Sunday, January 24, 2010

The bright sides of the Supreme Court's dark ruling



A W
isconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
January 24, 2010

By Bill Kraus


Most 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:
twitter / wmkraus

Read More...


In the News - January 2010




Read More...


Thursday, January 21, 2010

Campaign finance ruling will echo in Wisconsin



Common Cause in Wisconsin will issue a formal statement with regard to the implications for Wisconsin of today's U. S. Supreme Court decision after it's had a chance to fully digest the details contained in the decision.


High court ruling allowing more corporate election spending to have impact in Wisconsin

By Ryan J. Foley - Associated Press
January 21st, 2010



MADISON, Wis. — The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that corporations and unions can spend freely to influence elections may kill attempts in Wisconsin to limit political spending by outside groups, supporters conceded Thursday.

The decision will also likely make Wisconsin’s race for governor this year an even more chaotic and expensive affair, with unions and corporations getting more involved, said Jay Heck, director of Common Cause in Wisconsin.

He predicted that campaigns and special interests will spend $75 million or more on the race to replace Gov. Jim Doyle, compared to an earlier estimate of $40 million.

“There will be much more outside spending by corporations and some unions in the elections for the Legislature, governor and the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the immediate years ahead,” he said. “This opens the floodgates to a degree.”

Doyle appeared to agree, saying the ruling was discouraging and would lead to more spending by outside groups not controlled by candidates.

Mike Wittenwyler, a Madison lawyer who represents such groups, said he believes corporations will spend the same amount of money trying to change public policy, but now a greater percentage on campaigns and less on lobbying.

The decision comes just as Heck and other campaign finance reform advocates were on the cusp of convincing Wisconsin lawmakers to enact a law meant to limit political spending by outside groups.

The Wisconsin Senate had approved a bill on Tuesday that would require groups that run election-time ads to disclose the names of their donors, face certain fundraising and spending limits, and bar them from tapping corporate or union treasuries to pay for them.

Heck said the requirement to disclose donors could still be approved this legislative session, but the spending restrictions might be dead.

“I said the other day on the Senate floor that the Supreme Court could rule all this null and void. It would look at first blush, that’s exactly what happened,” said Sen. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, a sponsor of the bill. “I think it’s a sad day for democracy.”

Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, another sponsor, said he hoped to salvage at least parts of the bill. He said the court decision will give corporations greater influence than individuals inelections by removing their spending limits. Individuals, meanwhile, cannot give more than $10,000 to a statewide candidate in Wisconsin.

Lawyers for the Assembly, where the plan has passed a committee, were reviewing the court decision to determine the impact on the bill, a spokeswoman for Speaker Mike Sheridan said. He has not decided whether to move the bill to the floor for final passage.

The Government Accountability Board has also been considering passing a similar administrative rule to regulate and require disclosure for issue ads, but had put the process on hold until the high court ruled. Director Kevin Kennedy said the board’s initial legal review found the rule should not be affected by the decision.

Wittenwyler, whose clients have threatened to sue to block the rule, disagreed, saying the rule now needs significant revisions.

The decision means corporations and unions can spend money directly from their treasuries to pay for ads that urge the election or defeat of candidates. That practice had been banned in Wisconsin since 1906, but groups got around that restriction in recent years by funding issue ads that praised and attacked candidates.

Wisconsin Right to Life called on lawmakers and the Government Accountability Board to clarify that groups such as it can now expressly advocate for state candidates. Spokeswoman Sue Armacost said the anti-abortion group may no longer need to operate a separate political action committee to endorse candidates.

“We’re extremely pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has protected our freedom of speech,” she said.

Read More...


Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Campaign Finance Reform Forum in Milwaukee To Tackle Current Political Issues - Monday Evening, January 25th


Press Release
January 21, 2010


CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686



CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PUBLIC FORUM

TO TACKLE CURRENT CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUES

Monday Evening, January 25th at Marquette University in Milwaukee


Campaign finance and political reform has been front and center in the Wisconsin Legislature and in the media over the past several months.

On December 1st, the most significant, substantive campaign finance reform in Wisconsin in 30 years -- became law when the Governor signed the “Impartial Justice” Bill after the Wisconsin Legislature passed it in November. This new law will provide full public financing to qualifying candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who voluntarily agree to abide by a spending limit of $400,000.

