I couldn't help but notice how former Governor Jim Doyle made Mike Tate's case for another term as the state Democratic Party's chairman.
Doyle said Tate "has really understood what modern politics is. He has understood the media side, the consultant and polling side of it, the money-raising side of it and the really focused data politics."
Is that really all there is to modern politics?
Doyle went on to say that Tate "has really been able to bring all that together, and he has become a very good leader of people."
Does bringing all that together really amount to leadership?
If political leadership has come to mean nothing more than doing what the consultants and pollsters tell you to do, raising money nonstop, assembling sophisticated digital voter files and spinning the media, then it is all vessel and no cargo.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
How To Govern Without Public Support
A representative democracy is built on a simple premise: Those who govern need the consent of the governed. Win the most votes, get power. Earn public approval of your actions, stay in power.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
But no politician wants to give up power, so every politician's worst fear is losing an election. That explains the lengths to which politicians will sometimes go to make sure they win elections even when their policies fall out of public favor. In Wisconsin we are witnessing a step-by-step march to nullify the consent of the governed as a condition for governing.
Step One: Manipulate the political boundaries.
Once every decade, congressional and legislative district boundaries are redrawn to take into account population growth and shifts in where people are living. If one party fully controls the government when this task is to be done, there is a seemingly irresistible urge for that party to pack large numbers of its opponent's voters into a few districts and scatter the rest across the many remaining political jurisdictions. That creates an opportunity to win the most seats and hold onto power even when you are unable to win the most votes. That mission was accomplished after the 2010 census by the party in power in Wisconsin through partisan gerrymandering, and produced the desired effect.
Step Two: Suppress the vote.
If some group of citizens is more likely to vote for your opponent, election rules can be manipulated to either put up formidable hurdles that these voters must clear in order to cast a ballot or disenfranchise them altogether. Just such a law was enacted in Wisconsin in 2011, in the name of fighting voter fraud. Thing is, of the few cases of voter fraud Wisconsin has seen, not a single case has involved the one form of fraud this law could possibly prevent. That's the telltale sign that the law really aims to permit governing without the consent of the governed, not combat election fraud.
Before it could work its magic, this law ran into a hurdle of its own, namely the language in Wisconsin's Constitution spelling out the right to vote. New legislation has been drafted in hopes of working around this pesky constitutional obstacle and re-erecting the barrier to voting, while restricting early voting to boot.
Step Three: Rig the money game.
In addition to making it harder for some to vote, the legislation also opens the door to more campaign contributions from lobbyists. The bill, which might as well be called the "Govern Without Public Support Act," also removes language from state law that was put there in 1905 banning corporate election spending. That law was rendered unenforceable for the time being by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. But no ruling this unpopular with the people will stand the test of time.
With the party currently in power in Wisconsin overwhelmingly advantaged by corporate election spending, that party's desire to cement the legalization of this kind of electioneering is understandable. Just as it was understandable that the party in power rammed through a law in 2011 that caused the opposition party's biggest financial supporter, the state teachers union, to scale back its campaign contributions from $2.3 million for the 2010 elections to just over $946,000 for the 2012 elections.
When Citizens United finally succumbs to public opinion and is overturned, the party in power doesn't want a law on the books prohibiting corporate election spending that can once again be enforced. Again, that would breathe new life into all that consent of the governed business.
Step Four: Conceal the money power.
When politicians are trying to rig the rules to enable them to win elections even when they are losing public support, the last thing they want is for people to be able to readily see how they are doing it. That's why the Govern Without Public Support Act also assaults disclosure of campaign finances. It writes the "magic words" loophole into state law and nullifies disclosure rules approved in 2010 by the state Government Accountability Board. Meaning that interest groups would have state law's blessing to keep the public in the dark about who's paying for campaign advertising aimed at influencing state elections. Avoid using words like "vote for" or "vote against" in political ads, keep the money secret.
This legislation needs to be seen for what it is and what it would do . . . the next phase of an all-out assault on democracy being waged on multiple fronts to subvert the idea that those who govern can do so only with the consent of the governed.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
But no politician wants to give up power, so every politician's worst fear is losing an election. That explains the lengths to which politicians will sometimes go to make sure they win elections even when their policies fall out of public favor. In Wisconsin we are witnessing a step-by-step march to nullify the consent of the governed as a condition for governing.
Step One: Manipulate the political boundaries.
Once every decade, congressional and legislative district boundaries are redrawn to take into account population growth and shifts in where people are living. If one party fully controls the government when this task is to be done, there is a seemingly irresistible urge for that party to pack large numbers of its opponent's voters into a few districts and scatter the rest across the many remaining political jurisdictions. That creates an opportunity to win the most seats and hold onto power even when you are unable to win the most votes. That mission was accomplished after the 2010 census by the party in power in Wisconsin through partisan gerrymandering, and produced the desired effect.
Step Two: Suppress the vote.
If some group of citizens is more likely to vote for your opponent, election rules can be manipulated to either put up formidable hurdles that these voters must clear in order to cast a ballot or disenfranchise them altogether. Just such a law was enacted in Wisconsin in 2011, in the name of fighting voter fraud. Thing is, of the few cases of voter fraud Wisconsin has seen, not a single case has involved the one form of fraud this law could possibly prevent. That's the telltale sign that the law really aims to permit governing without the consent of the governed, not combat election fraud.
Before it could work its magic, this law ran into a hurdle of its own, namely the language in Wisconsin's Constitution spelling out the right to vote. New legislation has been drafted in hopes of working around this pesky constitutional obstacle and re-erecting the barrier to voting, while restricting early voting to boot.
Step Three: Rig the money game.
In addition to making it harder for some to vote, the legislation also opens the door to more campaign contributions from lobbyists. The bill, which might as well be called the "Govern Without Public Support Act," also removes language from state law that was put there in 1905 banning corporate election spending. That law was rendered unenforceable for the time being by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. But no ruling this unpopular with the people will stand the test of time.
With the party currently in power in Wisconsin overwhelmingly advantaged by corporate election spending, that party's desire to cement the legalization of this kind of electioneering is understandable. Just as it was understandable that the party in power rammed through a law in 2011 that caused the opposition party's biggest financial supporter, the state teachers union, to scale back its campaign contributions from $2.3 million for the 2010 elections to just over $946,000 for the 2012 elections.
When Citizens United finally succumbs to public opinion and is overturned, the party in power doesn't want a law on the books prohibiting corporate election spending that can once again be enforced. Again, that would breathe new life into all that consent of the governed business.
Step Four: Conceal the money power.
When politicians are trying to rig the rules to enable them to win elections even when they are losing public support, the last thing they want is for people to be able to readily see how they are doing it. That's why the Govern Without Public Support Act also assaults disclosure of campaign finances. It writes the "magic words" loophole into state law and nullifies disclosure rules approved in 2010 by the state Government Accountability Board. Meaning that interest groups would have state law's blessing to keep the public in the dark about who's paying for campaign advertising aimed at influencing state elections. Avoid using words like "vote for" or "vote against" in political ads, keep the money secret.
This legislation needs to be seen for what it is and what it would do . . . the next phase of an all-out assault on democracy being waged on multiple fronts to subvert the idea that those who govern can do so only with the consent of the governed.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Say It Ain't So, PBS
An eye-opening article in New Yorker magazine tells the story of how public television backed away from its commitment to fund a new documentary film titled "Citizen Koch." Readers learn that the politically meddlesome billionaire David Koch has given public television $23 million, and don't have to read between many lines to come to the understanding that public television cooled on the project in hopes of appeasing Koch.
It's always galling to see a news organization compromise its journalistic principles in the face of financial or political pressures. It's especially painful when you consider that the plan was to air the film on the PBS program "Independent Lens."
Ouch.
I know "Citizen Koch" well. I was interviewed at length for the project and appear in the film. It made its debut at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah at the beginning of the year and got its first screening in our state at last month's Wisconsin Film Festival.
With public television pulling out, the movie's producers have to find other ways to bring it to audiences. That's where you come in. You can watch the trailer and organize a screening in your community. While you're at it, you might consider contacting the PBS ombudsman who is billed as "as an independent internal critic within PBS (who) reviews commentary and criticism from viewers and seeks to ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity."
It's always galling to see a news organization compromise its journalistic principles in the face of financial or political pressures. It's especially painful when you consider that the plan was to air the film on the PBS program "Independent Lens."
Ouch.
I know "Citizen Koch" well. I was interviewed at length for the project and appear in the film. It made its debut at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah at the beginning of the year and got its first screening in our state at last month's Wisconsin Film Festival.
With public television pulling out, the movie's producers have to find other ways to bring it to audiences. That's where you come in. You can watch the trailer and organize a screening in your community. While you're at it, you might consider contacting the PBS ombudsman who is billed as "as an independent internal critic within PBS (who) reviews commentary and criticism from viewers and seeks to ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity."
Thursday, May 09, 2013
It's Time For GAB To Reconsider Surrender
Wisconsin's campaign finance disclosure system once was the envy of the nation but now leaves a great deal to be desired. That sad reality came into sharp focus with the recent revelation that a private school voucher advocacy group, the American Federation for Children, told its members and funders that it spent close to $2.4 million last year to influence elections in Wisconsin after reporting less than $345,000 in campaign spending to state election authorities.
That hidden $2 million only came to light because of an enterprising news reporter, and now is the subject of a formal complaint seeking an investigation and enforcement of existing disclosure rules. The American Federation for Children was able to hide that electioneering because of a decision made nearly three years ago by Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board.
In March 2010, the GAB unanimously approved an amendment to the state's disclosure rules closing the very loophole AFC exploited last year to keep nearly all of its election spending a secret. The new rules took effect on August 1 of that same year. They remained in effect for nine days. Interest groups on both the left and the right sued the GAB in three different courts. Before any judge ruled on the cases, the GAB surrendered on August 10, agreeing not to enforce key parts of the new rules.
The decision looked like capitulation at the time, but the GAB insisted that under the agreement it still would be able to "require disclosure of the identity of those sponsoring communications that are susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate. Such ads do not need to say 'vote for' or 'support' to be subject to regulation."
Time has told. The GAB has not acted on that ability. Since 2010, not a single group I am familiar with that sponsored messages plainly aiming to elect or defeat candidates but masquerading as "issue ads" has been required to come clean and disclose their election activity, not even in a case where a group ends up admitting publicly that its so-called issue advocacy was really intended to get its favored candidates elected.
It is clear that the GAB is not doing what it said back in 2010 it would be able to do. And the American Federation for Children revelation makes it equally clear it is time for the board to take down the white flag of surrender and start enforcing its disclosure rules in their entirety.
