Thursday, September 30, 2010

In the News - September 2010


Friday, September 24, 2010

Candidates for Wisconsin Governor Respond to Political Reform Questions (One Does and the Other Does Not)

Common Cause in Wisconsin Reform Update for September 24, 2010

1. Barrett Answers to Political Reform Questions; No Response from Walker
2. In 2010, as in 1910 - Reform Hangs in the Balance

1. During the Summer, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin sent candidates for statewide office and for the Legislature and Congress a number of questions about candidate positions on issues. Common Cause in Wisconsin collaborated in the effort and below are the responses of the two candidates for the office of Governor of Wisconsin on political reform issues:

The Questions

1. Do you support extending to all other state offices a system of public financing along the lines of the one created for state Supreme Court elections in the 2009 Impartial Justice Act?

2. Who should be responsible for redrawing legislative districts after each census: the Legislature, a nonpartisan legislative service agency or an independent citizen commission?

3. Do you support registration, reporting and advertising disclaimer requirements for corporate election spending? Do you support requiring corporations to notify and get permission from share holders in order to engage in election spending?

The Responses

Tom Barrett (Democrat)

1. Public financing of campaigns can help make sure everyone has an opportunity to seek public office, and greater inclusion makes for a stronger democratic process. While I support the current public financing of Supreme Court elections, I don’t believe it can be extended to all partisan offices, and there is role for private contributions in campaigns.

2. I have offered a detailed proposal to have the Government Accountability Board ensure that redistricting plans put forth by the legislature produce as many competitive seats as possible in accordance with federal law. This proposal can be implemented for the 2010 redistricting process, removing partisan politics from the process right away. Authorizing a new independent commission would require a change to our constitution and therefore could not be in effect for the upcoming redistricting.

3. Disclosure of campaign contributions is necessary to provide voters complete information on the candidates they are choosing from, and who is behind the messages they are seeing.

Scott Walker (Republican)

1. No Response

2. No Response

3. No Response

Voters deserve responses from Scott Walker to these questions so that they will have the information they need to make an informed choice for Governor. Both Walker and Barrett need to hear from citizens that these questions do matter because citizens know that without political reform in Wisconsin there is little chance that the very real problems confronting Wisconsinites will be addressed. Without reform, the corrupt status quo will prevail.

Confront both Barrett and Walker when they come to your community and ask them for answers to the three political reform questions. Call or e-mail their campaigns and ask them the questions.

Here is contact information for both campaigns:

Walker Campaign Headquarters: (414) 453-2010; E-mail:

Barrett Campaign Headquarters: (414) 271-8050; E-mail:

2. The 2010 election is critical in determining in what direction Wisconsin will head on many vital issues. Political reform is no exception. One hundred years ago Wisconsinites faced another such election. Then, as now, the question was go forward or turn back? CC/WI's executive director looks back at the candidates and issues in the 1910 election for Governor (and the 1911 legislative session that followed). Are there parallels and lessons for us in 2010? Read: In 2010 as in 1910 -- Reform is on the Line in Wisconsin in CC/WI's blog, A Wisconsin Political Fix.

Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703

Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!


Thursday, September 23, 2010

In 2010 as in 1910 - Reform is on the Line in Wisconsin

isconsin Political Fix
not just another blog
September 23, 2010

By Jay Heck

One hundred years ago in 1910, Wisconsin was able to stake its claim as the most progressive state in the nation. The election for Governor and for the State Legislature that year -- following the Governorship and election to the U.S. Senate in 1906 of Robert Marion La Follette, Sr. -- would usher in a period in which state political and social reform would reach its zenith and flower in its full glory. And it would be accomplished with a purpose and speed that would amaze all who observed it.

Today in 2010, a century later, Wisconsin stands at another critical junction and the path that the next Governor and State Legislature takes during and after the upcoming elections will help to determine whether our great state -- which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the nation’s “laboratory of democracy”-- will steer toward an new era of urgently needed political reform. Or, will we revert back to another “Robber Baron Age” that characterized Wisconsin in the 1890’s when corporations (then, chiefly railroads) and the political bosses they funded, bankrolled state elections and controlled the Governorship and the Wisconsin Legislature while the voices of ordinary Wisconsin citizens were shut out and ignored.

Today, reformers in Wisconsin are fighting to protect many of the reforms that date back to the state’s “Progressive Era” of a century ago as well as political reforms won and enacted recently. such as the “Impartial Justice” Law of 2009 that will provide full public financing to candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who agree to limit their campaign spending to $400,000. This was the most significant political reform enacted into law in Wisconsin since the 1970’s. Now, powerful corporate and out-of-state special interest groups are trying to scale back and even block this reform from becoming effective next year when the next State Supreme Court election will occur. Reform is under assault now, as it was in 1910.

