At the heart of the crooked dark money game and the hijacking of elections by phony front groups is the abuse of the federal tax code.
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's preposterous decision three years ago in the Citizens United case, corporations are considered people and have been freed to spend as much as they want to influence American elections. This ruling has led to a proliferation of nonprofit corporations devoted to meddling in elections. Most of these outfits are organized under section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code.
But it's not just the Citizens United decision that has unleashed the 501c4s politically speaking. The IRS deserves a substantial share of the blame.
Federal law says 501c4 groups have to "exclusively" work to promote social welfare. When the IRS wrote rules to implement the statute, the agency ignored the plain meaning of the law. IRS rules say 501c4 groups have to "primarily" focus on social welfare work, while the law Congress passed says "exclusively."
Exactly how federal bureaucrats could see the word "exclusively" and interpret it to mean "primarily" is a mystery. But this word play has devastating consequences for democracy. The IRS rules are allowing nonprofit organizations that have been granted tax-exempt status for the purposes of doing social welfare work to devote close to half of their resources to warping election outcomes. And because social welfare nonprofits do not have to publicly disclose those who donate to their cause, who's behind this election activity can be cloaked in secrecy.
There is a simple solution to the explosion of dark money-fueled electioneering by 501c4s. Reclassify all 501c4 groups as 527 organizations.
Groups organized under section 527 of the federal tax code can do as much politicking as they want, but they have to disclose their donors, while 501c4 social welfare nonprofits can keep their funding sources secret.
The IRS is about to be sued over its misinterpretation and misapplication of federal law. Here's hoping this lawsuit succeeds in forcing the IRS to bring its rules and its enforcement in line with that law.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Choosing Who Chooses
Senator Mary Lazich insists there is no need for redistricting reform. This is noteworthy because she chairs the committee that is sitting on legislation to overhaul the redistricting process in Wisconsin that closely mirrors the system in place in Iowa.
Lazich dismisses Iowa's nonpartisan approach to redistricting as "nonsense" and cites one study that speculates “taking redistricting out of the hands of a unified legislature and giving it to a bipartisan or judicial commission could result in less competitive elections.”
She overlooks the fact that of Iowa's four U.S. House districts, two rank among the 20 most competitive of the country's 435 congressional districts. None of Wisconsin's eight House districts ranked among the 50 most competitive. In 2012, none of Wisconsin's congressional elections were competitive. All were won by double-digit margins.
The senator also overlooks the fact that in Wisconsin's 2012 elections one party collectively won the most votes for U.S. House, state Senate and state Assembly, but the other party won the most seats in all three legislative bodies.
The way redistricting is handled currently in Wisconsin badly weakens voters, thwarts the public's will, and virtually cements in place those already holding office. It's good for the politicians and bad for the voting public.
It's no surprise Senator Lazich is fond of the way it works now. But if your idea of democracy involves having citizens in the driver's seat, partisan redistricting done by elected officials is pure poison.
A simple choice has to be made. We either can have voters choosing representatives, or representatives choosing voters. If you are OK with the latter, then Senator Lazich is showing the way. If you prefer the former, then we need the reform embodied in Senate Bill 163 and Assembly Bill 185 in the worst way.
Lazich dismisses Iowa's nonpartisan approach to redistricting as "nonsense" and cites one study that speculates “taking redistricting out of the hands of a unified legislature and giving it to a bipartisan or judicial commission could result in less competitive elections.”
She overlooks the fact that of Iowa's four U.S. House districts, two rank among the 20 most competitive of the country's 435 congressional districts. None of Wisconsin's eight House districts ranked among the 50 most competitive. In 2012, none of Wisconsin's congressional elections were competitive. All were won by double-digit margins.
The way redistricting is handled currently in Wisconsin badly weakens voters, thwarts the public's will, and virtually cements in place those already holding office. It's good for the politicians and bad for the voting public.
It's no surprise Senator Lazich is fond of the way it works now. But if your idea of democracy involves having citizens in the driver's seat, partisan redistricting done by elected officials is pure poison.