If the GAB does that, it will be sued again. Interest groups on the left and the right will again argue the rules are invalid because the board lacked the authority to make them. They'll say only the Legislature can close the issue ad loophole. There are two problems with this argument. First, state law says interest groups that spend money for a "political purpose" are subject to registration and reporting requirements under the law and the Legislature's own attorneys said the GAB has the authority to define what "political purpose" means. Second, Wisconsin's elections board has always defined what constitutes a political purpose and these interest groups never challenged the board's authority when past definitions were to their liking. It's only when the definition threatened to cramp their style that they questioned the GAB's rulemaking authority.
The special interests also will challenge the constitutionality of the GAB's disclosure rules. The board is on solid ground here as well. In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disclosure can be required if an ad is the "functional equivalent" of advocacy for or against a candidate. Roberts went on to explain what he meant by "functional equivalent," namely advocacy that is "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." The GAB borrowed his definition for the 2010 amendment to Wisconsin's disclosure rules.
In Citizens United v. FEC, eight of the nine justices on the nation's highest court again came down squarely in favor of disclosure and again upheld Roberts' functional-equivalent test.
Ads like those sponsored by the American Federation for Children clearly meet that test. Groups engaging in such electioneering should have to fully reveal their activities. The Government Accountability Board has the authority and the power and the legal grounds to make that happen, if not the nerve.
It is time for the GAB to summon the nerve.
That hidden $2 million only came to light because of an enterprising news reporter, and now is the subject of a formal complaint seeking an investigation and enforcement of existing disclosure rules. The American Federation for Children was able to hide that electioneering because of a decision made nearly three years ago by Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board.
In March 2010, the GAB unanimously approved an amendment to the state's disclosure rules closing the very loophole AFC exploited last year to keep nearly all of its election spending a secret. The new rules took effect on August 1 of that same year. They remained in effect for nine days. Interest groups on both the left and the right sued the GAB in three different courts. Before any judge ruled on the cases, the GAB surrendered on August 10, agreeing not to enforce key parts of the new rules.
The decision looked like capitulation at the time, but the GAB insisted that under the agreement it still would be able to "require disclosure of the identity of those sponsoring communications that are susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate. Such ads do not need to say 'vote for' or 'support' to be subject to regulation."
Time has told. The GAB has not acted on that ability. Since 2010, not a single group I am familiar with that sponsored messages plainly aiming to elect or defeat candidates but masquerading as "issue ads" has been required to come clean and disclose their election activity, not even in a case where a group ends up admitting publicly that its so-called issue advocacy was really intended to get its favored candidates elected.
It is clear that the GAB is not doing what it said back in 2010 it would be able to do. And the American Federation for Children revelation makes it equally clear it is time for the board to take down the white flag of surrender and start enforcing its disclosure rules in their entirety.
If the GAB does that, it will be sued again. Interest groups on the left and the right will again argue the rules are invalid because the board lacked the authority to make them. They'll say only the Legislature can close the issue ad loophole. There are two problems with this argument. First, state law says interest groups that spend money for a "political purpose" are subject to registration and reporting requirements under the law and the Legislature's own attorneys said the GAB has the authority to define what "political purpose" means. Second, Wisconsin's elections board has always defined what constitutes a political purpose and these interest groups never challenged the board's authority when past definitions were to their liking. It's only when the definition threatened to cramp their style that they questioned the GAB's rulemaking authority.
The special interests also will challenge the constitutionality of the GAB's disclosure rules. The board is on solid ground here as well. In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disclosure can be required if an ad is the "functional equivalent" of advocacy for or against a candidate. Roberts went on to explain what he meant by "functional equivalent," namely advocacy that is "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." The GAB borrowed his definition for the 2010 amendment to Wisconsin's disclosure rules.
In Citizens United v. FEC, eight of the nine justices on the nation's highest court again came down squarely in favor of disclosure and again upheld Roberts' functional-equivalent test.
Ads like those sponsored by the American Federation for Children clearly meet that test. Groups engaging in such electioneering should have to fully reveal their activities. The Government Accountability Board has the authority and the power and the legal grounds to make that happen, if not the nerve.
It is time for the GAB to summon the nerve.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Closed Loophole Remains Open
More than three years ago, the retired judges who serve on the state Government Accountability Board acted unanimously to close a gaping loophole in Wisconsin's disclosure rules for election campaigning – putting a stop to the phony "issue ad" gambit employed by interest groups that involves careful avoidance of what have come to be known as the "magic words" of election advocacy in order to sidestep disclosure requirements.
Or so they thought.
As Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dan Bice's recent story about hidden election spending by a national group pushing school privatization makes clear, the issue ad loophole the GAB closed is still very much open . . . and coming in quite handy to groups like the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, thank you very much.
Say what? How can a closed loophole be open?
The GAB's amendment to Wisconsin's campaign finance disclosure rules is on the books, sure enough. But it's not being enforced.
It's hard to fathom why that is. After all, the amended rule's language was taken directly from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said it's not necessary for an ad to contain magic words like "vote for," "vote against," "elect" or "defeat" to be subject to disclosure requirements. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts said groups sponsoring ads amounting to the "functional equivalent" of advocacy for or against a candidate also could be required to disclose their spending and funding sources. Roberts went on to spell out what "functional equivalent" means. The GAB applied Roberts' test to the new disclosure rules for Wisconsin.
Then, while ruling in favor of unlimited election spending in the Citizens United case in 2010, eight of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices again came down squarely in favor of disclosure of the kind of activity the American Federation for Children engaged in last year. Only Clarence Thomas disagreed.
Yet, as Bice reported, the American Federation for Children told its members and funders that it spent $2.4 million influencing Wisconsin elections in 2012, but only reported about $345,000 worth of spending to state election authorities. In reporting on the complaint the Democracy Campaign filed against AFC, Bice wrote the "difference in what the federation disclosed is due to so-called issue ads that were run by the federation during the 2012 election. Groups are not required to say how much they spend on these types of TV and radio spots...."
Actually, they are required to say. Wisconsin's disclosure rules require them to say. And the highest court in the land has made it very clear these kinds of disclosure requirements are legally valid and constitutionally sound.
But more than three years after those judges who make up the Government Accountability Board acted unanimously to establish the new rules for electioneering disclosure, the agency still is not enforcing them.
So the issue ad hoax continues.
Or so they thought.
As Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dan Bice's recent story about hidden election spending by a national group pushing school privatization makes clear, the issue ad loophole the GAB closed is still very much open . . . and coming in quite handy to groups like the pro-voucher American Federation for Children, thank you very much.
Say what? How can a closed loophole be open?
The GAB's amendment to Wisconsin's campaign finance disclosure rules is on the books, sure enough. But it's not being enforced.
It's hard to fathom why that is. After all, the amended rule's language was taken directly from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said it's not necessary for an ad to contain magic words like "vote for," "vote against," "elect" or "defeat" to be subject to disclosure requirements. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts said groups sponsoring ads amounting to the "functional equivalent" of advocacy for or against a candidate also could be required to disclose their spending and funding sources. Roberts went on to spell out what "functional equivalent" means. The GAB applied Roberts' test to the new disclosure rules for Wisconsin.
Then, while ruling in favor of unlimited election spending in the Citizens United case in 2010, eight of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices again came down squarely in favor of disclosure of the kind of activity the American Federation for Children engaged in last year. Only Clarence Thomas disagreed.
Yet, as Bice reported, the American Federation for Children told its members and funders that it spent $2.4 million influencing Wisconsin elections in 2012, but only reported about $345,000 worth of spending to state election authorities. In reporting on the complaint the Democracy Campaign filed against AFC, Bice wrote the "difference in what the federation disclosed is due to so-called issue ads that were run by the federation during the 2012 election. Groups are not required to say how much they spend on these types of TV and radio spots...."
Actually, they are required to say. Wisconsin's disclosure rules require them to say. And the highest court in the land has made it very clear these kinds of disclosure requirements are legally valid and constitutionally sound.
But more than three years after those judges who make up the Government Accountability Board acted unanimously to establish the new rules for electioneering disclosure, the agency still is not enforcing them.
So the issue ad hoax continues.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Castrated By Money's Grip
Yesterday I argued that Democrats had better grow a pair before even thinking about beating Scott Walker. Today let's turn our attention to why so many Democrats have no balls to begin with.
Despite a steadily growing gap between the rich and the rest of us, Democrats have been unwilling or unable to make the case for ending corporate welfare and other disastrous trickle-down economic policies. At best they have been unreliable champions of working-class causes; at worst they aid and abet those devoted to feeding the rich and paying ransom to the multinationals.
You can see why this is when you pull back the curtain and look at who is pulling the levers and pushing the buttons. Even before Act 10 kneecapped most public sector unions, Wisconsin Democrats were getting $6 from business interests for every dollar they were getting from labor unions.
Democrats in our state used to compete quite successfully for rural votes. Today they are getting hammered in farm country. That should come as no surprise. Democrats have no rural agenda. They rarely talk about rural issues and even more rarely seek to solve rural problems. There is a reason for that, too. We've done the zip code analyses. There are more than 900 zip codes in Wisconsin. Most of the political money comes from just 32 of them. They are all urban or suburban. Rural people don't make campaign contributions. Politicians can't raise money addressing the challenges facing rural communities.
Neither major party is acting in a way that reflects the will of the people. They are serving their masters. They cater to those who butter their bread. This strangles voices on both sides who would speak to how government can work in the public interest and promote the common good. But it hurts Democrats the most.
The Democratic Party is seen as the party of government. That's a curse these days when most people do not believe the government is working for them. Most do not believe elected officials are hearing their voices or doing their will. They are convinced the politicians are doing the bidding of their big donors. And they are right. Good luck winning elections as the party of government at a time when government is almost universally considered corrupt.
In the face of all this, Democratic operatives and campaign consultants keep painting by numbers, pretending to be politically savvy above all else, putting on airs about knowing how the game is played. These insiders keep lecturing candidates about how winning is all about raising money and watching polls and doing TV and raising more money.
I suspect they know this is a path to ruin for their side, but they are too risk averse and not creative enough to innovate. Their savvy pose is a mask. It covers intellectual and strategic bankruptcy. They don't know how to escape the trap they are in. They can't win the money game, but they don't know how to win without money.
The proverbial 800-pound gorilla on the Democratic side has been the state teachers union. Thanks to Act 10, that gorilla just lost over half its weight. WEAC sunk more than $2.3 million into the 2010 elections, but just over $946,000 into 2012 races.