Then just two days ago, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 43 by an overwhelming, bipartisan 26 to 7 margin. SB43 requires the disclosure of the donors and regulation of the money utilized by outside special interest groups that run widely-disseminated campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy 60 days or less prior to an election. An identical Assembly version of the legislation, Assembly Bill 63 passed 6 to 1 in the Assembly Committee on Campaign Reform and Elections in June of 2009 -- and should be considered and passed soon. Governor Jim Doyle has said that he supports the measure and would sign it into law.

Opponents of campaign finance reform, the guardians of the corrupt status quo counterattacked by filing two separate lawsuits against the “Impartial Justice” Law within weeks of its enactment.

And then there is the long-awaited decision in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of forcing the disclosure and regulation of phony issue ads in federal elections: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -- a decision that will provide more definitive guidance about what Wisconsin can and cannot do with regard to phony issue ads. The nation's highest court may hand down that decision today.

These major reform developments and others will be the focus of discussion in Milwaukee this coming Monday during a "Reform Forum" organized by CC/WI entitled:

What Ever Happened to Good Government in Wisconsin?
**And How Should We Fix It?**


Panelists will include:
  • Political Science Professor John McAdams of Marquette University
  • Former Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann
  • State Representative Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), the ranking Republican on the Assembly Campaign Reform and Elections Committee
  • State Senator Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa), the Vice Chair of the State Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform
  • Executive Director Jay Heck of Common Cause in Wisconsin

Please join us for what we anticipate will be a lively discussion.

Full details and a map to both the event location and parking can be found 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!
twitter / CommonCauseWI

Read More...


Wisconsin State Senate Passes Legislation to Require Disclosure and Regulation of Phony Issue Ads on Overwhelming, Bipartisan 26 to 7 Vote!


Press Release
January 19, 2010


CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686



WISCONSIN STATE SENATE PASSES MAJOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION 26 TO 7

DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION OF PHONY ISSUE ADS GETS STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT


Shortly before Noon today, the Wisconsin State Senate debated and then overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 43, bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation requiring disclosure of the donors and regulation of the money utilized by outside special interest groups and individuals that run widely-disseminated campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy during the period of 60 days or less prior to an election.

The huge, bipartisan pro-reform vote was 26 in favor and only 7 opposed. Eight Republicans joined all eighteen Democrats to pass this sweeping reform measure. The six voting against SB 43 were Republcan State Senators Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, Glenn Grothman of West Bend, Randy Hopper of Oshkosh, Ted Kanavas of Brookfield, Neil Kedzie of Elkhorn, Mary Lazich of New Berlin and Joe Leibham of Sheboygan.

This electioneering disclosure and regulation legislation mirrors rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board in November 2008. An identical Assembly version of the legislation, Assembly Bill 63 was passed in the Assembly Committee on Campaign Reform and Elections in June of 2009 on a bipartisan 6 to 1 vote.

Now that the State Senate has passed this sweeping legislation, the Assembly should consider and pass the measure as soon as possible -- and Governor Jim Doyle, who has repeatedly said he supports this measure, should sign it into law. Common Cause in Wisconsin (CC/WI), the first state reform organization to recognize the critical importance of this reform, first proposed a version of this measure back in 1997 -- and has been a leader in the effort to get it enacted into law ever since.

Enactment into law of this major campaign finance reform measure would close the single largest loophole in Wisconsin's loophole-ridden campaign finance laws. And it is absolutely necessary to counter the numerous cancerous and anonymous campaign communications that have undermined legislative, gubernatorial and other statewide elections and, more recently and alarmingly, Wisconsin State Supreme Court elections. The recently enacted Impartial Justice Law, which provides full public financing for qualified state supreme court candidates who agree to abide by spending limits totaling $400,000, will be effective only with Senate Bill 43 as law.

This editorial in The Capital Times this morning makes the case for this critical reform: Senate should bring transparency to sleazy ads.

__________________________________________

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!
twitter / CommonCauseWI

Read More...


Monday, January 18, 2010

Fixing the fix



A W
isconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
January 18, 2010

By Bill Kraus

All the talk about the 2010 elections is about the referendum on the Obama/Democrats response to the great recession, about the length of the coattail on the Obama popularity if any (coattail or popularity), and how these things will play out in legislative elections everywhere.