A simple choice has to be made. We either can have voters choosing representatives, or representatives choosing voters. If you are OK with the latter, then Senator Lazich is showing the way. If you prefer the former, then we need the reform embodied in Senate Bill 163 and Assembly Bill 185 in the worst way.
Friday, August 09, 2013
Nothing In Common Anymore
There is a conspicuous and growing disconnect between the public and the elected officials who are supposed to be representing the citizenry. Nowhere are the representatives and the represented more disconnected than on the subject of money in politics.
Poll after poll shows a tripartisan consensus among members of the general public that money is playing far too great a role in our elections, is having a poisonous effect on governing, and needs to be reined in.
According to the latest Gallup Poll half of Americans now have reached the point of favoring banning campaign contributions altogether. Voters of every political stripe oppose the U.S. Supreme Court's ludicrous Citizens United decision allowing unlimited election spending by special interest groups and want the ruling overturned.
Even those who are best positioned to buy elections – namely America's top business leaders – are evidently getting tired of the political money game and have grown uncomfortable with elected officials being bought. Three-quarters of them regard political giving as "pay to play" and close to 90% believe the campaign finance system needs to be overhauled.
The political establishment, on the other hand, has a radically different view. The problem is not that there is too much money in politics, but rather not enough. Witness the bipartisan voice vote in Wisconsin's state Assembly in June to pass an amended elections bill doubling the limits on campaign contributions.
Not only do political insiders believe campaign donations should be even bigger, they also believe the money should be hard to see. Witness the lack of action – no votes, no committee consideration, not even a public hearing – in either house of Wisconsin's legislature on bipartisan legislation like Senate Bill 166 that improves disclosure by closing the notorious "magic words" loophole and thereby shining light on the dark money in elections.
Instead we have the assistant Senate majority leader introducing legislation that would gut Wisconsin’s campaign finance disclosure laws. Currently, the occupation and employer of any donor who gives more than $100 must be reported. Under this new legislation, disclosure of only the occupation of any donor giving more than $500 would be required.
There are 862,064 contributions from individuals in the Democracy Campaign’s searchable online database. Of those donations, 825,827 or 96% are $500 or less. Contributions of more than $500 total 36,237. If Grothman’s new proposal had been state law all along, our database would be 96% smaller and would show the occupation but not the employer of each of the donors who made those 36,237 contributions.
Put another way, if this bill had been law when we built our database, citizens would not have been able to see what that database enables them to see today, namely the economic interests of donors who gave more than $122.5 million to Wisconsin politicians since the mid-1990s.
It is neither healthy nor sustainable for voters to be thinking one way and their "representatives" thinking and acting another way. Some course corrections are sorely needed.
Poll after poll shows a tripartisan consensus among members of the general public that money is playing far too great a role in our elections, is having a poisonous effect on governing, and needs to be reined in.
According to the latest Gallup Poll half of Americans now have reached the point of favoring banning campaign contributions altogether. Voters of every political stripe oppose the U.S. Supreme Court's ludicrous Citizens United decision allowing unlimited election spending by special interest groups and want the ruling overturned.
Even those who are best positioned to buy elections – namely America's top business leaders – are evidently getting tired of the political money game and have grown uncomfortable with elected officials being bought. Three-quarters of them regard political giving as "pay to play" and close to 90% believe the campaign finance system needs to be overhauled.
The political establishment, on the other hand, has a radically different view. The problem is not that there is too much money in politics, but rather not enough. Witness the bipartisan voice vote in Wisconsin's state Assembly in June to pass an amended elections bill doubling the limits on campaign contributions.
Not only do political insiders believe campaign donations should be even bigger, they also believe the money should be hard to see. Witness the lack of action – no votes, no committee consideration, not even a public hearing – in either house of Wisconsin's legislature on bipartisan legislation like Senate Bill 166 that improves disclosure by closing the notorious "magic words" loophole and thereby shining light on the dark money in elections.
Instead we have the assistant Senate majority leader introducing legislation that would gut Wisconsin’s campaign finance disclosure laws. Currently, the occupation and employer of any donor who gives more than $100 must be reported. Under this new legislation, disclosure of only the occupation of any donor giving more than $500 would be required.
