominees either answer questions with empty blather or they lie through their teeth so as not to put in jeopardy their chance for a lifetime appointment.
If testifying under oath meant much of anything and if Congress had an ounce of nerve, there would be articles of impeachment pending against John Roberts for lying to Congress. The chief justice roundly condemned judicial activism and swore he'd be like an umpire calling balls and strikes, then proceeded dow
n a path ensuring he will go down as one of the most radical judicial activists in the history of the Supreme Court. Roberts pledged allegiance to stare decisis, Latin for "stand by the decision," meaning courts are bound by previous decisions and what Roberts himself called "settled law." Once confirmed, he's been hellbent on overturning longstanding legal precedents that don't pass his ideological litmus tests.
Now Elena Kagan is telling senators that the ruling of the Roberts court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission giving corporations a free rein to spend as much as they want to influence elections is "settled law" (there's that term again) and should not be disrupted.
She can't possibly believe that. The federal Tillman Act of 1907 banned the use of corporate treasure in national elections, two years after Wisconsin prohibited corporate electioneering in state elections. These laws withstood legal challenges and attempts to repeal them for over 100 years. As recently as 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prohibiting the use of corporate treasury funds in elections in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Now that is settled law.
Yet the Roberts court saw fit to throw century-old laws and decades-old court precedents on the trash heap, installing a radical new order in American politics. The five strict destructionists on the Roberts court even managed to overlook the fact that the Supreme Court had already reviewed the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2003 and again in 2007. They refused to see the matter as settled and did not hesitate to be disruptive, barely waiting for the ink to dry on the court's ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission upholding the law's constitutionality before overturning it.
Nothing about this case changed between 2003 and 2010 except the court's composition. And now we are supposed to believe that Elena Kagan, who once said the Roberts court wrongly decided Citizens United, is of a mind to let that ruling stand for evermore.
Either Kagan is calculating and dissembling and willing to say or do anything to realize her life's ambition, or she is spineless and unprincipled and will make a most lackluster justice.
What we are getting with Elena Kagan is a mystery, just as it was with John Roberts. And Samuel Alito. And. . . .
For those who believe electing judges would introduce politics into the judiciary, I ask this: How exactly could the selection of Supreme Court justices get more political if we let the people decide instead of letting the politicians choose? Could the court's members be any more ideological if they were elected? Would lesser legal minds with thinner professional resumes be chosen by the voters? Could decisions of an elected court possibly be less based on fact, less grounded in the law and more partial to the rich and powerful than the rulings churned out in recent weeks, months and years by the appointed-for-life court we have now?
The selection process for Supreme Court justices has become a very bad joke. Nominations are nakedly political. The confirmation hearings are cynical, thoroughly political exercises. Senators make complete fools of themselves, like Alabama's Jeff Sessions when he compared corporations to black children suffering discrimination. Nominees either answer questions with empty blather or they lie through their teeth so as not to put in jeopardy their chance for a lifetime appointment.
If testifying under oath meant much of anything and if Congress had an ounce of nerve, there would be articles of impeachment pending against John Roberts for lying to Congress. The chief justice roundly condemned judicial activism and swore he'd be like an umpire calling balls and strikes, then proceeded dow
n a path ensuring he will go down as one of the most radical judicial activists in the history of the Supreme Court. Roberts pledged allegiance to stare decisis, Latin for "stand by the decision," meaning courts are bound by previous decisions and what Roberts himself called "settled law." Once confirmed, he's been hellbent on overturning longstanding legal precedents that don't pass his ideological litmus tests.Now Elena Kagan is telling senators that the ruling of the Roberts court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission giving corporations a free rein to spend as much as they want to influence elections is "settled law" (there's that term again) and should not be disrupted.
She can't possibly believe that. The federal Tillman Act of 1907 banned the use of corporate treasure in national elections, two years after Wisconsin prohibited corporate electioneering in state elections. These laws withstood legal challenges and attempts to repeal them for over 100 years. As recently as 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prohibiting the use of corporate treasury funds in elections in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Now that is settled law.
Yet the Roberts court saw fit to throw century-old laws and decades-old court precedents on the trash heap, installing a radical new order in American politics. The five strict destructionists on the Roberts court even managed to overlook the fact that the Supreme Court had already reviewed the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2003 and again in 2007. They refused to see the matter as settled and did not hesitate to be disruptive, barely waiting for the ink to dry on the court's ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission upholding the law's constitutionality before overturning it.
Nothing about this case changed between 2003 and 2010 except the court's composition. And now we are supposed to believe that Elena Kagan, who once said the Roberts court wrongly decided Citizens United, is of a mind to let that ruling stand for evermore.
Either Kagan is calculating and dissembling and willing to say or do anything to realize her life's ambition, or she is spineless and unprincipled and will make a most lackluster justice.
What we are getting with Elena Kagan is a mystery, just as it was with John Roberts. And Samuel Alito. And. . . .
For those who believe electing judges would introduce politics into the judiciary, I ask this: How exactly could the selection of Supreme Court justices get more political if we let the people decide instead of letting the politicians choose? Could the court's members be any more ideological if they were elected? Would lesser legal minds with thinner professional resumes be chosen by the voters? Could decisions of an elected court possibly be less based on fact, less grounded in the law and more partial to the rich and powerful than the rulings churned out in recent weeks, months and years by the appointed-for-life court we have now?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Naming A Disaster
No doubt remains that we are reliving the Gilded Age. The only question is what name the historians will finally settle on for this latest era of rampant materialism and blatant corruption.