Yet the savvy political players on the Democratic side keep droning on about how the path to political power is paved with money. Never mind that Tom Barrett ceaselessly dialed for dollars and pulled in an impressive $6.6 million, only to be hopelessly outgunned by Scott Walker, who had more than $36 million. Never mind that Democrats took the consultants' mantra to heart and focused like a laser beam on fundraising, hauling in another $6.6 million for last year's state legislative contests, only to have their Republican opponents spend $9.9 million against them.
Never mind that Democrats can't speak their minds and can't act with the courage of their convictions for fear of alienating the donor class. Never mind that this segment of society won't give Democrats nearly as much as they give Republicans even if Democrats do cower before them.
Never mind all that. Wisconsin Democrats, your party's establishment continues to send an unmistakable message about where your focus needs to be and where your energy must be expended. In the nearly two decades the Democracy Campaign has been operating, the Democrats' state party chair has reached out to us one time. That was to ask if we would support legislation he was discussing with his Republican counterpart to increase the limits on campaign contributions to candidates and parties.
As politely as I could, I told him he was out of his cotton picking mind.
Despite a steadily growing gap between the rich and the rest of us, Democrats have been unwilling or unable to make the case for ending corporate welfare and other disastrous trickle-down economic policies. At best they have been unreliable champions of working-class causes; at worst they aid and abet those devoted to feeding the rich and paying ransom to the multinationals.
You can see why this is when you pull back the curtain and look at who is pulling the levers and pushing the buttons. Even before Act 10 kneecapped most public sector unions, Wisconsin Democrats were getting $6 from business interests for every dollar they were getting from labor unions.
Democrats in our state used to compete quite successfully for rural votes. Today they are getting hammered in farm country. That should come as no surprise. Democrats have no rural agenda. They rarely talk about rural issues and even more rarely seek to solve rural problems. There is a reason for that, too. We've done the zip code analyses. There are more than 900 zip codes in Wisconsin. Most of the political money comes from just 32 of them. They are all urban or suburban. Rural people don't make campaign contributions. Politicians can't raise money addressing the challenges facing rural communities.
Neither major party is acting in a way that reflects the will of the people. They are serving their masters. They cater to those who butter their bread. This strangles voices on both sides who would speak to how government can work in the public interest and promote the common good. But it hurts Democrats the most.
The Democratic Party is seen as the party of government. That's a curse these days when most people do not believe the government is working for them. Most do not believe elected officials are hearing their voices or doing their will. They are convinced the politicians are doing the bidding of their big donors. And they are right. Good luck winning elections as the party of government at a time when government is almost universally considered corrupt.
In the face of all this, Democratic operatives and campaign consultants keep painting by numbers, pretending to be politically savvy above all else, putting on airs about knowing how the game is played. These insiders keep lecturing candidates about how winning is all about raising money and watching polls and doing TV and raising more money.
I suspect they know this is a path to ruin for their side, but they are too risk averse and not creative enough to innovate. Their savvy pose is a mask. It covers intellectual and strategic bankruptcy. They don't know how to escape the trap they are in. They can't win the money game, but they don't know how to win without money.
The proverbial 800-pound gorilla on the Democratic side has been the state teachers union. Thanks to Act 10, that gorilla just lost over half its weight. WEAC sunk more than $2.3 million into the 2010 elections, but just over $946,000 into 2012 races.
Yet the savvy political players on the Democratic side keep droning on about how the path to political power is paved with money. Never mind that Tom Barrett ceaselessly dialed for dollars and pulled in an impressive $6.6 million, only to be hopelessly outgunned by Scott Walker, who had more than $36 million. Never mind that Democrats took the consultants' mantra to heart and focused like a laser beam on fundraising, hauling in another $6.6 million for last year's state legislative contests, only to have their Republican opponents spend $9.9 million against them.
Never mind that Democrats can't speak their minds and can't act with the courage of their convictions for fear of alienating the donor class. Never mind that this segment of society won't give Democrats nearly as much as they give Republicans even if Democrats do cower before them.
Never mind all that. Wisconsin Democrats, your party's establishment continues to send an unmistakable message about where your focus needs to be and where your energy must be expended. In the nearly two decades the Democracy Campaign has been operating, the Democrats' state party chair has reached out to us one time. That was to ask if we would support legislation he was discussing with his Republican counterpart to increase the limits on campaign contributions to candidates and parties.
As politely as I could, I told him he was out of his cotton picking mind.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Democrats Won't Find Answers Without Asking The Right Questions
Anywhere you go in Wisconsin, if you run into someone from the Democratic Party's rank and file, you get the same question: Who's going to run against Walker?
Sorry Democrats, but that's the wrong question.
It's not who or what you are against that matters. It's what you are for that will count. If your party just runs against Walker, the governor will be reelected.
In this age of growing income inequality and economic injustice, Democrats have been unable to trademark an effective alternative to Republican supply-side theory, better known as "trickle-down economics." Come on, how hard is it? Hell, any farmer knows that if you've got cows and pigs and chickens, you can't just feed the cows and hope some nourishment trickles down – splatters is more like it – to the pigs and chickens. All of the animals need to be fed. Call it "farmer economics" for Christ's sake and get busy putting some common sense policies behind the brand.
Oh, and when you challenge trickle-down insanity, you will be called socialists. Instead of indulging your party's impulse to duck and cover, grow a pair and stand your ground for a change. America – which has never been socialist – had economic policies under which the country grew together for the three decades after World War II. Every income class got ahead. Since trickle-down became the economic law of the land a little over three decades ago, America's rich got vastly richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class has been slowly but surely disappearing.
Farm country used to be fertile territory for Democrats, but they have been getting their heads handed to them in rural Wisconsin for quite some time now, including in almost all of the state's poorest counties. Used to be the Democrats were known as the party of the poor. But it's hard to be the party of the rural poor when you don't have a rural agenda. Name me a signature modern-day Democratic program or policy addressing the challenges facing rural communities. It's not that Democrats don't have a compelling or even coherent rural agenda. They don't have rural agenda, period.
Nothing shapes today's politics more than the widely shared fear that the American Dream is being downsized, especially for our kids and grandkids. All across our state and nation, mom and dads are anguishing over how this generation of young people might wind up being the first in our country's history not to be better off than their parents. It's increasingly difficult to see how kids will have any shot at a middle-class existence without education or training beyond high school, but equally hard to see how paying for college is affordable.
Walker is outflanking the Democrats on access to higher education, calling for a two-year freeze on UW tuition. Despite the growing anxiety over the increasingly uncertain pathway to the middle class, Democrats haven't offered much of anything to allay the fears that will define our politics for years to come. A high school diploma clearly doesn't cut it anymore. Where are the voices saying it's time to extend the promise of free public education beyond high school?
Democrats don't ask that question because they fear the question that follows: How could we possibly afford that? Well, how did people without any formal schooling and with far more limited financial means than we have today manage to build a first-rate public school system in the first place? And the nation's first kindergartens? And America's first system of vocational, technical and adult education? And a world-class university system? They afforded these things because they knew their kids and grandkids would need them. Same goes today.
Democrats need to search their souls before searching for candidates. They need to find some nerve before they can find someone who can beat Scott Walker.
Sorry Democrats, but that's the wrong question.
It's not who or what you are against that matters. It's what you are for that will count. If your party just runs against Walker, the governor will be reelected.
In this age of growing income inequality and economic injustice, Democrats have been unable to trademark an effective alternative to Republican supply-side theory, better known as "trickle-down economics." Come on, how hard is it? Hell, any farmer knows that if you've got cows and pigs and chickens, you can't just feed the cows and hope some nourishment trickles down – splatters is more like it – to the pigs and chickens. All of the animals need to be fed. Call it "farmer economics" for Christ's sake and get busy putting some common sense policies behind the brand.
Oh, and when you challenge trickle-down insanity, you will be called socialists. Instead of indulging your party's impulse to duck and cover, grow a pair and stand your ground for a change. America – which has never been socialist – had economic policies under which the country grew together for the three decades after World War II. Every income class got ahead. Since trickle-down became the economic law of the land a little over three decades ago, America's rich got vastly richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class has been slowly but surely disappearing.
Farm country used to be fertile territory for Democrats, but they have been getting their heads handed to them in rural Wisconsin for quite some time now, including in almost all of the state's poorest counties. Used to be the Democrats were known as the party of the poor. But it's hard to be the party of the rural poor when you don't have a rural agenda. Name me a signature modern-day Democratic program or policy addressing the challenges facing rural communities. It's not that Democrats don't have a compelling or even coherent rural agenda. They don't have rural agenda, period.
Nothing shapes today's politics more than the widely shared fear that the American Dream is being downsized, especially for our kids and grandkids. All across our state and nation, mom and dads are anguishing over how this generation of young people might wind up being the first in our country's history not to be better off than their parents. It's increasingly difficult to see how kids will have any shot at a middle-class existence without education or training beyond high school, but equally hard to see how paying for college is affordable.
Walker is outflanking the Democrats on access to higher education, calling for a two-year freeze on UW tuition. Despite the growing anxiety over the increasingly uncertain pathway to the middle class, Democrats haven't offered much of anything to allay the fears that will define our politics for years to come. A high school diploma clearly doesn't cut it anymore. Where are the voices saying it's time to extend the promise of free public education beyond high school?
Democrats don't ask that question because they fear the question that follows: How could we possibly afford that? Well, how did people without any formal schooling and with far more limited financial means than we have today manage to build a first-rate public school system in the first place? And the nation's first kindergartens? And America's first system of vocational, technical and adult education? And a world-class university system? They afforded these things because they knew their kids and grandkids would need them. Same goes today.
Democrats need to search their souls before searching for candidates. They need to find some nerve before they can find someone who can beat Scott Walker.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
A Choice Decision For Big Donors
A legislative committee has decided to ignore advice from one of its nonpartisan policy experts and keep Republican Governor Scott Walker's plan to create up to nine school voucher programs in the proposed 2013-15 state budget.
The voucher expansion plan was among 58 items the Legislative Fiscal Bureau says have more to do with state policy than state spending. The bureau traditionally prepares a list of non-spending items before the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee makes changes to the state's two-year master spending plan so it can decide whether the items should be pulled and introduced as separate legislation.
But the GOP-controlled legislature's decision to keep a policy issue like expanded school choice in the budget shouldn't be too much of a surprise. The program has wealthy and generous friends who have spent nearly $10 million mostly to help elect Walker and other Republican candidates for statewide office and the legislature, a recent Democracy Campaign report shows.