There are 862,064 contributions from individuals in the Democracy Campaign’s searchable online database. Of those donations, 825,827 or 96% are $500 or less. Contributions of more than $500 total 36,237. If Grothman’s new proposal had been state law all along, our database would be 96% smaller and would show the occupation but not the employer of each of the donors who made those 36,237 contributions.
Put another way, if this bill had been law when we built our database, citizens would not have been able to see what that database enables them to see today, namely the economic interests of donors who gave more than $122.5 million to Wisconsin politicians since the mid-1990s.
It is neither healthy nor sustainable for voters to be thinking one way and their "representatives" thinking and acting another way. Some course corrections are sorely needed.
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
A Plan Fit To Be Damned
Today the Wisconsin State Journal endorsed a one-term limit for state Supreme Court despite having this to say about the proposal floated recently by the state bar association: "Voters would lose influence.... They would no longer be able to vote out justices for making unpopular decisions.... Candidates for state Supreme Court would still have to shill for votes and campaign donations to get through an initial election. Moreover, special interest groups might increase their spending on high court campaigns, knowing they'll have fewer opportunities to affect the makeup of the court."
Talk about damning an idea with faint praise. Hell, that isn't even praise. And it ain't faint.
Never mind that 16 years has to be the longest term ever imagined for an elective office. And never mind the term limit would get rid of truly exceptional justices as well as really bad ones.
Wisconsin has been electing Supreme Court justices for well over 150 years. Those elections served our state well for a century and a half. Our high court was known as one of the nation's finest. It wasn't until Supreme Court elections became auctions starting in 2007 that the court ran into trouble and public confidence in the performance and behavior of justices plummeted.
A single 16-year term does not address any of the root causes of the citizenry's loss of faith in Wisconsin's Supreme Court. It does nothing about money in elections, special interest influence, partisanship and ideological polarization on the court, or the conflicts of interest when justices rule on cases involving their biggest campaign supporters.
Before the bar association's proposal could be implemented, the state constitution would first have to be amended. That requires approval by two successive legislatures and then ratification by voters in a statewide election. That's an awful lot of time and trouble for a reform plan that steers clear of the core problems plaguing the court.
Friday, June 21, 2013
A Budget For Two Wisconsins
Scott Walker and his legislative allies must really love Wisconsin. Because they seem determined to create two of them.
The state budget proposed by the governor, amended some and passed by both houses of the Legislature, and now returned to Walker's desk for his signature is a budget for two Wisconsins.
It takes Wisconsin farther down the path to the establishment of two separate school systems – one that can easily be segregated by race, class and academic ability or disability, and another that is well on its way to becoming little more than a dumping ground for the kids the private schools don't want or can't serve. As the state's private school voucher system is expanded statewide, it's hard not to notice that pro-voucher interests have pumped $97 million into Wisconsin elections in the last decade while those opposed to school privatization have contributed about $10.5 million.
Despite alarming levels of income inequality, the budget doubles down on trickle-down economics with a tax plan that showers a windfall on the wealthiest and throws table scraps to everyone else. As parallel tax systems emerge for the politically well connected and the peasantry, it's hard not to reflect on the fact that all of the money spent on Wisconsin elections comes from a donor class barely equal to 2% of the state's voting age population.
This budget is packed with more non-budget policy items than any state budget in recent memory. All of this junk is worth billions to an array of special interests that have contributed close to $33 million to the governor and legislators who shaped the budget. And of course all of this junk comes at the expense of the rest of the state's taxpayers who do not benefit much if at all from these political favors.
There is a new tax deduction for private school tuition. Looser rules for cutting off cable TV service and collecting payday loan debts. A nice tax break for the purveyors of junk mail. (Great! That's just what we need.... More junk mail.) Another item tucked in the budget further limits the ability of people harmed by defective products to sue manufacturers.
The budget greases the skids for selling public property without competitive bidding, opening the door to sweetheart sales of office buildings, prisons, power plants, university dormitories and even highways.
Perhaps the budget provision that most powerfully illustrates who lawmakers are catering to is the refusal of federal funds for Medicaid expansion. The decision means roughly 85,000 people will be denied access to medical insurance but state taxpayers will actually pay more than we would if the federal money were accepted and the additional people added to the program.