A couple of nominations:
1. Stilted Age. The name fits a time when a comfortable few rest easily above the floodwaters while an afflicted many watch jobs and homes and savings and ways of life wash away. And notice how today's industrial and political elites talk of the "small people" and "the unwashed back home." Even that is stilted.
2. Jaded Age. So named for a society overindulged, exhausted by overwork, dulled by excess. So named for a time when truth competes so poorly in the marketplace of ideas, when opinion is exalted over fact, when ugly propaganda becomes innocent spin, rendering nearly a whole people increasingly ignorant and cynical.
Your turn. I'm sure you can do better.
A couple of nominations:
1. Stilted Age. The name fits a time when a comfortable few rest easily above the floodwaters while an afflicted many watch jobs and homes and savings and ways of life wash away. And notice how today's industrial and political elites talk of the "small people" and "the unwashed back home." Even that is stilted.
2. Jaded Age. So named for a society overindulged, exhausted by overwork, dulled by excess. So named for a time when truth competes so poorly in the marketplace of ideas, when opinion is exalted over fact, when ugly propaganda becomes innocent spin, rendering nearly a whole people increasingly ignorant and cynical.
Your turn. I'm sure you can do better.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Supreme Lies
By brazenly interfering in a state election while it is going on, the radically reactionary majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has once again exposed the deceit in all the high-minded talk from self-proclaimed "judicial conservatives" over the years about the perils of "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench."
They've always claimed an allegiance to stare decisis, the principle that judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions and not disturb settled legal matters. As the five justices who make up the current court majority demonstrated in their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they are perfectly willing to throw a century of settled law and decades-old court precedents on the trash heap if it suits their ideological purposes, in this case to allow corporations to spend freely on elections.
In seeking to distinguish themselves from what they consider abhorrent judicial activism by liberals, they've also long proclaimed the importance of judicial deference, the doctrine that judges should avoid frustrating the will of the legislature when deciding cases. By blocking the distribution of public matching funds to candidates who signed up to run under Arizona's 12-year-old campaign finance law and are actively campaigning under the system's rules, the five who control the high court at present put the full extent of their hypocrisy on display.
All in the interest of keeping politics safe for the rich and powerful.
They've always claimed an allegiance to stare decisis, the principle that judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions and not disturb settled legal matters. As the five justices who make up the current court majority demonstrated in their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, they are perfectly willing to throw a century of settled law and decades-old court precedents on the trash heap if it suits their ideological purposes, in this case to allow corporations to spend freely on elections.
In seeking to distinguish themselves from what they consider abhorrent judicial activism by liberals, they've also long proclaimed the importance of judicial deference, the doctrine that judges should avoid frustrating the will of the legislature when deciding cases. By blocking the distribution of public matching funds to candidates who signed up to run under Arizona's 12-year-old campaign finance law and are actively campaigning under the system's rules, the five who control the high court at present put the full extent of their hypocrisy on display.
All in the interest of keeping politics safe for the rich and powerful.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Fairytale Of A New Jensen Trial
Not that it matters, but I found myself standing pretty much alone in condemning the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to allow the Scott Jensen case to move to his home county. Jensen's attorneys, of course, were of the opinion that the matter was very well decided by the high court. The prosecutor who handled Jensen's first trial was circumspect, but then he would have been rid of the whole business in any case as he's soon to become an appeals court judge. Others, from newspaper editorialists to good government advocates, are resting assured that a new trial in Waukesha County will turn out exactly the same as the first one in Dane County.
Not to worry, they say. Jensen essentially admitted to stealing from the taxpayers and hinged his defense on the claim that everyone else in the Legislature was doing it too. Nothing has changed about the facts in the case. The new prosecutor will have all the evidence and all the transcripts of Jensen's testimony and that of the numerous witnesses. Surely jurors from Waukesha will judge those facts no differently than their counterparts from Dane County.
There's a big problem with this package of assumptions, and it has nothing to do with any possible differences between the jury pools in Waukesha and Dane counties. The problem is assuming there will be a new trial. The chance of that happening is waaaay far south of slim.
Think about it. If you are Scott Jensen, do you want a new trial? Hell no. You were convicted once, and do you really want to roll the dice with your everybody-was-doing-it defense one more time? Come on, if you are Scott Jensen you have two goals and only two goals. To avoid another felony conviction and to avoid time behind bars.
Now think about it some more. The Waukesha County district attorney already has said publicly that this case will overwhelm his office and even comically remarked that he's not even sure his office has the space to house all the boxes of documents contained in the court file. You don't have to read between those lines much to see that he wants no part of going to trial.
This is a plea deal waiting to happen. The only question is whether the new prosecutor will hold out for a felony conviction and meaningful punishment. You can bet Jensen will be angling to plead down to a misdemeanor and nothing more than, oh say, a few weeks of home confinement and maybe a fine.