No one is talking about the fact that the legislatures elected in 2010 will be responsible for the mandated legislative redistricting that will follow the 2010 census.

Don’t kid yourself. There is a great deal of talk about this. But it is among the insiders who nest in the D.C. beltway and the Madison capitol square.

The alleged purpose of redistricting is to even out the size of the Assembly, Senate and House districts, and achieve some kind of popular homogeneity within them while getting as many competitive races as possible.

What the legislative leaders are trying to get is redistricting that protects the electoral majorities of the current incumbents (who will, not so incidentally, get to vote on whatever districting plan is proposed) and to save campaign expenses by reducing the number of districts that have competitive races for which they will have to raise the money to run.

I was unhappily in the middle of the redistricting process that followed the 1980 census. There were some very important issues on the public agenda at that time because a post-Carter recession was closing in on those in power. My recollection is that the actual agenda revolved around a state senator whose father-in-law would no longer live in his district if a particular plan was enacted, and an assembly representative whose finance chair was being moved to another district, and more turf battles in more places. The recession could wait.

Since then, Wisconsin’s elections have been Kohl-ized, and large amounts of money are thought to be necessary to win seats in areas that are really up for grabs.

The legislative leaders’ top objective now is to keep the campaign costs manageable by reducing the number of those elections.

If there was an anti-trust law that applied to the conspiracies hatched by the likes of Dave Obey and Jim Sensenbrenner for the congressional districts, and for their counterparts in Madison who carve up the state into legislative districts, all of them would have violated it.

There wasn’t. There still isn’t. Until and unless there is we will have a situation where the candidates are picking their constituents rather than vice versa.

The post-2000 redistricting has resulted in about a third of the state legislative elections being settled in July when nomination papers are filed and one out of three candidates drawing no opponent. Another third are settled in September primaries where the winning candidate for one party or the other will be virtually guaranteed a victory in a partisan-loaded area in November. That leaves about a third where both parties think they have a shot at a November victory while in reality only about a third of that third do.

My question is why aren’t all those tea party protesters who are painting signs, holding rallies, and marching in the streets to express their unhappiness with the people who represent them focusing on this? Screaming slogans and insults will do nothing to dismantle the districting system that denies them a chance to elect someone who might be more responsive to their grievances.

Until and unless there is a revolutionary change in how we carve up the legislative districts, the status quo is pretty much safe from any party, including any tea party.


Follow Bill Kraus on:
twitter / wmkraus

Read More...


Thursday, January 14, 2010

Wisconsin State Senate to Vote Next Tuesday on Reform Legislation Requiring the Disclosure and Regulation of Phony Issue Ads


Press Release
January 15, 2010


CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686



WISCONSIN STATE SENATE TO VOTE NEXT TUESDAY TO FORCE DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION OF PHONY ISSUE ADS


This coming Tuesday, January 19th, the Wisconsin State Senate is scheduled to consider and vote on Senate Bill 43, bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation requiring disclosure of the donors and regulation of the money utilized by outside special interest groups and individuals that run widely-disseminated campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy during the period of 60 days or less prior to an election.

This electioneering disclosure and regulation legislation mirrors rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board in November 2008. An identical Assembly version of the legislation, Assembly Bill 63 was passed in the Assembly Committee on Campaign Reform and Elections in June of 2009 on a bipartisan 6 to 1 vote.

After consideration by the State Senate, the Assembly should consider and pass the measure shortly thereafter and Governor Jim Doyle, who has repeatedly said he supports this measure, should sign it into law. Common Cause in Wisconsin (CC/WI), the first state reform organization to recognize the critical importance of this reform, first proposed a version of this measure back in 1997 -- and has been a leader in the effort to get it enacted into law ever since.

Enactment into law of this major campaign finance reform measure would close the single largest loophole in Wisconsin's loophole-ridden campaign finance laws. And it is absolutely necessary to counter the numerous cancerous and anonymous campaign communications that have undermined legislative, gubernatorial and other statewide elections and, more recently and alarmingly, Wisconsin State Supreme Court elections. The recently enacted Impartial Justice Law, which provides full public financing for qualified state supreme court candidates who agree to abide by spending limits totalling $400,000, will be effective only with Senate Bill 43 as law. The votes in the State Senate for SB43, which has strong bipartisan support, ought to be there -- but Senators need to hear from the citizens of Wisconsin telling them to vote for this critical reform measure.