Lawmakers essentially told 85,000 low-income people "tough luck." But when the hospital industry squawked about how turning down the federal money could shift costs to the hospitals and hurt their bottom line, legislators snapped to attention and promptly took $73.5 million more from state taxpayers and planted it in the budget to compensate the hospitals for any adverse financial impacts they might experience.
This is a budget only big campaign donors could love. And what's not to love? It is a budget designed to give them their own separate Wisconsin.
To keep as many people as possible from noticing, the budget-writers included an amendment that evicts the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism from the UW-Madison campus and forbids UW faculty and staff from working with the center. This is not only an attack on press freedom and the award-winning watchdog reporting WCIJ is doing, but it also is an affront to academic freedom and a crippling blow to an invaluable collaborative effort to train the next generation of news reporters.
Can't have journalism students mingling with actual journalists. Just like we can't have the royals mingling with the rabble.
The state budget proposed by the governor, amended some and passed by both houses of the Legislature, and now returned to Walker's desk for his signature is a budget for two Wisconsins.
It takes Wisconsin farther down the path to the establishment of two separate school systems – one that can easily be segregated by race, class and academic ability or disability, and another that is well on its way to becoming little more than a dumping ground for the kids the private schools don't want or can't serve. As the state's private school voucher system is expanded statewide, it's hard not to notice that pro-voucher interests have pumped $97 million into Wisconsin elections in the last decade while those opposed to school privatization have contributed about $10.5 million.
Despite alarming levels of income inequality, the budget doubles down on trickle-down economics with a tax plan that showers a windfall on the wealthiest and throws table scraps to everyone else. As parallel tax systems emerge for the politically well connected and the peasantry, it's hard not to reflect on the fact that all of the money spent on Wisconsin elections comes from a donor class barely equal to 2% of the state's voting age population.
This budget is packed with more non-budget policy items than any state budget in recent memory. All of this junk is worth billions to an array of special interests that have contributed close to $33 million to the governor and legislators who shaped the budget. And of course all of this junk comes at the expense of the rest of the state's taxpayers who do not benefit much if at all from these political favors.
There is a new tax deduction for private school tuition. Looser rules for cutting off cable TV service and collecting payday loan debts. A nice tax break for the purveyors of junk mail. (Great! That's just what we need.... More junk mail.) Another item tucked in the budget further limits the ability of people harmed by defective products to sue manufacturers.
The budget greases the skids for selling public property without competitive bidding, opening the door to sweetheart sales of office buildings, prisons, power plants, university dormitories and even highways.
Perhaps the budget provision that most powerfully illustrates who lawmakers are catering to is the refusal of federal funds for Medicaid expansion. The decision means roughly 85,000 people will be denied access to medical insurance but state taxpayers will actually pay more than we would if the federal money were accepted and the additional people added to the program.
Lawmakers essentially told 85,000 low-income people "tough luck." But when the hospital industry squawked about how turning down the federal money could shift costs to the hospitals and hurt their bottom line, legislators snapped to attention and promptly took $73.5 million more from state taxpayers and planted it in the budget to compensate the hospitals for any adverse financial impacts they might experience.
This is a budget only big campaign donors could love. And what's not to love? It is a budget designed to give them their own separate Wisconsin.
To keep as many people as possible from noticing, the budget-writers included an amendment that evicts the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism from the UW-Madison campus and forbids UW faculty and staff from working with the center. This is not only an attack on press freedom and the award-winning watchdog reporting WCIJ is doing, but it also is an affront to academic freedom and a crippling blow to an invaluable collaborative effort to train the next generation of news reporters.
Can't have journalism students mingling with actual journalists. Just like we can't have the royals mingling with the rabble.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
While Wisconsin Slept
In the middle of the night a key committee of Wisconsin's Legislature did something petty, vindictive and un-American.
No, I am not talking about the budget committee's decision to reject federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage, meaning Wisconsin taxpayers will pay $119 million more to provide 85,000 fewer people health insurance. To those 85,000 the committee essentially said "tough luck." But when the lobbyists for the hospitals squawked about how rejecting the federal health insurance expansion would end up harming their bottom line, the budget writers promptly added $73.5 million to the spending plan to compensate them.
