Chaos On Bulls**t Molehill

Governor Scott Walker insisted for the longest time that he had zero tolerance for government employees doing campaign work while on the job, before the court-ordered release of more than 27,000 emails proved that claim false. The governor also repeatedly said he had no idea there was a secret email system in his county executive's office, until the emails showed he was prevaricating about that too.

Just the other day Walker said there is no secret email system in the governor's office like the one he had in Milwaukee County. Veteran journalist Bruce Murphy quickly cast doubt on that claim. Murphy has a source who was a close observer of the governor’s staff in the Capitol and who attended numerous meetings with them. The source told Murphy there was a system that sure looked like it was designed to enable staff to do political work on government time and evade public disclosure of such campaigning by using personal laptops and gmail accounts.

Now the governor's just refusing to answer any more questions. All of this is old news, he says.

To the national pundits and talking heads in D.C., all of this is definitely news but none of it is apparently sexy enough. In a time when they've grown so used to encountering what Jon Stewart calls "Bullshit Mountain" on the other side of the Potomac, apparently they are having a hard time seeing this whole Walker affair as anything more than a Bullshit Molehill.

It's this kind of thing that prompted the late politician and sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan to coin the phrase "defining deviancy down" to describe the tendency of societies to respond to destructive behaviors by lowering standards for what is permissible.

Not only are ethical standards in Wisconsin politics going the way of temperatures in the polar vortex, but now deviancy is in the eye of the beholder. Mountain or molehill, sexy or not, all those emails inspired the Beloit Daily News to observe "here’s how partisans view these things. If the guy on the other side does something like this, it’s a raging scandal and the rascal should be drummed out of office. But if the guy at the center of the mess is your guy, then your guy is a blameless victim of biased media and the evil opposition."

Walker Accepted Bulk Of Individual Campaign Cash From Big Donors

Republican Governor Scott Walker accepted more than half of his $8.38 million in individual contributions in 2013 from well-heeled donors who gave $1,000 or more, a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign review found.

The Democracy Campaign reviewed Walker’s 2013 contributions after his campaign boasted that 75 percent of the contributions were from donors who gave $50 or less. The Walker campaign’s claim and countless others like it by candidates over the years is often made to argue a candidate has strong grassroots support from average voters. But those claims skirt the more important question about where candidates get most of their money – big donors or small donors.

Here’s what the numbers from Walker’s campaign finance reports for 2013 revealed:

 The governor received $4.3 million from contributions of $1,000 or more – that’s 51 percent of his $8.38 million in total individual campaign contributions. And many of those $1,000-plus contributions – about $2.4 million – came from contributors outside Wisconsin;

 The governor accepted $2.6 million in contributions of $5,000 or more. That’s 31 percent of Walker’s total individual contributions, and most of that money – about $1.7 million – came from outside Wisconsin.

All told, the governor’s total haul from outside Wisconsin was about $4.4 million, or 54 percent of his total individual contributions in 2013. Walker’s out-of-state fundraising dipped a bit from the margin during his 2012 recall election when roughly two-thirds of the $37 million he raised came from outside Wisconsin. The decline in out-of-state contributions was because state fundraising rules during his recall allowed Walker to accept unlimited contributions from individuals, rather than the normal $10,000 per person.

Democratic candidate for governor Mary Burke received $866,931 in individual contributions of $1,000 or more – about 68 percent of her $1.27 million in total individual contributions excluding her $429,730 self-contribution. Burke accepted $578,850 in contributions of $5,000 or more – about 46 percent of her individual donations, minus her self-contribution.

Burke’s campaign finance report also showed she received the bulk of her donations in 2013 from Wisconsin contributors. About $1.09 million, or 86 percent of her individual contributions, came from Wisconsin contributors and $180,274 came from out-of-state donors. She received $124,000 in out-of-state individual contributions of $1,000 or more – about 10 percent of the $1.27 million in individual contributions, and $105,000 in contributions of $5,000 or more – about 8 percent of her individual donations.

'From The Prolific Womb Of Governmental Injustice'

Talk about history repeating itself....

In 1892, common folk united in the belief that the Democrats and Republicans were controlled by bankers, landowners and elites hostile to the needs of the small farmer gathered in St. Louis and later in Omaha to frame a populist answer. A Minnesotan named Ignatius Donnelly captured the mood of the moment, writing "we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress.... The people are demoralized; The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished.... The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires."

Van Hollen's Rea$on$ To Bless Land Sales To Foreigners

A legal opinion on whether the state's 127-year-old restriction on foreign land ownership can still be enforced poses a conflict of interest for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and could reward one of his largest special interest supporters depending on his decision.