In addition to the $2.35 million in campaign contributions and outside election spending Walker has received from school choice backers, Republican Senator Alberta Darling of River Hills who co-chairs the Joint Finance Committee has accepted nearly $58,000 in contributions from school choice supporters. And the American Federation of Children, a group that fights to preserve and expand school choice, spent an estimated $1.3 million to help Darling and other incumbent Republican senators win their 2011 recall elections.
The state budget is the only proposal the legislature must approve every two years while stand-alone bills fail or die by the hundreds. Though controversial, Walker's plan to expand school vouchers is tucked among hundreds of spending initiatives and pet programs favored by most legislators and they have to approve the state budget one way or the other.
The voucher expansion plan was among 58 items the Legislative Fiscal Bureau says have more to do with state policy than state spending. The bureau traditionally prepares a list of non-spending items before the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee makes changes to the state's two-year master spending plan so it can decide whether the items should be pulled and introduced as separate legislation.
But the GOP-controlled legislature's decision to keep a policy issue like expanded school choice in the budget shouldn't be too much of a surprise. The program has wealthy and generous friends who have spent nearly $10 million mostly to help elect Walker and other Republican candidates for statewide office and the legislature, a recent Democracy Campaign report shows.
In addition to the $2.35 million in campaign contributions and outside election spending Walker has received from school choice backers, Republican Senator Alberta Darling of River Hills who co-chairs the Joint Finance Committee has accepted nearly $58,000 in contributions from school choice supporters. And the American Federation of Children, a group that fights to preserve and expand school choice, spent an estimated $1.3 million to help Darling and other incumbent Republican senators win their 2011 recall elections.
The state budget is the only proposal the legislature must approve every two years while stand-alone bills fail or die by the hundreds. Though controversial, Walker's plan to expand school vouchers is tucked among hundreds of spending initiatives and pet programs favored by most legislators and they have to approve the state budget one way or the other.
Monday, April 22, 2013
NRA Campaign Support Shoots Down Expanded Background Checks
Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature say they will block efforts to enhance background checks on gun sales in Wisconsin because it's unnecessary, burdensome and doesn't have enough legislative support.
But outside the Capitol a number of polls - here and here - show eight of 10 Wisconsin voters support requiring background checks on gun sales between individuals and at firearm shows - something state law does not require.
The conflict between the political support and public support for more background checks is likely the nearly $2 million in outside election spending and campaign contributions spent since 2002 on Wisconsin candidates for statewide office and the legislature by the National Rifle Association which opposes nearly all forms of firearm regulation.
The NRA spent nearly $1 million to help Walker win his 2010 general and 2012 recall election. The group spent $964,422 on outside electioneering activities to support Walker and contributed $10,000 to his campaign from its political action committee. Walker says state policymakers should approve his budget proposal to increase funding to treat mental illness to reduce gun violence rather than expand gun sale background checks.
The group spent about $107,000 on campaign contributions and outside electioneering activities in legislative races from 2002 through 2012, and all but $1,000 went to support Republican legislative candidates.
The rest of the NRA's expenditures during the 10-year period - about $861,000 - was spent on outside electioneering activities and campaign contributions to support GOP candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in the 2006 and 2002 elections and two conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates in the 2008 and 2011 spring elections.
But outside the Capitol a number of polls - here and here - show eight of 10 Wisconsin voters support requiring background checks on gun sales between individuals and at firearm shows - something state law does not require.
The conflict between the political support and public support for more background checks is likely the nearly $2 million in outside election spending and campaign contributions spent since 2002 on Wisconsin candidates for statewide office and the legislature by the National Rifle Association which opposes nearly all forms of firearm regulation.
The NRA spent nearly $1 million to help Walker win his 2010 general and 2012 recall election. The group spent $964,422 on outside electioneering activities to support Walker and contributed $10,000 to his campaign from its political action committee. Walker says state policymakers should approve his budget proposal to increase funding to treat mental illness to reduce gun violence rather than expand gun sale background checks.
The group spent about $107,000 on campaign contributions and outside electioneering activities in legislative races from 2002 through 2012, and all but $1,000 went to support Republican legislative candidates.
The rest of the NRA's expenditures during the 10-year period - about $861,000 - was spent on outside electioneering activities and campaign contributions to support GOP candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in the 2006 and 2002 elections and two conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates in the 2008 and 2011 spring elections.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Dale Schultz, Endangered Species
The Wisconsin Legislature used to be full of Dale Schultzes. Now he is a rare bird, hunted by a mob of his political genus if not his species. If he seeks reelection, he will face a primary challenge. His sin? Being what almost all Wisconsin Republicans were in the not-so-distant past.
I first encountered Dale Schultz in the early 1980s when he and another senator-to-be, Brian Rude, were aides to Senator Dan Theno, a Lake Superior-area Republican. I got to know Theno and his staff because the state assembly district of my boss, Representative June Jaronitzky, was nested in Theno's senate district. Our offices were in regular contact because of the overlap of constituencies.
I had not seen or heard of Theno in years, before noticing a letter to the editor he wrote last month expressing opposition to the expansion of Wisconsin's private school voucher program on the grounds that handing out the public's money to help a few families pay private school tuition is an inappropriate government entitlement that also will inevitably lead to state interference in the operation of private schools. A classically Republican take on the issue; at least it was a Republican take until unthinking support for vouchers became a GOP litmus test.
When I was an assembly aide for two legislative sessions, staffing at the Capitol was considerably thinner than it is today. State representatives shared aides. I worked not only for Jaronitzky, but also Bob Larson, a moderate from Medford, and Earl Schmidt, an old-school conservative from Birnamwood who went on to become a circuit court judge.
Because Jaronitzky represented northwoods communities blessed with scenic beauty and not much else and thus heavily reliant on the tourism industry, she worked on legislation curbing acid rain and backed a statewide phosphate ban. Most notably, she became the first Republican lawmaker to join Madison's Mary Lou Munts in pushing for marital property reform. In the weeks leading up to passage of that landmark legislation, I was June's emissary at daily strategy sessions with Munts and women's rights advocates.
Several years after I left the Capitol staff corps, it occurred to me that I was Jaronitzky's only aide and worked for her for two legislative sessions and I never knew her position on abortion. She didn't wear it on her sleeve, and it wasn't a litmus test the way it is today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Perhaps Larson's proudest achievement was teaming with fellow Norwegian and then-Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus to carve out an exemption for lutefisk in a bill creating tougher regulation of toxic substances including lye, which is instrumental in the making of the Norwegian delicacy. Larson's real passion was daily card games with fellow legislators like Dave Paulson and Brownie Byers.
Schmidt was less gregarious than his officemate Larson. He was studious, serious, with an eye for the fine print in laws. A judge in training.
None of them liked Democrats much, but they all could work with them. Like Dale Schultz can. The Capitol was full of Dale Schultzes back then, and it is a much worse place today now that he sticks out like a sore thumb.
I first encountered Dale Schultz in the early 1980s when he and another senator-to-be, Brian Rude, were aides to Senator Dan Theno, a Lake Superior-area Republican. I got to know Theno and his staff because the state assembly district of my boss, Representative June Jaronitzky, was nested in Theno's senate district. Our offices were in regular contact because of the overlap of constituencies.
I had not seen or heard of Theno in years, before noticing a letter to the editor he wrote last month expressing opposition to the expansion of Wisconsin's private school voucher program on the grounds that handing out the public's money to help a few families pay private school tuition is an inappropriate government entitlement that also will inevitably lead to state interference in the operation of private schools. A classically Republican take on the issue; at least it was a Republican take until unthinking support for vouchers became a GOP litmus test.
When I was an assembly aide for two legislative sessions, staffing at the Capitol was considerably thinner than it is today. State representatives shared aides. I worked not only for Jaronitzky, but also Bob Larson, a moderate from Medford, and Earl Schmidt, an old-school conservative from Birnamwood who went on to become a circuit court judge.
Because Jaronitzky represented northwoods communities blessed with scenic beauty and not much else and thus heavily reliant on the tourism industry, she worked on legislation curbing acid rain and backed a statewide phosphate ban. Most notably, she became the first Republican lawmaker to join Madison's Mary Lou Munts in pushing for marital property reform. In the weeks leading up to passage of that landmark legislation, I was June's emissary at daily strategy sessions with Munts and women's rights advocates.
Several years after I left the Capitol staff corps, it occurred to me that I was Jaronitzky's only aide and worked for her for two legislative sessions and I never knew her position on abortion. She didn't wear it on her sleeve, and it wasn't a litmus test the way it is today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Perhaps Larson's proudest achievement was teaming with fellow Norwegian and then-Assembly Speaker Tom Loftus to carve out an exemption for lutefisk in a bill creating tougher regulation of toxic substances including lye, which is instrumental in the making of the Norwegian delicacy. Larson's real passion was daily card games with fellow legislators like Dave Paulson and Brownie Byers.
Schmidt was less gregarious than his officemate Larson. He was studious, serious, with an eye for the fine print in laws. A judge in training.
None of them liked Democrats much, but they all could work with them. Like Dale Schultz can. The Capitol was full of Dale Schultzes back then, and it is a much worse place today now that he sticks out like a sore thumb.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The 23-Year-Long School Day
Some years ago, sunset clauses were all the rage. Politicians on the prowl for waste, fraud and abuse in government wanted every law and every program to have one, to guard against laws that outlive their usefulness and get rid of government programs that do not work.
The sun rose 23 years ago on Wisconsin's private school voucher program. Those pushing it at the time made bold claims about how it would transform our education system. They said it would not only boost the achievement of students benefiting from the public vouchers paying for them to attend a private or religious school, but would also lift all boats by creating competition among schools and thereby stimulating innovation benefiting students regardless of where they studied.
Hasn't happened. Twenty-three years after the school choice program was established, students in voucher schools aren’t doing noticeably better than public school students. By some measures, they are doing worse. In addition to failing to budge test scores, the voucher program has been plagued over the years by story after story after story of poor performance, safety code violations, mismanagement and fraud.
The promised system transformation hasn't materialized either. All boats haven't been lifted. The competition that begets innovation that begets system-wide school improvement hasn't worked. Yet the sun hasn't set on this failed experiment after two decades and then some. It remains high in the sky.
Peddlers of this particular brand of school "reform" do a lot of yammering about the 3 R's and getting back to basics. But they have failed to deliver the all-important fourth R: results.
After 23 years, you’d think that if a state program failed to deliver the promised results and had a checkered management history to boot, lawmakers would be talking about ending it. Instead, they are debating its expansion.