That was done during waking hours.
When most everyone in our fair state was sleeping, the committee added language to the state budget that simultaneously assaults both press freedom and academic freedom.
The amendment prohibits the UW Board of Regents from permitting the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism to occupy any university facilities, and prohibits UW employees from working with the Center.
The Center is doing award-winning watchdog journalism and has broken numerous important stories, including the physical altercation between two members of the state Supreme Court. At a time when the Capitol press corps is shrinking and the journalists are vastly outnumbered by the swarm of lobbyists prowling the halls on behalf of special interest clients, Wisconsin needs innovative nonprofit news organizations like the Center for Investigative Journalism now more than ever.
The Center is being attacked because it is doing a good job of serving the public's need to know what is going on in our government. The Center is being attacked because there are people in high places at the Capitol who don't want media scrutiny of their actions.
In addition to the Center's reporting, it has forged a terrific partnership with the UW's School of Journalism to help train the next generation of journalists. The Center provides paid internships to J-School students and gives them practical experience and mentoring. Some of those students are among the Center's award winners. Telling the UW it can have nothing to do with the Center is not only another creepy attack on the university and the academic freedom of its employees, it is a huge disservice to the students.
This past week has been a bleak one for democracy in Wisconsin. First, legislation was put on a fast track to make it harder to vote and easier for special interests to influence elections and easier for the governor to stack the agency charged with overseeing elections and ethics. Now this attack on press freedom and the training of future journalists.
Is anyone awake out there? Does anyone understand what's being done here?
No, I am not talking about the budget committee's decision to reject federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage, meaning Wisconsin taxpayers will pay $119 million more to provide 85,000 fewer people health insurance. To those 85,000 the committee essentially said "tough luck." But when the lobbyists for the hospitals squawked about how rejecting the federal health insurance expansion would end up harming their bottom line, the budget writers promptly added $73.5 million to the spending plan to compensate them.
That was done during waking hours.
When most everyone in our fair state was sleeping, the committee added language to the state budget that simultaneously assaults both press freedom and academic freedom.
The amendment prohibits the UW Board of Regents from permitting the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism to occupy any university facilities, and prohibits UW employees from working with the Center.
The Center is doing award-winning watchdog journalism and has broken numerous important stories, including the physical altercation between two members of the state Supreme Court. At a time when the Capitol press corps is shrinking and the journalists are vastly outnumbered by the swarm of lobbyists prowling the halls on behalf of special interest clients, Wisconsin needs innovative nonprofit news organizations like the Center for Investigative Journalism now more than ever.
The Center is being attacked because it is doing a good job of serving the public's need to know what is going on in our government. The Center is being attacked because there are people in high places at the Capitol who don't want media scrutiny of their actions.
In addition to the Center's reporting, it has forged a terrific partnership with the UW's School of Journalism to help train the next generation of journalists. The Center provides paid internships to J-School students and gives them practical experience and mentoring. Some of those students are among the Center's award winners. Telling the UW it can have nothing to do with the Center is not only another creepy attack on the university and the academic freedom of its employees, it is a huge disservice to the students.
This past week has been a bleak one for democracy in Wisconsin. First, legislation was put on a fast track to make it harder to vote and easier for special interests to influence elections and easier for the governor to stack the agency charged with overseeing elections and ethics. Now this attack on press freedom and the training of future journalists.
Is anyone awake out there? Does anyone understand what's being done here?
Monday, June 03, 2013
Junk Bond
Luther Olsen has always struck me as a good guy. I have known the Ripon-area senator for about 20 years. I dealt with him extensively on school issues when he was in the state Assembly and chaired the education committee. I always found him to be a straight shooter.
That's why I believe him when he says he reached an agreement with other state leaders on public school funding and expansion of the state's private school voucher program. He says he shook on it with the governor and said pointedly, "Where I come from, your word is your bond."
Indeed it is. In Luther Olsen's world.
The problem is, the school privatization advocates and their water carriers with whom Senator Olsen has to negotiate do not seem to operate in that same world. Their track record in Wisconsin pegs them as the Ivan Boeskys and Michael Milkens of the education business.