A legal opinion nixing the law would serve the real estate industry, a powerful special interest that stands to benefit from increased land sales, but cloaks its support for such a move by pitching the ban's demise as pro-jobs and pro-economic development.  Since 2006 when Van Hollen was elected the real estate industry has contributed $209,965 in large individual and political action committee contributions to his campaigns.  The real estate industry is Van Hollen's second largest special interest supporter, accounting for 10 percent of the $2.21 million in special interest campaign cash he has accepted. 

An opinion that nixes the ban could also directly benefit Smithfield Foods, a giant U.S. pork producer with operations in Wisconsin that was purchased last fall by a Chinese company.  Van Hollen also  accepted campaign contributions from Smithfield general counsel James Nellen in 2005 and 2009 totaling $450.

A report by Reuters last year when the Smithfield deal was in the works noted foreign land ownership restrictions in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states could affect Smithfield's operations if the deal was approved.  Some legal experts contend federal laws and international trade agreements may trump the state land restrictions, but others say these laws in Wisconsin and elsewhere could affect the company's business or draw lengthy legal challenges.

The effort to lift foreign land ownership restrictions was resurrected earlier this month when the Assembly Committee on Organization voted to seek Van Hollen's opinion on the law.  The committee action follows a failed effort by Republican Governor Scott Walker to lift the cap in his 2013-15 state budget.  No one was certain at the time - like now - why the proposal was pushed or who it benefits.  Rumblings then suggested it would help out-of-state mining interests seeking to dig a massive open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin.  In the event Gogebic Taconite wanted out of the project it could sell its stake to a foreign interest hungry for steel production, like China.

But both Republican and Democratic legislators opposed the measure last year because of strong opposition in agricultural and rural areas over wealthy foreign interests buying huge tracts of prized Wisconsin farmland and threatening the dominance of the state's premiere industry and pricing out future generations of farm families.

Another question as the proposal makes its second round might be to ask Assembly Republicans why they think these sentiments have changed.  

The Biggest Problem

I was honored to be asked to be the keynote speaker for Saturday night's dinner banquet at the Wisconsin Farmers Union convention in Wisconsin Rapids. After sharing some stories about my upbringing on the farm, I really only had two points I wanted to make to my audience.

The first was that money in politics is a huge problem for family farmers and for rural communities. It's a problem that causes most all of their other problems to be overlooked or ignored.

One of the things I heard about a lot at the convention was the brutal propane shortage that is reaching crisis proportions in rural parts of the state. With Wisconsin in the grips of the polar vortex, there are families out there who are having to go without heat in their homes because they either can't afford or can't get deliveries of propane to fuel their furnaces. Others are moving in with neighbors temporarily until the frigid temperatures subside. Yet you don't hear politicians talking about this, much less doing anything about it.

As I said in my speech on Saturday night and in a blog post last week, politicians don't talk about many serious challenges facing rural America and aren't working to solve rural problems because their big donors aren't experiencing these challenges and, as a result, aren't demanding that the politicians talk about them or try to solve them.

My second point was that the problem of money in politics, huge as it is, is not the biggest problem. An even bigger one is the obsolete and malfunctioning condition of America's two major political parties. Both are failing Wisconsin and failing the nation. As much as family farmers – and the rest of us – need campaign finance reform, we all need political party reform even more.

Despite the fact that the need to remedy money's poisonous effects on politics and government might be about the only thing virtually all Americans can agree on, both parties are deaf to the public clamor. Neither party is acting according to the wishes of the people. Which leaves the vast majority of us, for all intents and purposes, politically homeless.

As I told the Farmers Union members, when I speak of the need for political party reform, I am not calling for the establishment of a third party. Smart reformers realize America has a two-party system. The goal should not be to have three parties, it should be having one that is worth a damn. One that owes its allegiance to the people and offers housing to the politically homeless.

As I said Saturday night, we are fast approaching a moment of truth. A vacuum has developed in America's political party structure, a void that must be filled because nature abhors vacuums and because democracy doesn't work without at least one party that represents the many and not just the money. This is a moment that cries out for political invention.

The Many Signs Of Corruption

Sometimes political corruption comes right up and slaps you on the face.

Such was the case with the recent revelation that a state lawmaker granted a wealthy divorced developer an unusual and significant opportunity to provide input into the writing of legislation allowing high-income parents to substantially reduce their child support payments. The businessman happens to be a major donor to the Republican legislator and other GOP officials.

The effort to craft the bill to the donor's liking even left a legislative attorney helping to write the bill at a loss. "It's hard to fashion a general principle that will apply to only one situation," the drafting lawyer said.

Most people don't get that kind of attention and personalized service from an elected representative. But then most people don't make tens of thousands of dollars in political donations.

Most times, corruption is not that conspicuous. Most times, it presents itself much more subtly.

The corrupting influence of money in politics works its will at the Capitol every day in countless ways as it shapes the legislative agenda. It plays an insidious role in determining what lawmakers discuss and what they don't talk about, which bills get debated and which ones don't, what business is brought to a vote, and which bills become law.