If you want to know why the voucher program has nine lives, you might want to start by following the money. Nearly $10 million in 10 years from voucher advocates to help politicians who are friendly to the program certainly helps explain why lackluster test scores and even voucher school administrators being sent to jail haven't done it in. And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Multi-issue groups whose agendas include lobbying for school vouchers made another $63 million in campaign contributions over the last decade, and spent an additional $24 million on their own campaign advertising to elect pro-voucher politicians and defeat those who question the program's effectiveness.
That's close to $100 million pumped into Wisconsin elections by interests with a stake in making sure the sun doesn't go down on vouchers. Goes to show that political money and lots of it can ensure that results don't matter. Waste, fraud and abuse don't matter.
Here is a government program whose fate is not determined by results. All that really matters is how many campaign donations are generated by propping up the program, even if it doesn't work.
The sun rose 23 years ago on Wisconsin's private school voucher program. Those pushing it at the time made bold claims about how it would transform our education system. They said it would not only boost the achievement of students benefiting from the public vouchers paying for them to attend a private or religious school, but would also lift all boats by creating competition among schools and thereby stimulating innovation benefiting students regardless of where they studied.
Hasn't happened. Twenty-three years after the school choice program was established, students in voucher schools aren’t doing noticeably better than public school students. By some measures, they are doing worse. In addition to failing to budge test scores, the voucher program has been plagued over the years by story after story after story of poor performance, safety code violations, mismanagement and fraud.
The promised system transformation hasn't materialized either. All boats haven't been lifted. The competition that begets innovation that begets system-wide school improvement hasn't worked. Yet the sun hasn't set on this failed experiment after two decades and then some. It remains high in the sky.
Peddlers of this particular brand of school "reform" do a lot of yammering about the 3 R's and getting back to basics. But they have failed to deliver the all-important fourth R: results.
After 23 years, you’d think that if a state program failed to deliver the promised results and had a checkered management history to boot, lawmakers would be talking about ending it. Instead, they are debating its expansion.
If you want to know why the voucher program has nine lives, you might want to start by following the money. Nearly $10 million in 10 years from voucher advocates to help politicians who are friendly to the program certainly helps explain why lackluster test scores and even voucher school administrators being sent to jail haven't done it in. And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Multi-issue groups whose agendas include lobbying for school vouchers made another $63 million in campaign contributions over the last decade, and spent an additional $24 million on their own campaign advertising to elect pro-voucher politicians and defeat those who question the program's effectiveness.
That's close to $100 million pumped into Wisconsin elections by interests with a stake in making sure the sun doesn't go down on vouchers. Goes to show that political money and lots of it can ensure that results don't matter. Waste, fraud and abuse don't matter.
Here is a government program whose fate is not determined by results. All that really matters is how many campaign donations are generated by propping up the program, even if it doesn't work.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Ron Johnson Ain't Gun Shy, And Here's Why
Republican Senator Ron Johnson's unsuccessful threat to prevent gun regulation legislation from being considered in the U.S. Senate this week shouldn't be much of a surprise.
The National Rifle Association despises gun regulation of any kind and Johnson had over a million reasons to side with the group to kill the gun registration bill, which ended up receiving overwhelming bipartisan approval from his colleagues.
Turns out the NRA reported spending more than any other outside special interest group to support Johnson's 2010 election victory over incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold.
Four dozen SuperPACs and nonprofit groups representing the Democratic and Republican parties and an array of powerful special interests reported spending $4.7 million in the Johnson-Feingold contest. The NRA was Johnson's biggest benefactor and also spent more than any other outside group on the list - $1.18 million - or 25 percent of the total.
The National Rifle Association despises gun regulation of any kind and Johnson had over a million reasons to side with the group to kill the gun registration bill, which ended up receiving overwhelming bipartisan approval from his colleagues.
Turns out the NRA reported spending more than any other outside special interest group to support Johnson's 2010 election victory over incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold.
Four dozen SuperPACs and nonprofit groups representing the Democratic and Republican parties and an array of powerful special interests reported spending $4.7 million in the Johnson-Feingold contest. The NRA was Johnson's biggest benefactor and also spent more than any other outside group on the list - $1.18 million - or 25 percent of the total.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
The Last Stage Of Corruption
It's said there are stages of grief. Could be five. Or seven. Or 10. The point being, in any case, that there are identifiable phases of the grieving process. Experts more or less agree it's some variation on the following theme: Denial. Anger. Guilt or blame. (This stage is full of "what ifs" and "if onlys" and some call it "bargaining," as in "I'll never do such and such ever again if I'm spared this miserable fate.) Then comes depression. Followed by acceptance.
Having lost both of my parents and two siblings in the past 10 years, I have become well acquainted with these stages. I imagine everyone goes through them in their own way and at their own pace. As a matter of fact, I experienced them differently each time I lost a loved one. But experience them I did.
There are phases of political corruption, too, and they mirror the grieving process. That's because corruption does prompt grieving. It involves a loss of innocence and, especially in Wisconsin's case, the death of good-government traditions.
At the time of the Democracy Campaign's birth in the mid-1990s and for the several years that followed, we frequently encountered denial. A great many people were taken aback by our suggestions that the increasingly large sums of money changing hands at the Capitol amounted to graft or legal bribery. If there was anger in those days, it was just as often directed at us as at the people involved in the transactions we sought to expose. We were accused of blowing things out of proportion and recklessly smearing good people. It isn't as bad as you say. Can't be. This is Wisconsin.
In due course, denial was replaced by recognition. Our characterizations of the money game stopped producing the kind of blowback we received in our early years. Increasingly anger and blame were directed at the politicians, not the whistle blowers. The remaining few with their heads buried in the sand were jarred out of their complacency when scandal visited our state. Top political leaders were paraded into court, and then briefly into jail cells.
Today I'd say we are somewhere between depression and acceptance. Many are despairing over the extent to which political corruption has taken root in our land. A growing number are starting to see it as standard operating procedure. The new normal.
So many have become so accepting of the new normal that the latest state Supreme Court election was widely viewed as a low-cost affair largely free of special interest influence. Never mind that spending on television advertising alone reached seven figures, with one side outspending the other by five to one, and with interest groups substantially outspending the candidates.
Three groups – Club for Growth, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors – did most of the talking in the race. All of them backed the incumbent justice, the same justice who supplied the deciding vote to approve amendments to the state judicial ethics code allowing judges to rule on cases involving their biggest campaign supporters, amendments written by WMC and the Realtors.
Apologists for the new normal insisted the election was as pure as the driven snow, a classic expression of the will of the people. Nope, nothing corrupt here.
There is a school at UW-Madison named for perhaps our state's greatest political legend who famously said "the will of the people is the law of the land." Today that school is teaching students the ways of Machiavelli in a course called "Exercising Political Leadership." According to the course syllabus, the class focuses on government executives like presidents, governors and mayors and how they "accumulate and spend political capital." Confuses exercising political power with leadership. Common mistake, and one particularly in keeping with the times.
Leadership has to be the most overused and abused word in politics. No class of people boasts about leadership more than politicians do. And perhaps no class of people does less actual leading.
Lyndon Johnson wasn't leading when he signed civil rights legislation. He was following. The civil rights movement made him do it. Masses of people marched, and endured beatings, and had high-powered fire hoses turned on them, and were jailed, and in some cases gave their lives for the cause. They weren't accumulating or spending political capital, at least not consciously. They were leading. And they changed America.
Just a few short years ago, Wisconsin had an assembly speaker who stood for amending the state constitution to forever ban gay marriage and whose voice dripped with hate as he mocked "a lot of people out there who think that people should be able to marry whoever they want, or whatever they want." More than a few of his contemporaries cracked wise about how the Bible speaks of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
Today politicians of that same stripe are scurrying for cover, dissembling here and waffling there, frantically trying to figure out a way to reposition themselves on gay rights and same-sex marriage. Are they leading? Of course not. They are reading polls. The American people are leading.
Therein lies the light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to corruption. With the public's resignation comes the full embrace of corrupt practices by the political class. Corruption in this final stage produces a system so rank, so putrid, that it falls under its own weight. It has happened before. It will happen again. Don't look for the politicians to lead the way, though. They never do. They won't volunteer to leave the cesspool. They will be forced out by the people once enough of us have passed all the way through the grieving process and are finally ready to move on.
Having lost both of my parents and two siblings in the past 10 years, I have become well acquainted with these stages. I imagine everyone goes through them in their own way and at their own pace. As a matter of fact, I experienced them differently each time I lost a loved one. But experience them I did.
There are phases of political corruption, too, and they mirror the grieving process. That's because corruption does prompt grieving. It involves a loss of innocence and, especially in Wisconsin's case, the death of good-government traditions.
At the time of the Democracy Campaign's birth in the mid-1990s and for the several years that followed, we frequently encountered denial. A great many people were taken aback by our suggestions that the increasingly large sums of money changing hands at the Capitol amounted to graft or legal bribery. If there was anger in those days, it was just as often directed at us as at the people involved in the transactions we sought to expose. We were accused of blowing things out of proportion and recklessly smearing good people. It isn't as bad as you say. Can't be. This is Wisconsin.
In due course, denial was replaced by recognition. Our characterizations of the money game stopped producing the kind of blowback we received in our early years. Increasingly anger and blame were directed at the politicians, not the whistle blowers. The remaining few with their heads buried in the sand were jarred out of their complacency when scandal visited our state. Top political leaders were paraded into court, and then briefly into jail cells.
Today I'd say we are somewhere between depression and acceptance. Many are despairing over the extent to which political corruption has taken root in our land. A growing number are starting to see it as standard operating procedure. The new normal.
So many have become so accepting of the new normal that the latest state Supreme Court election was widely viewed as a low-cost affair largely free of special interest influence. Never mind that spending on television advertising alone reached seven figures, with one side outspending the other by five to one, and with interest groups substantially outspending the candidates.
Three groups – Club for Growth, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors – did most of the talking in the race. All of them backed the incumbent justice, the same justice who supplied the deciding vote to approve amendments to the state judicial ethics code allowing judges to rule on cases involving their biggest campaign supporters, amendments written by WMC and the Realtors.
Apologists for the new normal insisted the election was as pure as the driven snow, a classic expression of the will of the people. Nope, nothing corrupt here.
There is a school at UW-Madison named for perhaps our state's greatest political legend who famously said "the will of the people is the law of the land." Today that school is teaching students the ways of Machiavelli in a course called "Exercising Political Leadership." According to the course syllabus, the class focuses on government executives like presidents, governors and mayors and how they "accumulate and spend political capital." Confuses exercising political power with leadership. Common mistake, and one particularly in keeping with the times.