To contact your Wisconsin State Senator, go here; to find out who your Wisconsin State Senator is, go here.

To learn more about Senate Bill 43, read CC/Wisconsin's testimony last year on the measure by going here.

Please contact your State Senator before next Tuesday and strongly urge that they vote for Senate Bill 43!

Next Wednesday, the day after the vote on Senate Bill 43 in the State Senate, the United States Supreme Court may finally issue its long-awaited decision in a landmark case involving the constitutionality of forcing the disclosure and regulation of these phony issue ads in federal elections: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The nations's highest court's decision will provide more definitive guidance about what Wisconsin can and cannot do with regard to these phony issue ads -- ads that have been a cancer on our statewide and legislative elections since 1996 and which dominated the 2007 and 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. But the State Senate is doing the right thing by considering and passing Senate Bill 43 and sending it on to the Assembly and the Governor to set the stage for the inevitable legal challenge from those guardians of the corrupt status quo who hate any and all campaign finance reform.

__________________________________________

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!
twitter / CommonCauseWI

Read More...


Monday, January 11, 2010

Keeping our appointments



A W
isconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
January 11, 2010

By Bill Kraus


The road to appointing instead of electing judges and justices in Wisconsin is long, twisting, and full of potholes large enough to swallow a truck.

The constitutional barrier is high and prolonged. The cultural barrier dwarfs the constitutional barrier.

Wisconsin is election addicted.

We elect coroners, city clerks, registers of deeds.

We elect constitutional officers to jobs that no longer exist.

We thwart attempts to make education a cabinet office because we prefer to elect a superintendent of public instruction who mainly supervises a money-shuffling bureaucracy.

The chances of giving up the right to elect judges and justices are somewhere between zero and none.

The argument that well over half of the people on benches in Wisconsin got there by appointment not election is beyond unpersuasive. It’s unheard.

But it does suggest an opportunity to get much of what the advocates of an appointment process promise without banging their heads against a double brick wall.

Every appointment system starts with some sort of selection process which is designed to put the smartest, fairest, most qualified prospects into a pool from which the governor must pick an appointee.

The Legislature could enact such a process statutorily. No constitutional amendment required.

This kind of pre-selection gets the search off the governor’s desk, gives the Legislature and the people and the advocates of appointment over election assurance that the ultimate appointees will be qualified for these important jobs and will not be partisan cronies or worse. The majority of the first time occupants of judicial posts will come out of these pools instead of a ballot box.

Easy. Effortless. Uncontroversial.

Not quite. One pothole remains: Who will be on the panel that selects the pool of candidates for the governor to appoint from and the state Senate to confirm?

Follow Bill Kraus on:
twitter / wmkraus

Read More...


Thursday, January 7, 2010

Wish list: 2010



A W
isconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
January 7, 2010

By Bill Kraus


1. A reduction in the need for money in political campaigns specifically, politics generally.

2. A reinvention, resuscitation, or something, of journalism.

3. A return of citizen politicians to the business of campaign management.

4. A decline in the influence of talk radio and other manifestations of faux journalism.

5. A revival of political ambition and a concomitant decrease in careerism by office holders.

6. A redistricting of legislative districts which is designed to have more rather than fewer congressional and state legislative districts which are competitive.

7. A reduction in the number, influence, and virulence of groups with narrow interests in politics.

8. An invention of a general interest political device into which special interests could be incorporated and citizens could find a route into political activism other than through special interest groups or entrepreneurial candidate organizations.

9. A re-creation of politics as a participatory instead of a spectator sport.

10. An end to endless (or continuous) campaigns and campaigning (see wish number 1, above).

11. A return to discourse and adversity in political discourse; sometimes referred to as civility, mutual respect or listening.

We all know that our political institutions, like all institutions, are not much interested in self-correction. The only way, then, to even make progress in any of these 11 areas is for a lot of us to realize and react to our own culpability. Someone has said what we need is for more of us to recognize that the they we criticize is us. Or, to put it more directly, as the drunken driver who turned herself in to 9-1-1 did last year, “I am them.”


Follow Bill Kraus on:
twitter / wmkraus

Read More...