Here's an illustration: Try to think of the last time the Legislature did something to address a major challenge unique to rural communities in Wisconsin. Try to name the rural issues that are on the Legislature's agenda for the upcoming session. Make a list of the rural issues on the Democrats' agenda. Now make one for the Republicans.

Those are some mighty short lists.

Rural people and rural problems get neglected at the Capitol for a reason. Politicians don't talk about rural issues and don't solve rural problems because they don't get many political donations from rural areas. As the Democracy Campaign's recent analysis of the communities in Wisconsin that produce the most campaign contributions showed, less than a quarter of the state's nearly 900 zip codes produce almost all of the political donations. On the color-coded map illustrating this finding, there are some red zips that strongly favor Republicans and a few blue ones that support the Democrats. But most of the map is colorless. Most parts of the state – especially the rural parts – generate little or no money for the politicians.

Elected officials always say campaign contributions have nothing to do with the decisions they make. Indeed, the legislator who authored the child support bill insisted the donations he got played no role in his decision to do the divorced businessman's bidding.

So again I ask: When is the last time Wisconsin lawmakers tackled a major problem plaguing rural communities?

I made this point in a recent interview, and at first the reporter asking the questions appeared stumped. Then he brought up the proposed legislation designed to clear the way for more mining of sand used in a process of natural gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."

Think about that legislation. Local elected officials in western and northwestern Wisconsin, responding to concerns by the region's mostly rural residents, have approved numerous resolutions and local ordinances aimed at asserting their communities' right to oversee and regulate sand mining operations. Some have even voted to approve moratoriums stopping the activity altogether, at least for the time being.

State lawmakers marinated in money from a recent surge in political giving by sand mining interests from across the country fashioned a bill that seeks to preempt these local actions. The legislation strips away local control and puts the state in charge of oversight and regulation of sand mining. The hands of local officials would be tied. The ability of rural communities to determine their own fate when it comes to sand mining would be taken away.

Rural folks concerned that sand mining could harm air and water quality, lower their property values, create noise pollution and traffic congestion and damage their roads would be left with no say over these operations and no control over their own fate on the issue. They wouldn't even have a say over the use of dynamite for blasting at the mining sites in their own backyards.

The one time that comes readily to mind when state lawmakers showed an interest in addressing an issue of great importance to rural Wisconsin, and this is how they respond. Sometimes political corruption comes right up and slaps you on the face.

Helping The 0.004%

Voters are divided on many issues. But there is at least one thing that unites voters of every political stripe. There is tripartisan agreement among voters – Democrats, Republicans and independents alike – that the money in elections needs to be reined in.

Poll after poll by academic institutions, media organizations and private survey research firms shows that a supermajority of voters now believe there is way too much money in politics and unlimited election fundraising and spending is corrupting our government.

Two dozen Wisconsin communities have approved referendums or passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other related court decisions and allow more vigorous anti-corruption measures to be put in place. Sixteen states and over 500 communities nationwide have done the same.

Assembly Bill 225 goes in exactly the opposite direction. The bill takes the position that there is not enough money in politics. As amended and passed by the state Assembly, AB 225 would double existing state limits on campaign contributions. A tiny group of donors equal to four one-thousandth of 1% of Wisconsin’s population are bumping up against the current limits. That is not to say these donors are all from Wisconsin. Many of them live outside our state. In 2012 a total of 243 wealthy donors – including 149 from out of state – reached Wisconsin’s $10,000 annual limit on campaign contributions.

In the Assembly, AB 225’s supporters argued that raising the contribution limits would cause donors to give directly to candidates rather than steering so much money to outside interest groups that sponsor their own election advertising, thus reducing the influence of the outside groups. We’ve had 15 tests of this theory in Wisconsin. In the 2011 and 2012 recall elections, the limits weren’t doubled, they were eliminated altogether for the officials targeted for recall. This did not result in less money going to outside groups. They raised and spent more than ever. Despite a single donor giving as much as $510,000 to a candidate, outside groups outspent candidates by a substantial margin. Outside groups accounted for $75.8 million of the overall recall election spending of $137.5 million.

AB 225 makes the most powerful even stronger. For those who already have the loudest voices and the greatest influence in Wisconsin politics, AB 225 increases their capacity to influence candidates for state office by 100%. It is a gift to the four one-thousandth of 1% whose style is cramped by Wisconsin’s limits. It is a kick in the gut for everyone else.

New Name, Same Taint

The word "lobbyist" has become so tainted in the public eye that the American League of Lobbyists decided last month to change its name to the Association of Government Relations Professionals.

Sorry, but that won't help.

There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. After all, at its core is the exercise of the First Amendment right to petition our government. From my vantage point, what has tarnished lobbying is not the act of lobbying itself but rather the modern-day marriage of lobbying and campaign fundraising. Lobbyists are seen as key brokers in the system of legalized extortion and bribery that we now have. They are seen this way because the lobbyists representing the biggest, most influential interest groups are indeed key brokers in this crooked system.