Leadership has to be the most overused and abused word in politics. No class of people boasts about leadership more than politicians do. And perhaps no class of people does less actual leading.
Lyndon Johnson wasn't leading when he signed civil rights legislation. He was following. The civil rights movement made him do it. Masses of people marched, and endured beatings, and had high-powered fire hoses turned on them, and were jailed, and in some cases gave their lives for the cause. They weren't accumulating or spending political capital, at least not consciously. They were leading. And they changed America.
Just a few short years ago, Wisconsin had an assembly speaker who stood for amending the state constitution to forever ban gay marriage and whose voice dripped with hate as he mocked "a lot of people out there who think that people should be able to marry whoever they want, or whatever they want." More than a few of his contemporaries cracked wise about how the Bible speaks of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
Today politicians of that same stripe are scurrying for cover, dissembling here and waffling there, frantically trying to figure out a way to reposition themselves on gay rights and same-sex marriage. Are they leading? Of course not. They are reading polls. The American people are leading.
Therein lies the light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to corruption. With the public's resignation comes the full embrace of corrupt practices by the political class. Corruption in this final stage produces a system so rank, so putrid, that it falls under its own weight. It has happened before. It will happen again. Don't look for the politicians to lead the way, though. They never do. They won't volunteer to leave the cesspool. They will be forced out by the people once enough of us have passed all the way through the grieving process and are finally ready to move on.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Realtors Reward Roggensack On Recusal, Rulings
The Wisconsin Realtors Association plans to spend more than $200,000 to reelect a state Supreme Court justice who voted to approve court rules the group helped write that say justices don't have to remove themselves from cases involving parties who helped get them elected.
The realtors group filed documents with the state in February saying it may spend $206,648 to support incumbent Justice Pat Roggensack, who is considered one of the court's four conservatives, in her April 2 reelection bid against Ed Fallone, a Marquette Law School professor.
The realtors have not directly spent money on outside electioneering activities in a Supreme Court race until now.
So far, the realtors group has sponsored an ad that touts Roggensack's endorsements by several county sheriffs and that she is a fair and independent judge whose rulings help keep the public safe. However, the group told its members it endorsed Roggensack because she ruled in favor of the realtors group or real industry practices most of the time in cases before her since she was elected in 2003.
Roggensack was among the justices who voted 4-3 to approve rules in 2009 that say campaign contributions, endorsements and outside electioneering activities, like broadcast ads and mailings, by a person or group in a case before the high court are not automatic grounds for a justice who received the support to recuse themselves in the case.
The rules were written by the statewide realtors group and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business organization and a powerful lobbying force that has spent millions of dollars to support mostly Republicans for statewide office and the legislature.
The court and concerns about conflicts of interest and bias in cases before it drew national attention because of two nasty Supreme Court campaigns in 2007 and 2008 where outside special interest groups spent a combined $7.9 million - about twice as much as the candidates. Later, the court narrowly decided a case that favored WMC's position and resulted in millions of dollars in business tax refunds.
The realtors group filed documents with the state in February saying it may spend $206,648 to support incumbent Justice Pat Roggensack, who is considered one of the court's four conservatives, in her April 2 reelection bid against Ed Fallone, a Marquette Law School professor.
The realtors have not directly spent money on outside electioneering activities in a Supreme Court race until now.
So far, the realtors group has sponsored an ad that touts Roggensack's endorsements by several county sheriffs and that she is a fair and independent judge whose rulings help keep the public safe. However, the group told its members it endorsed Roggensack because she ruled in favor of the realtors group or real industry practices most of the time in cases before her since she was elected in 2003.
Roggensack was among the justices who voted 4-3 to approve rules in 2009 that say campaign contributions, endorsements and outside electioneering activities, like broadcast ads and mailings, by a person or group in a case before the high court are not automatic grounds for a justice who received the support to recuse themselves in the case.
The rules were written by the statewide realtors group and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business organization and a powerful lobbying force that has spent millions of dollars to support mostly Republicans for statewide office and the legislature.
The court and concerns about conflicts of interest and bias in cases before it drew national attention because of two nasty Supreme Court campaigns in 2007 and 2008 where outside special interest groups spent a combined $7.9 million - about twice as much as the candidates. Later, the court narrowly decided a case that favored WMC's position and resulted in millions of dollars in business tax refunds.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Grooming 'Insurance Legislators'
The ALEC model for influencing state lawmaking is spreading, especially in the insurance industry. We're now seeing evidence on campaign finance reports that Wisconsin legislators are essentially being paid to be lobbied on insurance issues...getting "scholarships" to attend insurance industry conferences where they are educated on insurance-related legislation and regulation and given model bills to pass.
Get a load of the name of one of these outfits that has made payments to at least one Wisconsin lawmaker.... The Insurance Legislators Foundation is an arm of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators. A New York address is listed for ILF on the campaign reports we've examined. Also showing up on campaign finance reports are Griffith Foundation scholarships. This outfit sponsored an "Insurance 101" program for state legislators in conjunction with the NCOIL annual meeting in Alabama last November and is doing another one in Oklahoma later this month. Griffith is affiliated with another group called the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters, which lists a Pennsylvania address and is described as "the leader in delivering proven knowledge solutions that drive powerful business results for the risk management and property-casualty insurance industry."
Good grief.
Get a load of the name of one of these outfits that has made payments to at least one Wisconsin lawmaker.... The Insurance Legislators Foundation is an arm of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators. A New York address is listed for ILF on the campaign reports we've examined. Also showing up on campaign finance reports are Griffith Foundation scholarships. This outfit sponsored an "Insurance 101" program for state legislators in conjunction with the NCOIL annual meeting in Alabama last November and is doing another one in Oklahoma later this month. Griffith is affiliated with another group called the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters, which lists a Pennsylvania address and is described as "the leader in delivering proven knowledge solutions that drive powerful business results for the risk management and property-casualty insurance industry."
Wasn't that long ago that state representatives would get ideas for bills from people they were elected to represent. Now they are being paid to travel across the country to be fed industry-approved legislation.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Big Donor Double Standard
In the ubiquitous TV ads for State Farm, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers complains about insurance agents stealing his signature move and turning it into their own "Discount Double Check."
Here at the Democracy Campaign, we've become well acquainted with a very similar routine. Any time we try to account for the political campaign money coming from big special interests, these groups do an old #12 when their signature move is taken at face value.
When advocating for their agendas at the State Capitol, labor unions say they speak for tens of thousands of dues-paying members and business associations claim to speak for thousands of businesses and their employees. But when we take them at their word and include the campaign donations of these masses in our analyses of interest group political influence, they scream bloody murder, whining that it's not fair to assume that all those who they claim to represent actually agree with them on the issues they are lobbying on.
A recent example is the report we issued recently showing that donors represented by interest groups lobbying for controversial mining legislation gave nearly $16 million to the governor and state legislators, which was 610 times as much as mining opponents gave.
Among the groups pushing mining deregulation is Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which fancies itself the voice of Wisconsin business and claims to represent more than 3,500 employers. Another trade association that is lobbying for the mining bill is the Wisconsin Bankers Association. WBA claims to represent 300 commercial banks and savings institutions and their nearly 2,300 branch offices and almost 30,000 employees.
Then there is the Wisconsin Builders Association, which is pushing for passage of the mining bill on behalf of its more than 6,500 member companies. And the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which claims to represent over 13,000 members statewide. Not to mention Wisconsin Independent Businesses. WIB's message to state lawmakers is that it represents nearly 4,000 "service sector companies, hometown manufacturers and traditional Main Street retailers."
The Wisconsin Restaurant Association, which boasts over 7,000 member establishments, also is registered to lobby in favor of the mining legislation. So is the Tavern League of Wisconsin, with 5,000 members.
All such groups gain political clout from claiming to speak for so many. They trade on the power of association, on their status as the voice of such vast legions. This is their signature move.
But when we note campaign contributions from top executives and managers of these thousands of businesses to the governor and state legislators, these groups suddenly insist they do not necessarily speak for their members on the mining issue or any other issue and condemn us for painting with a broad brush.
They want it both ways. When hunting for votes on issues like mining, they want to be free to pass themselves off as the voice of thousands. But when the campaign donations of those thousands make it look like legislative favors are being bought, then there really is no association, just a bunch of independent actors who may have very different views on any given issue. When accused of pay-to-play politics, it's funny how these groups speak for no one.
Here at the Democracy Campaign, we've become well acquainted with a very similar routine. Any time we try to account for the political campaign money coming from big special interests, these groups do an old #12 when their signature move is taken at face value.
When advocating for their agendas at the State Capitol, labor unions say they speak for tens of thousands of dues-paying members and business associations claim to speak for thousands of businesses and their employees. But when we take them at their word and include the campaign donations of these masses in our analyses of interest group political influence, they scream bloody murder, whining that it's not fair to assume that all those who they claim to represent actually agree with them on the issues they are lobbying on.
A recent example is the report we issued recently showing that donors represented by interest groups lobbying for controversial mining legislation gave nearly $16 million to the governor and state legislators, which was 610 times as much as mining opponents gave.
Among the groups pushing mining deregulation is Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which fancies itself the voice of Wisconsin business and claims to represent more than 3,500 employers. Another trade association that is lobbying for the mining bill is the Wisconsin Bankers Association. WBA claims to represent 300 commercial banks and savings institutions and their nearly 2,300 branch offices and almost 30,000 employees.
Then there is the Wisconsin Builders Association, which is pushing for passage of the mining bill on behalf of its more than 6,500 member companies. And the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which claims to represent over 13,000 members statewide. Not to mention Wisconsin Independent Businesses. WIB's message to state lawmakers is that it represents nearly 4,000 "service sector companies, hometown manufacturers and traditional Main Street retailers."
The Wisconsin Restaurant Association, which boasts over 7,000 member establishments, also is registered to lobby in favor of the mining legislation. So is the Tavern League of Wisconsin, with 5,000 members.
All such groups gain political clout from claiming to speak for so many. They trade on the power of association, on their status as the voice of such vast legions. This is their signature move.
But when we note campaign contributions from top executives and managers of these thousands of businesses to the governor and state legislators, these groups suddenly insist they do not necessarily speak for their members on the mining issue or any other issue and condemn us for painting with a broad brush.
They want it both ways. When hunting for votes on issues like mining, they want to be free to pass themselves off as the voice of thousands. But when the campaign donations of those thousands make it look like legislative favors are being bought, then there really is no association, just a bunch of independent actors who may have very different views on any given issue. When accused of pay-to-play politics, it's funny how these groups speak for no one.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Voter Said It's Really Not My Habit To Intrude
With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel, there must be 50 ways to rig an election.