Scott Jensen and his stable of attorneys have gamed the legal system brilliantly. They took a shot at acquittal and lost. After being convicted and sentenced to 15 months in prison, Jensen had his legal team scour the trial record in search of a technicality and they found one in the form of a jury instruction that was deemed faulty by an appeals court that overturned the former speaker's conviction.
Now after more than seven and a half years of legal maneuvering, Jensen is headed back to his home turf, where he will encounter a prosecutor who by his own admission will need months to come up to speed on this soap opera and who has made no secret of the fact that he'd rather not have any additions to his already-too-heavy caseload. Jensen has to like his bargaining position.
The state Supreme Court treated Scott Jensen in a way that no citizen of Wisconsin who is not a well-connected politician could hope to be treated. And in so doing, the court has put him in the driver's seat.
Not to worry, they say. Jensen essentially admitted to stealing from the taxpayers and hinged his defense on the claim that everyone else in the Legislature was doing it too. Nothing has changed about the facts in the case. The new prosecutor will have all the evidence and all the transcripts of Jensen's testimony and that of the numerous witnesses. Surely jurors from Waukesha will judge those facts no differently than their counterparts from Dane County.
There's a big problem with this package of assumptions, and it has nothing to do with any possible differences between the jury pools in Waukesha and Dane counties. The problem is assuming there will be a new trial. The chance of that happening is waaaay far south of slim.
Think about it. If you are Scott Jensen, do you want a new trial? Hell no. You were convicted once, and do you really want to roll the dice with your everybody-was-doing-it defense one more time? Come on, if you are Scott Jensen you have two goals and only two goals. To avoid another felony conviction and to avoid time behind bars.
Now think about it some more. The Waukesha County district attorney already has said publicly that this case will overwhelm his office and even comically remarked that he's not even sure his office has the space to house all the boxes of documents contained in the court file. You don't have to read between those lines much to see that he wants no part of going to trial.
This is a plea deal waiting to happen. The only question is whether the new prosecutor will hold out for a felony conviction and meaningful punishment. You can bet Jensen will be angling to plead down to a misdemeanor and nothing more than, oh say, a few weeks of home confinement and maybe a fine.
Scott Jensen and his stable of attorneys have gamed the legal system brilliantly. They took a shot at acquittal and lost. After being convicted and sentenced to 15 months in prison, Jensen had his legal team scour the trial record in search of a technicality and they found one in the form of a jury instruction that was deemed faulty by an appeals court that overturned the former speaker's conviction.
Now after more than seven and a half years of legal maneuvering, Jensen is headed back to his home turf, where he will encounter a prosecutor who by his own admission will need months to come up to speed on this soap opera and who has made no secret of the fact that he'd rather not have any additions to his already-too-heavy caseload. Jensen has to like his bargaining position.
The state Supreme Court treated Scott Jensen in a way that no citizen of Wisconsin who is not a well-connected politician could hope to be treated. And in so doing, the court has put him in the driver's seat.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Supreme Court Rewards Jensen For Gaming The Legal System
The state Supreme Court ruled this morning that former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen should be re-tried for criminal misconduct in public office in his home county of Waukesha, not in Dane County where the offenses are alleged to have occurred.
Disagreeing with a circuit court and a state appeals court that both denied Jensen's request for a change of venue for his retrial, the high court retroactively applied a state law creating a home court advantage for Wisconsin politicians that was not on the books when Jensen was criminally charged over seven and a half years ago or when he was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 15 months in prison and banned from the Capitol for five years.
After his conviction, Jensen's lawyers were able to find a loophole and get his conviction overturned on a technicality. And Jensen's friends in the Legislature wrote a new law in 2007 giving state politicians a privilege no other citizen in Wisconsin possesses, namely the ability to be tried in your home county instead of where crimes are alleged to have been committed. The circuit court and the appeals court both saw through this. The Supreme Court fell for it.
In ruling as they did, the members of the high court have rewarded the former speaker for gaming the criminal justice system for over seven and a half years and have sent the general public a powerful message. Wisconsin has two systems of justice, one for well-connected and powerful people like Scott Jensen and another for everyone else. All but a handful of citizens in this state cannot under any circumstances expect to be treated as Jensen is being treated if they are accused of breaking the law.
The circuit court got it right. The appeals court got it right. The Supreme Court got it horribly wrong. Regardless of whatever fine points of law members of the high court felt they were upholding, the end result is a continuing miscarriage of justice. And the reduction of the high-minded principle of equal justice under the law to a laughable farce.
Disagreeing with a circuit court and a state appeals court that both denied Jensen's request for a change of venue for his retrial, the high court retroactively applied a state law creating a home court advantage for Wisconsin politicians that was not on the books when Jensen was criminally charged over seven and a half years ago or when he was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 15 months in prison and banned from the Capitol for five years.
After his conviction, Jensen's lawyers were able to find a loophole and get his conviction overturned on a technicality. And Jensen's friends in the Legislature wrote a new law in 2007 giving state politicians a privilege no other citizen in Wisconsin possesses, namely the ability to be tried in your home county instead of where crimes are alleged to have been committed. The circuit court and the appeals court both saw through this. The Supreme Court fell for it.