Reported Doe Targets Did Most Recall Spending

Political committees and outside electioneering groups named in various media reports as possible targets of a second John Doe investigation into suspected political wrongdoing in Wisconsin accounted for more than half of all the campaign spending in the 2011 and 2012 recall elections and two-thirds of the spending in last year's election for governor.

The committees and groups spent $70.5 million, or 51% of the total $137.5 million in recall spending. They accounted for $54.4 million in spending in the 2012 recall election for governor, which is 67% of the overall spending of $81 million in that race.

A Wall Street Journal editorial identified Friends of Scott Walker, the Republican Party of Wisconsin, the Republican Governors Association, the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin and American Crossroads as targets of the criminal probe. The newspaper also quoted Wisconsin Club for Growth officer Eric O'Keefe saying he is a target and was subpoenaed by investigators.

Walker's campaign spent $36.1 million to thwart the recall effort and the Republican Governors Association spent $9.4 million. The state Republican Party reported spending $1.2 million on the senate recall elections. Wisconsin Club for Growth also focused mostly on the senate recalls, with $9 million of its total spending of $9.1 million going to help targeted Republican senators. Wisconsin Family Action spent $850,000 to sway the senate elections. WMC spent $4.7 million on advertising, including $4 million on ads in the governor's race. Americans for Prosperity spent a total of $4.5 million on recall ads, with $3.7 million going to the effort to keep Walker in office and the rest helping GOP senators.

Two groups named by the Wall Street Journal – American Crossroads and the League of American Voters – did not do any detectable campaign spending in the Wisconsin recall elections. But American Crossroads and its affiliate Crossroads GPS in particular are known to funnel large sums of money to other dark money groups.

Other groups whose names have cropped up in media reports in association with John Doe 2 also played conspicuous roles in the recall elections. Citizens for a Strong America spent $1.7 million on the senate recalls. According to a Center for Media and Democracy review of tax filings, the group got almost all of its funds in 2011 from Wisconsin Club for Growth. In turn, Citizens for a Strong America supplied Wisconsin Family Action with virtually all of its reported grant revenue for 2011.

Club for Growth also gave $425,000 to the Jobs First Coalition, which was close to half of what the coalition raised in 2011. Jobs First Coalition spent $100,000 on the senate recalls. The group also transferred $245,000 to the American Federation for Children, which spent $2.8 million on all of the recall elections including $1.1 million on Walker's behalf.

Two more groups that figure into the equation are the national Center to Protect Patient Rights and a dark-money conduit known as the Wellspring Committee. Neither did any detectable spending in the recall elections, but Wisconsin Club for Growth received $225,000 from CPPR and $400,000 from Wellspring in 2011. CPPR and another group were ordered to pay $1 million in fines in October to settle allegations in California that they conspired to conceal the origins of political campaign money.

Working The Refs

Coaches in every sport have raised the tactic to something of an art form. Get in the ear of the referees or umpires and keep chirping about every call that goes against your team. Give them a good chewing out on the small stuff. Wave your arms, jump up and down, and howl in protest over the big calls that don't go your way. All in hopes of getting them to swallow their whistle later in the game or maybe even give you a make-up call, one that really shouldn't go your way but does.

Works like a charm.

That fact has never gone unnoticed in the political world. Operatives mimic the coaches' behavior, doing their best Bobby Knight impersonations, seeking to bully everyone from news reporters and political opponents to regulators and law enforcement officials into submission.

We're seeing this kind of conduct on more prominent display than ever in Wisconsin politics. Whenever journalists write or say something that doesn't please the political types, they scream "MEDIA BIAS!" When regulators or law enforcement authorities look into apparent wrongdoing or, even worse, take steps to rein in misbehavior, the political players go into hyperdrive to smear the actions as politically motivated and the actors as witch hunters.

Take the John Doe investigation looking into possible lawbreaking by an expansive web of shadowy front groups, some based in Wisconsin and some from out of state, that sought to influence the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. The Bobby Knights of Wisconsin politics are screaming bloody murder that it's nothing but a carefully scripted charade started oh-so-close to the approaching election year, timed to affect the outcome of the 2014 elections. Never mind that the probe evidently started in February 2012. The political Knights didn't start whining about it until just now, in hopes of duping enough people into believing that the investigators launched the whole thing yesterday.

The Knights are claiming the investigators are partisans and smearing their probe as a political hatchet job that is targeting only Republican groups. Never mind that the John Doe inquiry is being led by a career federal prosecutor who once was on George W. Bush's short list for an appointment as U.S. Attorney for Milwaukee. Or that the Doe probe is being overseen by a distinguished retired appeals court judge.