When private school vouchers were first pitched in Wisconsin 23 years ago, those doing the pitching assured anyone who would listen that their "reforms" were tailored for Milwaukee. They insisted that the rest of the state didn't need such an intervention and couldn't benefit from vouchers. They also stressed that vouchers would go only to low-income families to give them the kind of educational options that middle-class and upper-income people already had.
That was the deal. Only for Milwaukee and only for the poor. A great many wary politicians took their word for it. The deal was done.
And then it was undone. Those peddling vouchers changed their tune and argued that communities like Beloit and Green Bay and Racine also needed vouchers. They succeeded in getting the program expanded to Racine. They whined about how it was unfair to deny such a valuable state benefit to people of modest means. In no time they talked lawmakers into boosting the eligibility threshold to incomes up to three times the federal poverty level. Vouchers were not only for Milwaukee and not only for the poor anymore.
Today that revised deal is in the process of being undone. Now they want to expand the voucher program statewide, but with limits on enrollment and tighter income eligibility levels. Senator Olsen says he shook on that. The state budget bill that is to include this agreement hasn't even been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor yet, and already it looks about as durable as the original only-for-Milwaukee/only-for-the-poor deal.
Governor Scott Walker already has gone on the record saying "every two years we're going to come back and talk about further expansion."
What's more, the national group that authors of all this education "reform" legislation isn't exactly coy about its ultimate aim, namely privatizing education through vouchers, charters and tax incentives and, by so doing, weakening or entirely eliminating local school districts and school boards.
If that becomes the final deal, Wisconsin will find itself with a system where unaccountable privately run schools can easily segregate students by academic ability and disability, economics, ethnicity, language and culture. And a whole lot of people will wonder how we got there, and will demand to know who agreed to go along for the ride.
That's why I believe him when he says he reached an agreement with other state leaders on public school funding and expansion of the state's private school voucher program. He says he shook on it with the governor and said pointedly, "Where I come from, your word is your bond."
Indeed it is. In Luther Olsen's world.
The problem is, the school privatization advocates and their water carriers with whom Senator Olsen has to negotiate do not seem to operate in that same world. Their track record in Wisconsin pegs them as the Ivan Boeskys and Michael Milkens of the education business.
When private school vouchers were first pitched in Wisconsin 23 years ago, those doing the pitching assured anyone who would listen that their "reforms" were tailored for Milwaukee. They insisted that the rest of the state didn't need such an intervention and couldn't benefit from vouchers. They also stressed that vouchers would go only to low-income families to give them the kind of educational options that middle-class and upper-income people already had.
That was the deal. Only for Milwaukee and only for the poor. A great many wary politicians took their word for it. The deal was done.
And then it was undone. Those peddling vouchers changed their tune and argued that communities like Beloit and Green Bay and Racine also needed vouchers. They succeeded in getting the program expanded to Racine. They whined about how it was unfair to deny such a valuable state benefit to people of modest means. In no time they talked lawmakers into boosting the eligibility threshold to incomes up to three times the federal poverty level. Vouchers were not only for Milwaukee and not only for the poor anymore.
Today that revised deal is in the process of being undone. Now they want to expand the voucher program statewide, but with limits on enrollment and tighter income eligibility levels. Senator Olsen says he shook on that. The state budget bill that is to include this agreement hasn't even been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor yet, and already it looks about as durable as the original only-for-Milwaukee/only-for-the-poor deal.
Governor Scott Walker already has gone on the record saying "every two years we're going to come back and talk about further expansion."
What's more, the national group that authors of all this education "reform" legislation isn't exactly coy about its ultimate aim, namely privatizing education through vouchers, charters and tax incentives and, by so doing, weakening or entirely eliminating local school districts and school boards.
If that becomes the final deal, Wisconsin will find itself with a system where unaccountable privately run schools can easily segregate students by academic ability and disability, economics, ethnicity, language and culture. And a whole lot of people will wonder how we got there, and will demand to know who agreed to go along for the ride.
Friday, May 31, 2013
All Vessel, No Cargo
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.
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.
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.