In ruling as they did, the members of the high court have rewarded the former speaker for gaming the criminal justice system for over seven and a half years and have sent the general public a powerful message. Wisconsin has two systems of justice, one for well-connected and powerful people like Scott Jensen and another for everyone else. All but a handful of citizens in this state cannot under any circumstances expect to be treated as Jensen is being treated if they are accused of breaking the law.
The circuit court got it right. The appeals court got it right. The Supreme Court got it horribly wrong. Regardless of whatever fine points of law members of the high court felt they were upholding, the end result is a continuing miscarriage of justice. And the reduction of the high-minded principle of equal justice under the law to a laughable farce.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Another Week, Another Outside Group In The Governor's Race
A week after a Democratic smear group launched ads slamming the two GOP candidates for governor, an out-of-state pro-business group is sponsoring two television ads lauding Republican candidate Scott Walker.
The 30-second ads by the Michigan-based American Justice Partnership mostly show film clips of Walker saying he will create jobs by lowering taxes and easing regulations on business.
American Justice Partnership is a coalition of corporations, foundations and business trade organizations affiliated with the National Association of Manufacturers which spends millions of dollars to support mostly Republican candidates in federal campaigns. American Justice Partnership's website says it was created by Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus and former Michigan Republican Governor John Engler to promote state level efforts to control damage awards and make it more difficult to sue businesses in court.
The group's ads come a week before the Republican Party state convention in Milwaukee where delegates will vote on whether to endorse the contested primary between Walker and Mark Neumann, who has said he will not seek the party's endorsement.
The group claims its state partner is Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and counts among its state successes the elections of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Annette Ziegler in 2007 and Michael Gableman in 2008 and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in 2006.
The Democracy Campaign has estimated WMC spent about $6.5 million on nasty broadcast advertising, mailings and other outside electioneering activities to support Ziegler, Gableman and Van Hollen.
The 30-second ads by the Michigan-based American Justice Partnership mostly show film clips of Walker saying he will create jobs by lowering taxes and easing regulations on business.
American Justice Partnership is a coalition of corporations, foundations and business trade organizations affiliated with the National Association of Manufacturers which spends millions of dollars to support mostly Republican candidates in federal campaigns. American Justice Partnership's website says it was created by Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus and former Michigan Republican Governor John Engler to promote state level efforts to control damage awards and make it more difficult to sue businesses in court.
The group's ads come a week before the Republican Party state convention in Milwaukee where delegates will vote on whether to endorse the contested primary between Walker and Mark Neumann, who has said he will not seek the party's endorsement.
The group claims its state partner is Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and counts among its state successes the elections of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Annette Ziegler in 2007 and Michael Gableman in 2008 and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in 2006.
The Democracy Campaign has estimated WMC spent about $6.5 million on nasty broadcast advertising, mailings and other outside electioneering activities to support Ziegler, Gableman and Van Hollen.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Shadow Group Launches First Nasty TV Ad In 2010 Governor's Race
A secretive Democratic electioneering group launched the first television ad of the 2010 Wisconsin governor's race criticizing Republican candidates Scott Walker and Mark Neumann for their positions on state tax policy.
The Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, which is connected with the Greater Wisconsin Committee, refuses to say how much it is spending on its phony issue ad and where the ad is running. The unregulated group, which has spent an estimated $8.2 million to back mostly Democratic candidates in general election and spring races since 2006, is among several so-called issue ad groups that support Democratic and Republican candidates with negative mailings, broadcast ads and other activities at election time.
The ad criticizes Neumann and Walker for saying they would repeal recent tax policy changes that increased income taxes for people earning $300,000 or more a year and a corporate tax known as combined reporting which increases taxes on large businesses by taking into account their out-of-state operations.
The ad shows pictures of Neumann and Walker along with a picture of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney and tells listeners "not to make the same mistake again."
Repealing the income and corporate tax changes would put bigger financial burdens on the middle class and working families, the ad says.
The Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, which is connected with the Greater Wisconsin Committee, refuses to say how much it is spending on its phony issue ad and where the ad is running. The unregulated group, which has spent an estimated $8.2 million to back mostly Democratic candidates in general election and spring races since 2006, is among several so-called issue ad groups that support Democratic and Republican candidates with negative mailings, broadcast ads and other activities at election time.
The ad criticizes Neumann and Walker for saying they would repeal recent tax policy changes that increased income taxes for people earning $300,000 or more a year and a corporate tax known as combined reporting which increases taxes on large businesses by taking into account their out-of-state operations.
The ad shows pictures of Neumann and Walker along with a picture of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney and tells listeners "not to make the same mistake again."
Repealing the income and corporate tax changes would put bigger financial burdens on the middle class and working families, the ad says.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
They Love Us, They Really Really Love Us
Numerous candidates for statewide office and the legislature in every election try to hoodwink the public into believing the exorbitant amount of special interest cash they accept shows they are popular among voters.
There have already been claims like that by the two Republican candidates for governor - Scott Walker and Mark Neumann - about their fundraising for the last six months of 2009.
Walker's campaign raised $1.8 million in the last half of 2009, including $1.74 million in individual contributions. Walker says 74 percent of the donations were $50 or less.
Neumann's campaign raised $1.32 million, nearly all of it in individual contributions. Neumann says 93 percent of the donations were $250 or less.
But that's not an accurate description of where they got most of their money. While a large amount of their donations were relatively small, most of their campaign cash came from big contributions.