I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued. But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude. There must be 50 ways.
Slip us cash and we've got your back, Jack.
Make a new redistricting plan, Stan.
No need to be coy, Roy.
Just listen to me.
Hop on the Americans for Prosperity bus, Gus.
No need to discuss much.
Just make 'em show ID, Lee.
And you'll be home free.
Republicans came into the 2012 state legislative elections holding the most seats in the Legislature, and money flowed to the party in power. Incumbent lawmakers raised and spent twice as much as challengers did. Winning candidates spent 85% more than their opponents. Special interest groups favoring the Republicans doubled the spending of Democratic groups. Overall, candidates and interest groups on the Republican side spent over $3 million more than the Democrats.
Total spending in last fall's legislative races was down somewhat from 2010 levels. One obvious reason is that big donors and interest groups that would normally have been funneling money to Assembly and Senate hopefuls in late 2011 and the first half of 2012 were instead busy bankrolling recall elections. They dumped more than $93 million into the 2012 recalls.
A less obvious reason that "only" $16.5 million was raised and spent in 2012 legislative contests is redistricting. The new legislative district maps left us with precious few competitive seats. Majority Republicans who controlled the redistricting process packed Democratic voters into a small number of districts, concentrating Democratic voting power in a few areas and diluting it across the rest of the state. Making ultra-Democratic districts here and there allowed them to make many more safe Republican seats elsewhere. Almost no seats are truly up for grabs. The parties and their campaign donors had little reason to duke it out in the vast majority of districts because the outcome of those elections was a foregone conclusion.
Election results in 2012 congressional and state legislative races in Wisconsin provided a vivid illustration of the power of partisan gerrymandering in redistricting. Collectively, Democratic candidates for U.S. House, state Assembly and state Senate got the most votes across the state. But Republicans won the most seats in all three legislative bodies.
To this day, the words of Wisconsin political icon Fighting Bob La Follette are inscribed on the ceiling of the governor's conference room in the State Capitol: "The will of the people is the law of the land."
With a money game that gives those in power grotesque financial advantages over those who seek to challenge them, and with one-party districts from one end of the state to the other, the act of expressing popular will at the ballot box is mocked and thwarted because voters have little practical ability to impose their will on the legislative branch of government.
I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued. But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude. There must be 50 ways.
Slip us cash and we've got your back, Jack.
Make a new redistricting plan, Stan.
No need to be coy, Roy.
Just listen to me.
Hop on the Americans for Prosperity bus, Gus.
No need to discuss much.
Just make 'em show ID, Lee.
And you'll be home free.
Republicans came into the 2012 state legislative elections holding the most seats in the Legislature, and money flowed to the party in power. Incumbent lawmakers raised and spent twice as much as challengers did. Winning candidates spent 85% more than their opponents. Special interest groups favoring the Republicans doubled the spending of Democratic groups. Overall, candidates and interest groups on the Republican side spent over $3 million more than the Democrats.
Total spending in last fall's legislative races was down somewhat from 2010 levels. One obvious reason is that big donors and interest groups that would normally have been funneling money to Assembly and Senate hopefuls in late 2011 and the first half of 2012 were instead busy bankrolling recall elections. They dumped more than $93 million into the 2012 recalls.
A less obvious reason that "only" $16.5 million was raised and spent in 2012 legislative contests is redistricting. The new legislative district maps left us with precious few competitive seats. Majority Republicans who controlled the redistricting process packed Democratic voters into a small number of districts, concentrating Democratic voting power in a few areas and diluting it across the rest of the state. Making ultra-Democratic districts here and there allowed them to make many more safe Republican seats elsewhere. Almost no seats are truly up for grabs. The parties and their campaign donors had little reason to duke it out in the vast majority of districts because the outcome of those elections was a foregone conclusion.
To this day, the words of Wisconsin political icon Fighting Bob La Follette are inscribed on the ceiling of the governor's conference room in the State Capitol: "The will of the people is the law of the land."
With a money game that gives those in power grotesque financial advantages over those who seek to challenge them, and with one-party districts from one end of the state to the other, the act of expressing popular will at the ballot box is mocked and thwarted because voters have little practical ability to impose their will on the legislative branch of government.
Friday, February 15, 2013
You Would Know Us Well, Pump Carpenter
Although Wisconsin was known from coast to coast for a century or more as a bastion of clean, open and honest government, our state was no stranger to political corruption before that. In the 1850s a crusading newspaperman named Stephen Decatur Carpenter exposed and condemned the open bribery of legislators by lobbyists seeking favors for a railroad company.
Nicknamed "Pump" after inventing a device used to drain water from lead mines, Carpenter aimed his choicest words at William Barstow, who was secretary of state and later governor. Carpenter dubbed him and his crooked cohorts "Barstow and the 40 Thieves" and relentlessly editorialized against their backroom maneuvers to secure favorable railroad legislation.
Pump Carpenter won, taking down Barstow and the 40 Thieves. By the time Carpenter died several decades later, Wisconsin had enacted some of the nation's strongest anti-corruption laws, giving birth to our state's reputation for squeaky clean politics.
We have come full circle. We now face threats to democracy not seen since the robber barons reigned supreme at the Capitol in the 19th Century's Gilded Age. Wisconsin used to pride itself on our high voter turnout. Now barriers to voting are being steadily erected. Political boundaries were drawn in a way that allowed one party to win the most seats in Congress and the state Legislature this past November even though the other party got the most votes.
Two years ago the Supreme Court wiped out Wisconsin's century-old law banning corporate electioneering with its Citizens United decision and legalized unlimited election spending throughout the land. A year later Governor Walker and his allies in the Legislature repealed Wisconsin's public financing system for state elections that had been around for 34 years and erased the Impartial Justice Act cleaning up state Supreme Court races after just one election.
Assisting the governor in rolling back campaign finance reforms, making voting more difficult and rigging election outcomes through partisan gerrymandering are 58 legislators in particular who have been the most reliable special interest tools . . . voting to stymie campaign finance, ethics and good government reform measures the vast majority of the time over the last decade.
If money is speech, as the Supreme Court insists it is, then never before have so few spoken at such a deafening volume. Donations as large as a half million dollars from a single individual to a single official look conspicuously like the bribes Pump Carpenter spilled so much ink over.
What we are left with is the best governing money can buy. Mining interests say dig, and officials marinated in pro-mining money dutifully say "how deep?" and get cracking on legislation to loosen mining regulations.
Road builders bellyache about others making claims on the taxpayer funds they want to pour ever more concrete, then proceed to throw around some serious cash, and lawmakers snap to attention and promptly work on rewriting the state constitution to create special protection for the road budget that no other state program or service enjoys.
Year after year, wealthy school privatization backers shower campaign support on Wisconsin officials, and darned if public school budgets don't get shaved and more and more public money gets steered to expanded private school voucher programs.
The subjects of Pump Carpenter's ire – namely Barstow and the 40 Thieves – are long gone. But the behavior Carpenter railed against has come back to haunt Wisconsin in this day and age, embodied presently in the actions of Walker and the 58 Tools.
Nicknamed "Pump" after inventing a device used to drain water from lead mines, Carpenter aimed his choicest words at William Barstow, who was secretary of state and later governor. Carpenter dubbed him and his crooked cohorts "Barstow and the 40 Thieves" and relentlessly editorialized against their backroom maneuvers to secure favorable railroad legislation.
Pump Carpenter won, taking down Barstow and the 40 Thieves. By the time Carpenter died several decades later, Wisconsin had enacted some of the nation's strongest anti-corruption laws, giving birth to our state's reputation for squeaky clean politics.
We have come full circle. We now face threats to democracy not seen since the robber barons reigned supreme at the Capitol in the 19th Century's Gilded Age. Wisconsin used to pride itself on our high voter turnout. Now barriers to voting are being steadily erected. Political boundaries were drawn in a way that allowed one party to win the most seats in Congress and the state Legislature this past November even though the other party got the most votes.
Two years ago the Supreme Court wiped out Wisconsin's century-old law banning corporate electioneering with its Citizens United decision and legalized unlimited election spending throughout the land. A year later Governor Walker and his allies in the Legislature repealed Wisconsin's public financing system for state elections that had been around for 34 years and erased the Impartial Justice Act cleaning up state Supreme Court races after just one election.
Assisting the governor in rolling back campaign finance reforms, making voting more difficult and rigging election outcomes through partisan gerrymandering are 58 legislators in particular who have been the most reliable special interest tools . . . voting to stymie campaign finance, ethics and good government reform measures the vast majority of the time over the last decade.
If money is speech, as the Supreme Court insists it is, then never before have so few spoken at such a deafening volume. Donations as large as a half million dollars from a single individual to a single official look conspicuously like the bribes Pump Carpenter spilled so much ink over.
What we are left with is the best governing money can buy. Mining interests say dig, and officials marinated in pro-mining money dutifully say "how deep?" and get cracking on legislation to loosen mining regulations.
Road builders bellyache about others making claims on the taxpayer funds they want to pour ever more concrete, then proceed to throw around some serious cash, and lawmakers snap to attention and promptly work on rewriting the state constitution to create special protection for the road budget that no other state program or service enjoys.
Year after year, wealthy school privatization backers shower campaign support on Wisconsin officials, and darned if public school budgets don't get shaved and more and more public money gets steered to expanded private school voucher programs.
The subjects of Pump Carpenter's ire – namely Barstow and the 40 Thieves – are long gone. But the behavior Carpenter railed against has come back to haunt Wisconsin in this day and age, embodied presently in the actions of Walker and the 58 Tools.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Mining, But Not For Iron Ore
Ask any Capitol watcher what tops the agenda for the 2013-2014 legislative session, and it doesn't take long for mining to come up. A mining bill is coming any day now and is expected to be acted on early in the session.
The question is whether the bill has any hope of actually producing a mine.
Discussion of mining legislation centers around a proposed iron ore mine in the Penokee-Gogebic Range in the northern part of the state. The project has more than its share of doubters. Experts question its economic feasibility, pointing out that the ore is relatively low-grade not to mention deeply buried and hard to reach, quite possibly making the mine cost prohibitive.
Then there is the fact that the proposed mine's location is upstream from tribal land and would have a considerable environmental impact on the headwaters of the Bad River watershed. No state law can make the Army Corps of Engineers ignore its obligation to follow federal environmental protection laws during its review and approval process. Nor can any state law make the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians surrender their treaty rights and their federally delegated authority to protect the watershed.
