Press Release
February 2, 2010
CONTACT:
Jay Heck – 608/256-2686 Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Will Mean More Election Spending in Wisconsin
The very narrow and hotly disputed 5 to 4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark
Citizens United v. F.E.C. case on January 21st, will certainly change the landscape of American and Wisconsin politics and elections. Apologists for the misguided majority opinion - a horrendous case of judicial activism on steroids - wrongly predict that not much will change and that corporations and unions -- who can now spend freely on outside advertisements with unlimited money from their general treasuries (instead of from regulated political action committees with contribution limits) -- will choose not to do so.
That is utter nonsense.
While not every corporation or union will elect to run campaign ads using their general treasuries, a few are sure to do so. And many more will transfer vast amounts to "front" or aggregate groups who will then blanket the airwaves. Spending by outside special interest groups is certain to increase in our elections, drowning out the message of candidates and the concerns of the vast majority of citizens who cannot afford to pay for expensive air time to broadcast 30 and 60 second ads - most of them negative and demoralizing.
In Wisconsin, this year's election for Governor is the first since 1982 with no incumbent running for re-election. So it is a wide-open race. In reports filed yesterday with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Republican candidates and current Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, a former member of the Wisconsin Assembly, has about $2 million in the bank. His Republican primary opponent, former U.S. Representative Mark Neumann has about $1 million - most from his own pocket. Democrat Tom Barrett, the Mayor of Milwaukee and a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. the Wisconsin State Senate and the Assembly, has a war chest of about $1.5 million. All will have to collect much more to contend with an expected onslaught of outside special interest group spending in this election. The 2006 election for Governor of Wisconsin was about a $35 million affair with nearly half of that being spent by outside groups. Look for a $50 to $60 million dollar gubernatorial election this year with outside special interest spending outpacing candidate spending.
To see more on this development, you can watch TV coverage here: Following the money: Vote 2010
For more on that U.S.Supreme Court decision and its impact on Wisconsin politics and elections and some possible solutions to address the problems caused by the decision, go here watch this debate between campaign finance experts and advocates (including Common Cause in Wisconsin's director) that was filmed and broadcast on WisconsinEye, the "C-Span" equivalent in Wisconsin.
Last Monday evening, January 25th, at Marquette University, CC/WI hosted another in a series of "reform forums" held around Wisconsin over the past three years to help educate citizens and students about campaign finance and other political reform issues. About 100 citizens and students gathered to participate in a lively and spirited discussion and debate about the wisdom of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. F.E.C. as well as public financing of state elections in Wisconsin, redistricting reform and other topics. Panelists included State Representative Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), State Senator Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa), Marquette political science Professor John McAdams, former Milwaukee County District Attorney and current CC/WI State Governing Board member E. Michael McCann, and CC/WI Executive Director Jay Heck. The moderator of the forum was the Chair of the Marquette political science department, Professor Barrett McCormick. There were many comments and questions from an obviously interested and informed audience.
This very well attended and lively forum/debate was filmed by WisconsinEye and can viewed here.
_________________________________________
Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686
Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!
www.CommonCauseWisconsin.org
Stay informed - Follow CC/WI on Twitter!
Read More...
Intro only...
A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
February 1, 2010
By Bill KrausIn a 1978 column in the New York Times, Bill Safire said the country’s inability to think anew, to change, to welcome new ideas, and to deal with new challenges was a sure sign of hardening of the political arteries.
He predicted this affliction would worsen.
He was right.
There are multiple reasons why we cannot seem to cope.
The rise of the influence of the interests. The interests are a permanent part of our democracy. They have been around since the beginning but were never so well armed or financed.
The fear of change.
The power of the status quo.
The reluctance to compromise because this might lead to the loss of the increasingly important majority in an increasingly partisan political universe.
For these reasons and more the status quo was always a three-touchdown favorite. On difficult, complicated, contentious questions it has gotten to the point that it is even more entrenched.
In Washington and in Madison, several agenda items that have achieved a third-rail, too-hot-to-handle status.
In Washington:
- Immigration
- Social security funding as the baby boomers become eligible
- A health care system that costs too much, delivers too little, and affects the competitiveness of the businesses which provide and pay for it.
- Medicare solvency
In Madison:
- A tax system overly reliant on property taxes
- Funding the public schools
- The Milwaukee public schools
- Structural deficits everywhere that won’t go away
What is not made clear to those to whom the voters have given the power to deal with the problems that we are not facing is that by not voting for action, they are voting to preserve what almost everyone regards as a failed status quo.
Hardening of the arteries is almost always fatal in humans. In governments as well? There is no reason to think otherwise.
Follow Bill Kraus on:
Read More...
Intro only...
A Wisconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
January 24, 2010
By Bill KrausMost of the
do-good organizations are railing against the recent
Supreme Court decision on election participation and decrying what this will do to an already-broken, outrageously expensive election system. The need for money is what is driving political behavior, and this decision exacerbates that. But it isn’t going to be reversed; at least not soon. So let’s look at what can be salvaged from the wreckage of the regulation solution.
I think there are three very positive things in this decision to exploit.
The first, of course, is disclosure. Twenty years ago, one-time Wisconsin GOP chair George Parker told me what the Supreme Court is telling us: The answer is disclosure. The majority opinion encourages legislation that will reveal the name of everyone who is putting money into advertising in every campaign. A deterrent. No more KKK politics for the currently anonymous funders of issue ads who are hiding behind front organizations to do their political propagandizing. It also suggests upfront and prominent disclaimers on every ad run by corporations and unions and everyone else who is a beneficiary of this ruling. The viewers can know where and who these ads are coming from before they watch them. The theory is, “When the people have all the facts, they will respond appropriately.”
This kind of disclosure also arms candidates who come under attack from these advertisers. They will know who their enemies are, very specifically. Next to a weak opponent a candidate’s next best blessing is a vulnerable enemy. Disclosure will offer up a treasure trove.
Since the Supremes said nothing about public financing, it survives. This means that spending-limit legislation (like that which recently passed for Wisconsin Supreme Court races) can be expanded to include matching funds for those who accept public funding beyond that already authorized. This offsets money being spent beyond the spending limit by millionaire candidates and parallel campaigners to include corporate advertisers that oppose them.
The unintended consequence of the decision may be that it gives a boost to campaign finance reform legislation--without repressing free speech. Suddenly candidates who are in the sights of this kind of spending by outsiders may reconsider their opposition to forward-looking proposals like those contained in the Ellis-Erpenbach bill.
And, finally, this may be a prayer that the presumed winners may not have wanted answered. The political leaders who must raise the money for our current system are not stupid. This is the gang that set up multiple toll booths on the legislative highway to raise money. They can’t do that anymore. The free-speech decision offers up another opportunity to extort contributions from a new set of deep pockets.
The newly liberated and well endowed supplicants can expect to be dragooned into campaign activity in favor of whichever side is most likely to do their bidding. Pre-election extortion instead of the post-election variety? Don’t bet against it.
If the dire predictions from the hand-wringing set prove to be true, we might even get an “enough already” from the beleaguered voters who can be convinced to vote against money instead of for the slick ads the big money can now buy to advance its interests and clutter up what used to be a pastime: watching TV.
It would be a circuitous route to reform, but the direct regularity route which few were taking wasn’t crowded anyway. This decision could put reform on everyone's short agenda.
Follow Bill Kraus on:
Read More...
Intro only...