Walker's campaign received $811,898 in contributions ranging from $500 to $10,000. It represents 47 percent of his $1.74 million in individual contributions in the last six months of 2009.
Excluding Neumann's $1.09 million contribution to his own campaign, he really raised $234,461 from individual donors. Of that $178,850, or 76 percent, came from $500-plus contributions.
Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett boasted about how quickly he raised $811,867 in the last few months of 2009. Even though he didn't try to characterize most of it as coming from small donors, he fares the worst of the three. The campaign raised $655,788 in individual contributions and 78 percent, or $514,460, came from $500-plus contributions.
There have already been claims like that by the two Republican candidates for governor - Scott Walker and Mark Neumann - about their fundraising for the last six months of 2009.
Walker's campaign raised $1.8 million in the last half of 2009, including $1.74 million in individual contributions. Walker says 74 percent of the donations were $50 or less.
Neumann's campaign raised $1.32 million, nearly all of it in individual contributions. Neumann says 93 percent of the donations were $250 or less.
But that's not an accurate description of where they got most of their money. While a large amount of their donations were relatively small, most of their campaign cash came from big contributions.
Walker's campaign received $811,898 in contributions ranging from $500 to $10,000. It represents 47 percent of his $1.74 million in individual contributions in the last six months of 2009.
Excluding Neumann's $1.09 million contribution to his own campaign, he really raised $234,461 from individual donors. Of that $178,850, or 76 percent, came from $500-plus contributions.
Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett boasted about how quickly he raised $811,867 in the last few months of 2009. Even though he didn't try to characterize most of it as coming from small donors, he fares the worst of the three. The campaign raised $655,788 in individual contributions and 78 percent, or $514,460, came from $500-plus contributions.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
The Legislature's Invisible Hand
Longer ago than seems possible, I served in the Peace Corps. I returned to the U.S. in 1991 after two years in the West African country of Mali realizing what pretty much every Peace Corps volunteer I've ever met realized. That you get far more from the experience than you give. That's not what surprised me most about my time overseas, though. Living in a different culture revealed how thoroughly American I am. That's the thing that blindsided me.
I was astonished by how much of my own culture was invisible to me. That is, until I went to a place where none of my culture's unwritten rules applied. Only in a foreign land did the countless ways American culture guides my actions and shapes my behavior and my outlook on life become visibly apparent.
My western ways determined what I found most trying about living in one of the most physically harsh and materially impoverished places on Earth. It wasn't the extreme heat (up to 120 degrees in the hot season, low 100s and humid in the rainy season and high 80s and low 90s in the day with overnight lows in the 60s in the "cold season"). Not the language, which was a bear for me to learn because the same word had multiple meanings depending on subtle changes in tone my ear could not discern. It wasn't the absence of electricity, running water or flush toilets that was most difficult to cope with. Eating exclusively with my hands took some getting used to, but it ended up feeling like second nature. So did living without TV. Periodic bouts with malaria were no picnic and dysentery was a drag. All the boils from chronic staph infections seemed alarming at first. After awhile tending them became part of the routine.
Nope, the hardest thing by a longshot was the utter lack of privacy and personal space. I always thought a desire for some privacy was human nature. In Mali, I discovered it is cultural. A Malian friend of mine told me that people who want to be left alone are either mean or crazy. Or American, I thought but never told him.
Reading the editorial in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about Wisconsin's political culture caused me to reflect back on my time in Mali. The newspaper described a "culture in which politics takes precedence over policy, money is king, leadership too centralized and re-election is everything." Such an assessment stands in sharp contrast to what you hear when our state's politicians take inventory of themselves. They congratulate each other for their high-minded devotion to public service. Most of them don't see what the Journal Sentinel sees. Once assimilated into the culture, they grow blind to how the hand steers them.
A few short years ago, six of the most powerful state legislators in Wisconsin were paraded into courtrooms and were convicted of one form or other of criminal misconduct in public office. Charges ranged from bid rigging and accepting kickbacks to extortion and what the state's attorneys characterized as "theft from the public." That theft involved the systematic use of state offices, state equipment and state employees for personal political gain.
One of the legislators went to prison. Others did some jail time. One got a guilty verdict and 15-month prison sentence overturned on a technicality and awaits a new trial. The thing that never ceased to amaze me was how none of the six could seem to see that they had done anything wrong. Neither could an astonishly large percentage of their colleagues in the Legislature. To this day, most of them don't see what prosecutors and judges saw. They are blind to the hand that steers them.
My how Wisconsin has changed. Back in 1978, the face of scandal here was a state senator by the name of Henry Dorman, criminally charged with making a few personal calls on a state telephone. The charge was eventually dismissed in court, but not by the voters. Dorman was defeated in a primary election that fall, ending his 14-year career. News accounts at the time emphasized that Dorman had been tainted by the "scandal." His unauthorized phone calls were more than the citizenry could bear, an unacceptable raid on the public treasury. The hand steered them to throw the "bum" out.
The tale of Henry Dorman is a measure of what Wisconsin's political culture once was. The standards imposed by that culture have slowly but surely been lowered over the years. We now have a culture in which politics trumps policy, money is king, leaders are all-powerful and re-election is everything. Some of our modern lawmakers have become lawbreakers, but the real scandal in our state is what is perfectly legal and totally within today's cultural norms.