The Knights are trying to do to the John Doe investigation what they earlier did to efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to more rigorously enforce federal law governing tax-exempt nonprofit groups that are supposed to exclusively work to promote the social welfare, not just shill for politicians. Carefully following the script, they smeared the IRS effort as a partisan witch hunt targeting only tea party groups. Never mind that the agency also was singling out liberal groups for heightened scrutiny. The Knights never let facts or truth get in the way of good bullying opportunities. The result? The IRS is swallowing its whistle. It is neglecting to enforce either the letter or the spirit of federal tax law as it relates to nonprofit groups.

It is no coincidence either that the governor now is playing games with nominations to the state Government Accountability Board. Or that legislators are proposing to take retired judges off the elections and ethics board and replace them with political appointees. Or that the GAB is being audited.

They are working the refs. They are assuming it will work wonders. They are assuming the refs will swallow their whistles.

If they are successful, what we will be left with is a lawless environment. A political landscape where anything goes. Where political actors cannot be held accountable for crooked dealings, and where lawbreaking is not prosecuted.

Walker Donations Undergo Sex Change

Governor Scott Walker recently amended his campaign finance report for the first six months of 2013 to lower contributions made by some of his high-end donors in order to protect them from being found in violation of campaign finance law.

The governor’s actions followed a report by the Democracy Campaign in September that showed 14 contributors to statewide and legislative candidates had already exceeded the state’s annual $10,000 limit on campaign contributions in just the first half of the year. The Government Accountability Board, which enforces the state’s campaign finance, ethics, lobbying and election laws, told the Democracy Campaign that it will investigate the findings early next year.

Meanwhile, Walker’s latest campaign finance report has already reduced the original contributions to him by six of those individuals by treating the difference between the original and the reduced contributions as entirely new donations from the individual’s spouse. The gender reassignments now put total contributions by these six people under the $10,000 limit. Here’s how Walker did it:

Donald Kress, Green Bay, had contributed $11,000 to three candidates, including $5,000 to Walker. The governor’s latest report slashes Kress’s contribution in half and assigns the $2,500 difference as a new contribution from Kress’s wife, Carol.

Eugene Mallinger, Brookfield, had contributed $12,000 to two candidates, including $10,000 to the governor. Walker’s latest report cuts Mallinger’s contribution in half and assigns the $5,000 difference as a new contribution from Mallinger’s wife, Rebecca.

Albert Nicholas, Chenequa, had contributed $11,000 to two candidates, including $10,000 to Walker. The governor’s latest report reduces Nicholas’s contribution to $9,000 and assigns the $1,000 difference as a new contribution from Nicholas’s wife, Nancy.

Richard Pfister, Hayward, had contributed $10,100 to two candidates, including $10,000 to the governor. Walker’s latest report reduces Pfister’s contribution to $9,900 and assigns the $100 difference as a new contribution from Pfister’s wife, Terry.

Paul Schierl, Green Bay, had contributed $11,500 to six candidates, including $5,000 to Walker. The governor’s latest report reduces Schierl’s contribution to $3,500 and assigns the $1,500 difference as a new contribution from Schierl’s wife, Carol.

Richard Uihlein, Lake Forest, Illinois, had contributed $10,500 to two candidates, including $10,000 to the governor. Walker’s latest report slashes Uihlein’s contribution in half and assigns the $5,000 difference as a new contribution from Uihlein’s wife, Elizabeth.

As strange – and unfair – as this may sound to casual readers who don’t follow campaign finance, Walker and other legislative and statewide officeholders and candidates have done this numerous times over the years.

Unfortunately, it’s usually allowed because the former state Elections Board and now the GAB decided that many of these donations can be split or readjusted after the fact because the state’s marital property law.

Kind of like telling the cop who stops you for speeding that you want half the fine and the points assigned to your spouse’s driving record because you both own the car.

Yeah, I bet that would work.

Conflating Secret Bribery And Civil Rights

"Since when do we not care about minorities?"

So said a member of the state Assembly, Platteville-area Republican Travis Tranel.

And the oppressed minorities of whom he speaks?

Campaign contributors.

Tranel asked his rhetorical question at a public hearing this week with the aim of justifying – to himself at least – legislation that would blind the public to the financial interests of all who contribute to Assembly campaigns and nearly all who give to candidates for other offices.

Requiring disclosure of the occupation and employer of political donors is leading to members of the public "blackmailing people" who are giving to politicians by organizing boycotts of their businesses, Tranel says.

His statement echoed one made earlier in the hearing by the bill's author, assistant Senate majority leader Glenn Grothman, who claimed campaign finance transparency has prompted citizens to "terrorize" businesses.