So this mining project seems doomed, either because it doesn't make economic sense or because of federal regulators or because of an inevitable tribal lawsuit. Looks like state legislators are in a huge rush to pass legislation greasing the skids for mining that contains no grease.
Looks like a fool's mission on the surface. But something tells me there is much more to this than meets the eye. There are at least three reasons state politicians might be eager to pass a mining bill that is exceedingly unlikely to result in the mine they claim they want and Wisconsin needs.
Reason #1: It's not iron ore lawmakers are interested in mining. Mining interests started making campaign contributions in Wisconsin in the summer of 2010. There is a lot more where that came from. Earlier this year, the day after telling reporters there was a way to breathe life back into the Penokee-Gogebic mining project, Governor Scott Walker embarked on a very successful mining expedition to the faraway hometown of the man behind the mine.
Reason #2: What they really are looking to dig up is a way to divert attention and deflect criticism. By one measure after another, Wisconsin is lagging badly in job creation. For all their promises to jumpstart the economy, state officials still have a dead battery on their hands. Those in charge know they stand to get blamed and they need cover. What to do? Pass a bill promising an economic boom and when it produces exactly what is to be realistically expected, which is nothing, throw up your hands in mock frustration and shift the blame for the state's woeful job-creation record to the feds and the tribes and the environmentalists and every last legislator who votes against the bill.
Reason #3: It's not this mine they really want. Pro-mining legislators let the industry write the legislation and showed no interest whatsoever in the input of tribal officials or the Army Corps of Engineers. That's curious since mining in the Penokee-Gogebic Range has huge environmental implications for the Bad River watershed, so this project necessarily gets caught up in the messy business of treaty rights and tribal sovereignty. And blowing off the Army Corps only stands to lengthen a review and approval process that business interests and their legislative supporters say they want to shorten. Makes no sense if you actually want this particular iron ore mine to happen. Starts making sense if Penokee-Gogebic is a trojan horse concealing the true motives for shortcircuiting the state permitting process and rewriting Wisconsin's environmental protection laws. All this legislative maneuvering for a project that has all the makings of a lost cause serves a purpose if what you are really trying to do is lay the groundwork for another form of mining that is even more environmentally sensitive than iron ore mining or some other kind of politically explosive land use that would best not be publicly acknowledged until after ground has been broken . . . nowhere near any reservation, of course, so as to avoid countless trips to federal court.
The question is whether the bill has any hope of actually producing a mine.
Discussion of mining legislation centers around a proposed iron ore mine in the Penokee-Gogebic Range in the northern part of the state. The project has more than its share of doubters. Experts question its economic feasibility, pointing out that the ore is relatively low-grade not to mention deeply buried and hard to reach, quite possibly making the mine cost prohibitive.
Then there is the fact that the proposed mine's location is upstream from tribal land and would have a considerable environmental impact on the headwaters of the Bad River watershed. No state law can make the Army Corps of Engineers ignore its obligation to follow federal environmental protection laws during its review and approval process. Nor can any state law make the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians surrender their treaty rights and their federally delegated authority to protect the watershed.
So this mining project seems doomed, either because it doesn't make economic sense or because of federal regulators or because of an inevitable tribal lawsuit. Looks like state legislators are in a huge rush to pass legislation greasing the skids for mining that contains no grease.
Looks like a fool's mission on the surface. But something tells me there is much more to this than meets the eye. There are at least three reasons state politicians might be eager to pass a mining bill that is exceedingly unlikely to result in the mine they claim they want and Wisconsin needs.
Reason #1: It's not iron ore lawmakers are interested in mining. Mining interests started making campaign contributions in Wisconsin in the summer of 2010. There is a lot more where that came from. Earlier this year, the day after telling reporters there was a way to breathe life back into the Penokee-Gogebic mining project, Governor Scott Walker embarked on a very successful mining expedition to the faraway hometown of the man behind the mine.
Reason #2: What they really are looking to dig up is a way to divert attention and deflect criticism. By one measure after another, Wisconsin is lagging badly in job creation. For all their promises to jumpstart the economy, state officials still have a dead battery on their hands. Those in charge know they stand to get blamed and they need cover. What to do? Pass a bill promising an economic boom and when it produces exactly what is to be realistically expected, which is nothing, throw up your hands in mock frustration and shift the blame for the state's woeful job-creation record to the feds and the tribes and the environmentalists and every last legislator who votes against the bill.
Reason #3: It's not this mine they really want. Pro-mining legislators let the industry write the legislation and showed no interest whatsoever in the input of tribal officials or the Army Corps of Engineers. That's curious since mining in the Penokee-Gogebic Range has huge environmental implications for the Bad River watershed, so this project necessarily gets caught up in the messy business of treaty rights and tribal sovereignty. And blowing off the Army Corps only stands to lengthen a review and approval process that business interests and their legislative supporters say they want to shorten. Makes no sense if you actually want this particular iron ore mine to happen. Starts making sense if Penokee-Gogebic is a trojan horse concealing the true motives for shortcircuiting the state permitting process and rewriting Wisconsin's environmental protection laws. All this legislative maneuvering for a project that has all the makings of a lost cause serves a purpose if what you are really trying to do is lay the groundwork for another form of mining that is even more environmentally sensitive than iron ore mining or some other kind of politically explosive land use that would best not be publicly acknowledged until after ground has been broken . . . nowhere near any reservation, of course, so as to avoid countless trips to federal court.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Conservatism's Impending Death
George Will used to be fond of saying that conservatives are happy because the world is just as it should be. Indeed, if you look at Webster's definition of conservative, it speaks to the impulse to keep things the way they are.
What neither Will nor Webster acknowledges is why conservatives are so fond of the status quo, but it's obvious enough. The privileged like continuity. When social, political and economic conditions favor you, why change things?
Now consider state Senator Glenn Grothman's quarrel with Kwanzaa. Grothman calls himself a conservative. Most all political observers regard him as one. But Grothman clearly doesn't fit the dictionary's definition, or Will's. He is most certainly not happy with the world just as it is. He favors a world that no longer exists.
Today's social order scares him. Men are no longer the sole breadwinners for families, and they no longer are the heads of households. Women no longer are expected to be submissive to their husbands, barefoot and pregnant, tending hearth and home. Gays and lesbians don't have to stay in the closet. Blacks aren't required to sit on the back of the bus anymore.
The Glenn Grothmans of the world are trying to hold on to today's economic order which spectacularly benefits a privileged few at the expense of a great many, but their anxiety is rising as they feel the need to tighten their grip. The lengths to which they need to go to keep things the way they are get longer every day.
Many in and around the Capitol dismiss Glenn Grothman as a kook. But what they fail to realize or at least acknowledge is that Grothman is now mainstream within today's Republican Party. There are hundreds if not thousands of Glenn Grothmans serving in public offices across America.
They carry the conservative label, but they are not conservatives. They are not happy because the world is just as it should be. They do not wish to keep things exactly as they are. They want less religious diversity; they want Christmas and only Christmas. They want "traditional" marriage and "traditional" families, with one man and one submissive woman. They want white people to hold most of the political power and most of the nation's wealth.
They realize the world is less and less what they long for it to be. They want to turn back the clock. Doing so is not a conservative act. It is retrogressive.
I've written a time or two about how today's political labels no longer fit. Calling the legions of Glenn Grothmans on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the country conservatives is an apt example of ill-fitting labeling. Grothman and his many compatriots are retrogressives.
The Republican Party has a growing problem. More and more every day, our country is becoming less white, less male-dominated, less Christian, less "traditional." More and more every day, the reach of the GOP's appeal is thus narrowed. Today it is the party of angry white men. Scared, middle aged or older, white men. Men like Glenn Grothman. It has lost the support of most women. It also doesn't have the support of most nonwhite people. It's having a hard time with our nation's youth.
That's why Republicans are continually expanding their war on voting and seeking new ways to rig elections. Their political fortunes, and their hopes for social retrogression, rest on making it harder for certain "untraditional" classes of voters to have a say in the future.
Over the long haul, it is a losing battle. If Glenn Grothman truly represents West Bend, the city might want to consider changing its name to Last Gasp.
What neither Will nor Webster acknowledges is why conservatives are so fond of the status quo, but it's obvious enough. The privileged like continuity. When social, political and economic conditions favor you, why change things?
Now consider state Senator Glenn Grothman's quarrel with Kwanzaa. Grothman calls himself a conservative. Most all political observers regard him as one. But Grothman clearly doesn't fit the dictionary's definition, or Will's. He is most certainly not happy with the world just as it is. He favors a world that no longer exists.
Today's social order scares him. Men are no longer the sole breadwinners for families, and they no longer are the heads of households. Women no longer are expected to be submissive to their husbands, barefoot and pregnant, tending hearth and home. Gays and lesbians don't have to stay in the closet. Blacks aren't required to sit on the back of the bus anymore.
The Glenn Grothmans of the world are trying to hold on to today's economic order which spectacularly benefits a privileged few at the expense of a great many, but their anxiety is rising as they feel the need to tighten their grip. The lengths to which they need to go to keep things the way they are get longer every day.
Many in and around the Capitol dismiss Glenn Grothman as a kook. But what they fail to realize or at least acknowledge is that Grothman is now mainstream within today's Republican Party. There are hundreds if not thousands of Glenn Grothmans serving in public offices across America.
They carry the conservative label, but they are not conservatives. They are not happy because the world is just as it should be. They do not wish to keep things exactly as they are. They want less religious diversity; they want Christmas and only Christmas. They want "traditional" marriage and "traditional" families, with one man and one submissive woman. They want white people to hold most of the political power and most of the nation's wealth.
They realize the world is less and less what they long for it to be. They want to turn back the clock. Doing so is not a conservative act. It is retrogressive.
I've written a time or two about how today's political labels no longer fit. Calling the legions of Glenn Grothmans on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the country conservatives is an apt example of ill-fitting labeling. Grothman and his many compatriots are retrogressives.
The Republican Party has a growing problem. More and more every day, our country is becoming less white, less male-dominated, less Christian, less "traditional." More and more every day, the reach of the GOP's appeal is thus narrowed. Today it is the party of angry white men. Scared, middle aged or older, white men. Men like Glenn Grothman. It has lost the support of most women. It also doesn't have the support of most nonwhite people. It's having a hard time with our nation's youth.
That's why Republicans are continually expanding their war on voting and seeking new ways to rig elections. Their political fortunes, and their hopes for social retrogression, rest on making it harder for certain "untraditional" classes of voters to have a say in the future.
Over the long haul, it is a losing battle. If Glenn Grothman truly represents West Bend, the city might want to consider changing its name to Last Gasp.