I was astonished by how much of my own culture was invisible to me. That is, until I went to a place where none of my culture's unwritten rules applied. Only in a foreign land did the countless ways American culture guides my actions and shapes my behavior and my outlook on life become visibly apparent.
My western ways determined what I found most trying about living in one of the most physically harsh and materially impoverished places on Earth. It wasn't the extreme heat (up to 120 degrees in the hot season, low 100s and humid in the rainy season and high 80s and low 90s in the day with overnight lows in the 60s in the "cold season"). Not the language, which was a bear for me to learn because the same word had multiple meanings depending on subtle changes in tone my ear could not discern. It wasn't the absence of electricity, running water or flush toilets that was most difficult to cope with. Eating exclusively with my hands took some getting used to, but it ended up feeling like second nature. So did living without TV. Periodic bouts with malaria were no picnic and dysentery was a drag. All the boils from chronic staph infections seemed alarming at first. After awhile tending them became part of the routine.
Nope, the hardest thing by a longshot was the utter lack of privacy and personal space. I always thought a desire for some privacy was human nature. In Mali, I discovered it is cultural. A Malian friend of mine told me that people who want to be left alone are either mean or crazy. Or American, I thought but never told him.
Reading the editorial in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about Wisconsin's political culture caused me to reflect back on my time in Mali. The newspaper described a "culture in which politics takes precedence over policy, money is king, leadership too centralized and re-election is everything." Such an assessment stands in sharp contrast to what you hear when our state's politicians take inventory of themselves. They congratulate each other for their high-minded devotion to public service. Most of them don't see what the Journal Sentinel sees. Once assimilated into the culture, they grow blind to how the hand steers them.
A few short years ago, six of the most powerful state legislators in Wisconsin were paraded into courtrooms and were convicted of one form or other of criminal misconduct in public office. Charges ranged from bid rigging and accepting kickbacks to extortion and what the state's attorneys characterized as "theft from the public." That theft involved the systematic use of state offices, state equipment and state employees for personal political gain.
One of the legislators went to prison. Others did some jail time. One got a guilty verdict and 15-month prison sentence overturned on a technicality and awaits a new trial. The thing that never ceased to amaze me was how none of the six could seem to see that they had done anything wrong. Neither could an astonishly large percentage of their colleagues in the Legislature. To this day, most of them don't see what prosecutors and judges saw. They are blind to the hand that steers them.
My how Wisconsin has changed. Back in 1978, the face of scandal here was a state senator by the name of Henry Dorman, criminally charged with making a few personal calls on a state telephone. The charge was eventually dismissed in court, but not by the voters. Dorman was defeated in a primary election that fall, ending his 14-year career. News accounts at the time emphasized that Dorman had been tainted by the "scandal." His unauthorized phone calls were more than the citizenry could bear, an unacceptable raid on the public treasury. The hand steered them to throw the "bum" out.
The tale of Henry Dorman is a measure of what Wisconsin's political culture once was. The standards imposed by that culture have slowly but surely been lowered over the years. We now have a culture in which politics trumps policy, money is king, leaders are all-powerful and re-election is everything. Some of our modern lawmakers have become lawbreakers, but the real scandal in our state is what is perfectly legal and totally within today's cultural norms.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
When Breaking The Law Is No Longer News
For years, we have been using our searchable database of campaign money to identify donors who exceed the legal limit on contributions. We issued another such report yesterday. No news organization in the state wrote so much as a word about our findings, save one college newspaper.
The phone used to ring off the hook when we called attention to these violations in the past. Maybe the change has to do with the decline of newspapers and the general shrinkage of the Capitol news corps. Or maybe it's something else. But I couldn't help but notice that the media started treating this as a non-story a couple of years ago when one of the wealthy donors we flagged screamed bloody murder, accusing me of "smearing" him and his wife with a "tar brush." Only the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made mention of our findings, and that was limited to a blog posting. Other media organizations wouldn't touch it.
After investigating our charge the state Government Accountability Board found that the donor, John Brogan of Green Bay, did indeed violate the law and the board fined him and his wife Gisela $1,350 each. The GAB's action wasn't made public until almost a year and a half after we issued our report and Brogan threw his hissy fit. To my knowledge, there were no news accounts of the board's handling of the matter.
This past year, we called attention to a bunch more donors that appeared to have given more than state law allows. This time, the investigative turnaround was just over five months and the GAB handed out stiff fines to seven individuals we flagged. That wasn't news either.
The phone used to ring off the hook when we called attention to these violations in the past. Maybe the change has to do with the decline of newspapers and the general shrinkage of the Capitol news corps. Or maybe it's something else. But I couldn't help but notice that the media started treating this as a non-story a couple of years ago when one of the wealthy donors we flagged screamed bloody murder, accusing me of "smearing" him and his wife with a "tar brush." Only the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made mention of our findings, and that was limited to a blog posting. Other media organizations wouldn't touch it.
After investigating our charge the state Government Accountability Board found that the donor, John Brogan of Green Bay, did indeed violate the law and the board fined him and his wife Gisela $1,350 each. The GAB's action wasn't made public until almost a year and a half after we issued our report and Brogan threw his hissy fit. To my knowledge, there were no news accounts of the board's handling of the matter.