The donor class is a tiny minority, that much is true. Barely 2% of the population supplies Wisconsin politicians with all of their campaign money. When legislators like Glenn Grothman and Travis Tranel think it makes sense to hide the financial interests of this elite corps of political givers from the public, they must be utterly oblivious to the main reason trust in government officials is lower than low. Most people see these campaign "donations" as legal bribes. Most no longer believe they are being represented because their own elected representatives are too busy catering to their biggest donors. And sadly, they have very good reason for that belief.

Concealing what election campaign funders do for a living and who employs them will only further erode public trust in the political system. That the likes of Grothman and Tranel do not seem to know this – or do not care – is pathetic.

Even more pathetic is the belief that the few who supply all of the political cash and enjoy disproportionate influence over elected officials somehow need protection from the general public. What is most striking about this twisted view is how un-American it is. Condemning nonviolent public protest of undue political influence by powerful business interests as terrorism or blackmail is downright offensive in a country whose independence is owed in no small measure to actions like the Boston Tea Party.

It is ironic in the extreme that today's "tea party" Republicans would seek to demolish campaign finance disclosure laws in hopes of stripping citizens of any ability to carry out economic boycotts. Have they wiped from their memory the fact that the ship the Sons of Liberty boarded in 1773 belonged to the British East India Company? And that the 45 tons of tea dumped into Boston Harbor was the property of that same company?

Funny how that event never went down in history as an act of blackmail or terrorism. Lucky for us, the mindset on display at Tuesday's hearing was not prevalent among the revolutionaries in 1773.

Legislators And Lobbyists First

Having witnessed yesterday's public hearing on the sand mining bill, I fail to see why lawmakers are allowed to get away with calling them public hearings. The last thing they do is hear the public.

Legislators talked first. And they talked and talked and talked, as if rehearsing for some future filibuster. Then it was the industry lobbyists' turn. And they droned on and on interminably, while citizens who had traveled for hours to attend the hearing were made to sit and wait.

I talked to people who woke up as early as 4 or 4:30 to drive into town to catch a bus and ride for three hours or more to arrive in time for the start of the hearing at 9:30. They had stories to tell. They wanted to share their concerns and fears about the effects of sand mining on their own health as well as its impact on the natural landscape and their property values. They wanted to have their say about traffic congestion and damage to their local roads. They are understandably unsettled by companies blasting with dynamite in their homeland. They are understandably outraged by a state power grab that strips them and their local communities of any ability to control their own fate and gives sand miners a green light to pretty much do as they please.

They waited for hours, forced to listen to the legislators and lobbyists. Some of them never heard their names called. It was never their turn to speak. They had to get back on the bus for the long ride home without testifying. They submitted written comments to the committee, something they could have done from home without getting up at 4 in the morning to make the trip to Madison.

The politicians and lobbyists who scratch backs and make deals in the Capitol most every day seemed utterly oblivious to how rudely and disrespectfully these citizens were being treated. By any measure of human decency, no one could be blamed for concluding that mining committee chairman Tom Tiffany was denied instruction in the basic social graces as a child. But this hearing was no different than any other held these days. Offensive as it was, this was standard operating procedure.

Watching such a disgraceful spectacle makes you angry enough to chew up nails and spit 'em out like bullets. One can only hope that all the people who traveled so far only to be treated so shabbily will find ways to exact proper revenge on these godforsaken politicians.

Casino Opponent Continues Big Contributions To Republican Electioneering Group

A Wisconsin Indian tribe that opposes another tribe’s $800 million Kenosha casino project contributed another $35,000 last month to an outside electioneering group that has spent more than $2 million since 2010 to help elect Republican legislators.

A fundraising and spending report filed by the Republican State Leadership Committee with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service shows the group received two contributions of $10,000 and $25,000 on September 27 from the Forest County Potawatomi Community.

The Potawatomi and the Ho-Chunk Nation have steadfastly opposed the Menominee Indian Tribe’s proposed casino. Republican Governor Scott Walker, who has the final say on the project, has set today as the final deadline for the Menominee to meet three conditions before he will OK it. Among the conditions was that the Menominee persuade Wisconsin’s 10 other Indian tribes approve it, but the Potawatomi and the Ho-Chunk continue to oppose it.

The latest Potawatomi contributions are in addition to $42,500 in contributions from the Potawatomi and the Ho-Chunk in the past two years to the Republican State Leadership Committee. The two tribes have also contributed $150,900 to another GOP outside electioneering group – the Republican Governors Association – in the past two years. The governor’s association spent more than $14 million to help Walker win the 2010 general and the 2012 recall elections.

So, the only two tribes that oppose the casino proposal and have asked Walker to reject it have contributed a total of $228,400 in about two years to secretive outside groups that have collectively spent nearly $17 million to help elect the governor and the GOP legislative majority.

Given the timing, the Potawatomi’s latest contributions could be used by the group to help support Republican candidates in three special elections in November and December for vacant Assembly seats that were held by Republicans.

What The Frac?