This past year, we called attention to a bunch more donors that appeared to have given more than state law allows. This time, the investigative turnaround was just over five months and the GAB handed out stiff fines to seven individuals we flagged. That wasn't news either.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The New American Colonies
In the beginning, there were 13. Now there are hundreds of millions. American colonies, that is.
The original 13 declared their independence. More than 230 years later, it remains an open question when or even whether the new colonies will declare theirs.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as the famous ad slogan tells us. It also seems a terrifyingly easy thing to colonize. Some can be quickly entertained into a stupor. More than a few are easily driven to distraction by busy work or the gazillionth commercial for that-thing-you-simply-cannot-do-without. Countless others are slowly but surely propagandized into a robotic trance. Democracy requires us to think, and a thousand things are perpetually dangled in front of us that are easier or more fun or more lucrative.
When citizenship calls, more often than not there's no one home in the colonies. Poll after poll after poll after poll showed most of us wanted nothing to do with bailing out Wall Street and the banks and the auto industry. Our own elected representatives bailed 'em out anyway. The colonies mustered no resistance. Poll after poll after poll after frickin' poll showed most of us wanted a public insurance option in our health care system. Those who purportedly represent us in Congress ignored our wishes, took the public option off the table early on in the discussions and never allowed it to be seriously considered. They had millions of reasons. There was no revolt in the colonies.
We offer up our best defense. We're too busy making a living. (But not too busy to spend over 150 hours a month watching television.) Life's too this and too that. Politicians are too this and too that. The system's too this and too that. Without coming right out and admitting it, what we're saying is that there's no room on our plate for democracy.
The popular diagnosis of what ails us is apathy. I don't see it. I see plenty of people who care and who despair over what is happening in this country. I see no lack of passion. What I see is powerlessness, which is a totally different animal than apathy. Apathy is when you don't care. With powerlessness, you can care deeply about something but remain convinced there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I see and hear a lot of that.
This colonized state of mind is a curious thing, especially here in Wisconsin of all places. We have to ignore our own history to think the way we do. We live in a place where our ancestors faced social and political challenges a century and some years ago that parallel in so many ways those we encounter today.
As they struggled, they had so much less going for them than we do. Far less education. Way less money. None of our modern means of communication. Yet they rose up against the same kind of unbridled corporate power and corrupt politics that have visited us again. And they beat them. And in so doing, they gave us a great inheritance. They made this special place, known from coast to coast for the better part of a century as a beacon of clean, open and honest government.
We have managed to squander much of our inheritance. But what is done is done. We now have a choice to make. We can let this be the final chapter in our story, or we can write a new one. To those who say it can't be done, I say this: It already has been done. We don't have to make history. We only need to repeat it.
We face nothing today that hasn't been faced and conquered before, right on the very soil we stand on. Nothing, with the possible exception of thoroughly colonized minds.
The original 13 declared their independence. More than 230 years later, it remains an open question when or even whether the new colonies will declare theirs.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as the famous ad slogan tells us. It also seems a terrifyingly easy thing to colonize. Some can be quickly entertained into a stupor. More than a few are easily driven to distraction by busy work or the gazillionth commercial for that-thing-you-simply-cannot-do-without. Countless others are slowly but surely propagandized into a robotic trance. Democracy requires us to think, and a thousand things are perpetually dangled in front of us that are easier or more fun or more lucrative.
When citizenship calls, more often than not there's no one home in the colonies. Poll after poll after poll after poll showed most of us wanted nothing to do with bailing out Wall Street and the banks and the auto industry. Our own elected representatives bailed 'em out anyway. The colonies mustered no resistance. Poll after poll after poll after frickin' poll showed most of us wanted a public insurance option in our health care system. Those who purportedly represent us in Congress ignored our wishes, took the public option off the table early on in the discussions and never allowed it to be seriously considered. They had millions of reasons. There was no revolt in the colonies.
We offer up our best defense. We're too busy making a living. (But not too busy to spend over 150 hours a month watching television.) Life's too this and too that. Politicians are too this and too that. The system's too this and too that. Without coming right out and admitting it, what we're saying is that there's no room on our plate for democracy.
The popular diagnosis of what ails us is apathy. I don't see it. I see plenty of people who care and who despair over what is happening in this country. I see no lack of passion. What I see is powerlessness, which is a totally different animal than apathy. Apathy is when you don't care. With powerlessness, you can care deeply about something but remain convinced there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I see and hear a lot of that.
This colonized state of mind is a curious thing, especially here in Wisconsin of all places. We have to ignore our own history to think the way we do. We live in a place where our ancestors faced social and political challenges a century and some years ago that parallel in so many ways those we encounter today.
As they struggled, they had so much less going for them than we do. Far less education. Way less money. None of our modern means of communication. Yet they rose up against the same kind of unbridled corporate power and corrupt politics that have visited us again. And they beat them. And in so doing, they gave us a great inheritance. They made this special place, known from coast to coast for the better part of a century as a beacon of clean, open and honest government.
We have managed to squander much of our inheritance. But what is done is done. We now have a choice to make. We can let this be the final chapter in our story, or we can write a new one. To those who say it can't be done, I say this: It already has been done. We don't have to make history. We only need to repeat it.
We face nothing today that hasn't been faced and conquered before, right on the very soil we stand on. Nothing, with the possible exception of thoroughly colonized minds.
Friday, April 16, 2010
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://blog.wisdc.org/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.wisdc.org/feeds/posts/default.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Citizens United For Poetic Justice
Note to Citizens United: It's generally wise to be careful what you wish for.
You didn't much like it when we started a protest of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on election financing in the case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and called it "Citizens United Against Citizens United." You considered our effort trademark infringement and sent us a letter demanding that we cease and desist immediately. Not wanting to encourage frivolous litigation, we happily changed the name of our protest to United Citizens Against Citizens United.
You would have been better off if you'd left well enough alone. The stink you raised inspired hundreds more to join our Facebook group and sign our online petition. And then not long after we dropped the phrase we coined in favor of another that says the same darn thing and is a palindrome to boot, another group snatched up the original.
Part of me wants to say "serves you right." Another part needs to say "thanks."
You didn't much like it when we started a protest of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on election financing in the case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and called it "Citizens United Against Citizens United." You considered our effort trademark infringement and sent us a letter demanding that we cease and desist immediately. Not wanting to encourage frivolous litigation, we happily changed the name of our protest to United Citizens Against Citizens United.
You would have been better off if you'd left well enough alone. The stink you raised inspired hundreds more to join our Facebook group and sign our online petition. And then not long after we dropped the phrase we coined in favor of another that says the same darn thing and is a palindrome to boot, another group snatched up the original.
Part of me wants to say "serves you right." Another part needs to say "thanks."
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
AT&T Pushing More Deregulation
Proposals to sharply reduce state regulation of telephone companies so they would no longer have to receive approval to raise their rates, among other things, could be considered by the legislature before it adjourns the 2009-10 floor session later this month.
Backers of the bills include telecom giant AT&T - which reportedly helped write the legislation - and the cable industry, while opponents include smaller telecommunications companies, grocers, municipal electric utilities, the AFL-CIO, Citizens Utility Board and the Communications Workers of America.
AT&T and the cable industry have contributed $506,974 to candidates for statewide office and the legislature since 2003. Opponents of the measures contributed $643,193 to state candidates from 2003 through 2009.
Business interests, which are split on the measures, contributed $7.25 million candidates during the seven-year period.
The proposals, Assembly Bill 696 and Senate Bill 469, would give AT&T and other telephone companies the option of no longer being classified as telecommunications utilities. That means they would no longer have to receive approval from the state Public Service Commission to change their rates and they would not have to report profit and expense information to the agency. The measures also would strip the PSC's authority over consumer complaints about telephone service and telecoms also would not be required to provide land line service to all parts of the state.
Supporters of the measures argue they would create more options and improve prices through increased competition. The bill was sponsored by Democratic Senator Jeff Plale and Democratic Representative Josh Zepnick, both of Milwaukee.
Plale has received more campaign contributions from AT&T and the cable industry than any other legislative Democrat and ranks third among all of the 132 legislators for contributions by cable providers and the telecom giant. AT&T contributed $4,000 and the cable industry $6,446 to Plale from 2003 through 2009. Zepnick received $1,400 from cable providers and AT&T during the period.
The latest proposals come shortly after AT&T tapped Plale for a 2008 law that deregulated the cable industry and helped make it cheaper, easier and faster for AT&T to provide video products.
The law's supporters argued deregulation would lower costs and increase competition but a legislative audit released last December showed basic cable rates rose an average 21 percent in 2008 and 2009.
Backers of the bills include telecom giant AT&T - which reportedly helped write the legislation - and the cable industry, while opponents include smaller telecommunications companies, grocers, municipal electric utilities, the AFL-CIO, Citizens Utility Board and the Communications Workers of America.
AT&T and the cable industry have contributed $506,974 to candidates for statewide office and the legislature since 2003. Opponents of the measures contributed $643,193 to state candidates from 2003 through 2009.
Business interests, which are split on the measures, contributed $7.25 million candidates during the seven-year period.
The proposals, Assembly Bill 696 and Senate Bill 469, would give AT&T and other telephone companies the option of no longer being classified as telecommunications utilities. That means they would no longer have to receive approval from the state Public Service Commission to change their rates and they would not have to report profit and expense information to the agency. The measures also would strip the PSC's authority over consumer complaints about telephone service and telecoms also would not be required to provide land line service to all parts of the state.
Supporters of the measures argue they would create more options and improve prices through increased competition. The bill was sponsored by Democratic Senator Jeff Plale and Democratic Representative Josh Zepnick, both of Milwaukee.
Plale has received more campaign contributions from AT&T and the cable industry than any other legislative Democrat and ranks third among all of the 132 legislators for contributions by cable providers and the telecom giant. AT&T contributed $4,000 and the cable industry $6,446 to Plale from 2003 through 2009. Zepnick received $1,400 from cable providers and AT&T during the period.
The latest proposals come shortly after AT&T tapped Plale for a 2008 law that deregulated the cable industry and helped make it cheaper, easier and faster for AT&T to provide video products.
The law's supporters argued deregulation would lower costs and increase competition but a legislative audit released last December showed basic cable rates rose an average 21 percent in 2008 and 2009.