Republican legislators are drumming up support for a proposal that would strip the authority of local governments to site, regulate and even monitor controversial frac sand mines and the public health, safety, property damage and other concerns that come with them.

This proposal comes on the heels of an explosion in the number of frac sand mines created in parts of northern and central Wisconsin over the past three years, and a corresponding dramatic spike in campaign contributions to legislative and statewide candidates from the industries that process and use the sand.

Powerful special interests that benefit from the plan – the sand mining and natural gas industries – contributed nearly $758,000 to legislative and statewide candidates from 2007 through 2012, according to a recent Democracy Campaign report.

Those contributions grew sharply each year, particular after 2010 when the number of sand mines and processing and transport operations grew from about a half dozen to more than 100 this summer throughout central and northern Wisconsin.

And the money continues to flow in. The two industries that directly benefit from loose mining rules and enforcement of environmental regulations doled out an additional $101,164 in the first six months of 2013 when the latest deregulation proposal was in the works.

In addition to these two industries, the powerful Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business organization, is praising the proposed plan. WMC represents more than a dozen powerful special interests that contribute millions of dollars to legislative and statewide candidates. The group has also secretly raised and spent an estimated $18.4 million in Wisconsin elections since 2006 mostly on negative broadcast advertising that usually supports Republican candidates.

Opponents of sand mines and their processing and transport operations say airborne silicia sand used to drill for natural gas in other states causes respiratory and other health problems, threatens the quality and quantity of groundwater and accelerates road damage at increased costs to local taxpayers. Supporters say the industry provides much needed jobs and an overall boost to local economies.

The latest deregulation plan would prohibit local governments from using their police powers as allowed under a 2012 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to determine where frac sand mines are located. Local governments could use zoning and reclamation ordinances to site the mines, but would prevent counties, cities, villages and towns from closing down existing sand mines or letting them expand on adjacent land.

The Department of Natural Resources would be in charge of imposing air and water quality standards for frac sand mines, but couldn’t impose standards stricter than state law. Local governments would also be prohibited from creating or enforcing their own air and water quality standards and restrictions; requiring air and water quality monitoring; and regulating the amount of water used in mining operations.

The bill also reduces a county’s authority to require mine operators to repair damaged land; prevents local governments from regulating explosives used in mining or quarrying; and dictates the methods counties and municipalities can use to get mining operations to reimburse them for road damages.

School Voucher Group Hijacking Special Elections

A Washington D.C. special interest group that wants school voucher programs expanded in Wisconsin has already vastly outspent all of the dozen candidates combined before next week’s primaries in two Assembly special elections.

The American Federation for Children, which generally backs Republican legislative and statewide candidates that support spending millions in state tax dollars to send children to private and religious schools, doled out $90,741 as of October 15 on mailings, on-line advertising and robocalls in the Assembly 21st District contest in suburban Milwaukee and central Wisconsin’s 69th Assembly District.

Meanwhile, the candidates reported spending a combined $49,186, according to campaign finance reports also filed earlier this week. Six candidates are running in each race, including five Republicans in the 21st District and four Republicans in the 69th District who will face off in October 22 primaries.

In the 21st District race, the $45,646 spent by American Federation for Children was nearly five times more than the $9,520 doled out by the six candidates. The group is putting its money on Republican Jessie Rodriguez. It’s spending about 198 times more than Rodriguez who reported spending $231 as of October 7 – the least of all the candidates.

In the 69th District contest, the $45,095 spent by the group topped the $39,666 spent by the six candidates. The group has sent numerous mailings – some here and here – in support of Republican Alanna Feddick. American Federation’s spending more than tripled the $13,792 Feddick reported spending as of October 7.

American Federation’s electioneering activities in these races is similar to some of the strategy in other legislative and statewide races where they’ve spent an estimated $4.4 million since 2010 – inundate areas with daily mailings and talk about every other issue – job creation, health care, taxes, etc. – except school vouchers.

The special elections for these Assembly seats are being held because Republican Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder of Abbottsford in the 69th and Mark Honadel of South Milwaukee in the 21st resigned to take other jobs.

Ruling On Borrowed Time

On the surface, the 1% appear to be riding high, economically and politically speaking. Riding roughshod might be a more apt description. They have been positively cleaning up in very recent times.

Closer inspection shows signs of desperation in high places, however. Say what you will about them, but the 1% can read the handwriting on the wall.

They can see the changing face of America and its implications for political power. And they can see this change will only accelerate in the foreseeable future.

They can see generational change coming, too. Many if not most Americans seem disinclined to turn on them, but not so with the so-called Millennials. The teens and twenty-somethings are downright disenchanted with corporate America. While older generations remain largely sold on capitalism, Pew Research shows the Millennials actually prefer socialism. Grim job prospects and a downsized American Dream buried under a mountain of student debt will do that.

Democracy, with its core emphasis on majority rule, is fundamentally numerical. With fast-changing demographics and generational angst working against them, the 1% are confronted with a political landscape where it will be increasingly difficult for them to numerically hold on to their privileged status as America's ruling class.

Desperate times yield extreme measures. A future marked with growing inability to win numerically explains why the 1% devote so much energy to rigging the political game procedurally and financially.

America's changing face and shifting political terrain explain the recent surge in voter suppression efforts. Which, in turn, goes a long way toward explaining mass incarceration.

That handwriting on the wall the 1% are reading explains why we're seeing the most brazen manipulation of political boundaries through partisan gerrymandering in living memory.

It explains why they needed an obliging Supreme Court to rule as it did in the Citizens United case. And it explains why Citizens United is not enough. They now need the court to go even farther on their behalf, and there's good reason to believe they will be obliged once again.

Emerging demographic and generational realities are creating political conditions under which maintenance of the 1%'s iron grip on power is incompatible with democracy. That's why democracy is under such vicious assault.

They are going down with a fight.

'Not The Rich, More Than The Poor'

At this moment when it has dawned on many if not most Americans that we have a bought Congress, it's worth reflecting on the fact that in the Federalist Papers, one of the founding fathers (widely thought to be James Madison in this instance) writing under the pseudonym "Publius" said that Congress "ought to be dependent on the People alone” and "Not the rich, more than the poor."

There can be no doubt anymore that Congress has competing – and conflicting – dependencies that lead its members time and time again to put the wishes of the rich ahead of the needs of everyone else. That the same is true in our state Legislature also is self evident.

How very far we've strayed from the founders' vision.

Favoring The Money Over The Many

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case that could end up exploding on the terrain of American democracy with a force every bit as devastating as the bomb the court dropped with its infamous 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The Democracy Campaign and 34 other citizen groups gathered on the steps of the State Capitol to sound alarms about McCutcheon v. FEC and what it could do to our political system. We weren't alone. Coalitions like ours did the same all across the country.

Citizens United cleared the way for unlimited election spending by special interest groups. That decision hit like a ton of bricks. Here in Wisconsin, election spending tripled after the ruling.

McCutcheon could do for mega-donors to candidates and parties what Citizens United did for interest groups sponsoring their own election advertising.

Wealthy businessman Shaun McCutcheon (pictured with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker at an Alabama fundraiser) wants a key federal limit on political contributions to go away.

McCutcheon's case zeroes in on a single number: $123,200. That's the federal aggregate limit on what an individual can give to candidates, parties and political action committees in a given election cycle. A grand total of 1,219 people – four out of every million Americans – reached that limit in the 2012 elections. But one out of every six American billionaires maxed out. For them, the federal limit is cramping their style.

If the Supreme Court sides with Shaun McCutcheon, political power will be even more concentrated in the hands of a very wealthy few.

How few? If the court grants McCutcheon his wish, 0.000003% of Americans will have even more ability to influence our elections and will have even more political power than they already possess.
 

Making Voters Blind And Making Crime Pay

Chapter 11 of Wisconsin’s state laws begins with a declaration of policy. It says the "legislature finds and declares that our democratic system of government can be maintained only if the electorate is informed." It goes on to say that one of the "most important sources of information to the voters is available through the campaign finance reporting system."

The legislature's declaration continues: "When the true source of support or extent of support is not fully disclosed . . . the democratic process is subjected to a potential corrupting influence." And it concludes that "the state has a compelling interest in designing a system for fully disclosing contributions."

Legislation introduced by the Senate's assistant majority leader does violence to the public purpose so eloquently articulated by the predecessors to today's legislators by radically limiting campaign finance transparency.

This bill would do two things, both of which are dangerous and destructive to the public interest. First, this legislation would blind the public to the financial interests of most campaign donors. Current law requires the disclosure of both the occupation and employer of any donor giving more than $100. Senate Bill 282 requires disclosure of only the occupation of donors giving over $500.

Since 1996, the Democracy Campaign has enabled the public to follow the money in Wisconsin politics by managing a searchable online donor database. There are 862,064 contributions from individuals in our database. Of those donations, 825,827 or 96% are $500 or less. Contributions of more than $500 total 36,237. If SB 282 had been state law when we launched this money tracking system back in 1996, the 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.

The second thing SB 282 would do is hinder law enforcement and make criminal activity easier. In recent years Wisconsin has seen two wealthy campaign contributors – one a major Democratic donor and the other a major Republican supporter – convicted of money laundering. In both instances, the Democracy Campaign was contacted by law enforcement officials who asked for our assistance in identifying employees of their companies who made campaign donations. If SB 282 is enacted, such investigations would be next to impossible.

SB 282 should be dumped and lawmakers instead should go in exactly the opposite direction, strengthening rather than weakening disclosure laws by approving the bipartisan Senate Bill 166 authored by Republican Mike Ellis and Democrat Jon Erpenbach.