By 1910, Wisconsin had already undergone a period of political reform under Governor Fighting Bob” La Follette (1901-1906) and his successor, Progressive Republican James Ole Davidson (1906-1911) as they ignited an era of progress and reform in the state that served as an inspiration for the nation. During that first decade of the 20th Century, the Progressive Republicans established primary elections in the state to break the control of political bosses who hand-picked candidates. They brought the all-powerful railroads under some state regulation as well as the public utilities, telegraph, telephone, electricity, water companies, and the insurance industry. Corporations were prohibited from using their general treasury funds to influence state elections, a monumental reform that stood and protected the citizens of Wisconsin until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the prohibition at the federal – and by extension, the state level earlier this year.

Bob La Follette’s sometimes cantankerous and self-righteous personality, as well as his proposals, made him many political enemies and much of the Progressive reform agenda was blocked in the Legislature and elsewhere during his tenure and during that that of Governor Davidson’s. The election of campaign of 1910 would determine in what direction Wisconsin would go. The anti-reform conservative or “stalwart” Republicans united behind State Senator Edward T. Fairchild of Milwaukee as their candidate for Governor, determined to stop and rollback the progressive reforms and regulations of the previous decade. The Stalwarts amassed a campaign war chest of $114,000 – an enormous amount of money for political campaigns in those days. The Progressive Republican mantle was bestowed upon Francis E. McGovern, a former Milwaukee County District Attorney and failed candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1908.

The Republican Primary in 1910 would, in effect, decide the Governorship of Wisconsin because the Democratic Party was very weak back then. Wisconsin was essentially a one-party state and the “real” election was between the Progressives and the Stalwarts. In a hard fought campaign and despite the monetary advantage of the anti-reform conservatives, McGovern emerged triumphant in the Republican Primary and easily prevailed in the General Election. 

On January 12, 1911 Governor McGovern delivered one of the most memorable inaugural addresses ever made to an American Legislature. The theme of his address was the need for strong government action as the only counterweight against the power and influence of corporations and other special interests. He said corporations all too frequently “put arbitrary power in the hands of a few who have used this power to oppress the people and debauch their government.” To counteract this, McGovern said state government “must be made representative of all the people, and economic forces must be so regulated as to secure a fair chance for all in every walk of life.”

Governor McGovern then went on to lead the Wisconsin Legislature in enacting sweeping reforms beginning in 1911 and compiled a record of achievement greater than that of the great La Follette. During his first term, much of the Progressive program was finally realized, including stronger railroad regulation, legislation to establish a state income tax program, worker's compensation, regulation of child and women's labor, the encouragement of co-operatives, and the curtailment of corrupt political practices.

Francis McGovern deserves a more prominent place in Wisconsin’s history as the reformer who got real results. La Follette was the reform visionary but McGovern was the achiever.

And what will happen one hundred years later? In what direction will Wisconsin go? Already, darks clouds have formed overhead in the wake of the misguided and hypocritical U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. F.E.C. this past January. Reversing century-old federal and state prohibitions on corporate treasury money influencing elections will result in a flood of special interest dollars attempting to influence voters this Fall. Reformers are fighting to preserve new disclosure requirements for corporate and union campaign spending that were recently put into effect by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

And in 2011, Wisconsin’s next Governor (who will emerge in a nasty negative election we project may reach a record $50 million in spending) and the new Wisconsin Legislature will continue to incessantly hear the call for public financing of all state elections, strong special interest spending disclosure, reform of the currently disgraceful and secretive process in which the Wisconsin Legislature redraws the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts following the Census every ten years, reforming the long-drawn out and secretive and special interest money soaked state budget process and other needed political reforms. We need better open meetings laws and we need to make the next Governor and the next Legislature more accountable and responsive to the citizens of Wisconsin and less influenced and beholden to powerful, well-funded special interest groups.

At this critical point in Wisconsin’s history, citizens need to demand protection for the reforms that have been enacted in Wisconsin in recent years as well as those that Governors La Follette, Davidson and McGovern engineered a century ago. Let’s keep Wisconsin moving “forward” as our state motto encourages us to do. Moving forward means protecting and preserving the political reforms of the last 100 years so that we can progress even more in the century ahead.

Jay Heck is the executive of Common Cause in Wisconsin, the state’s largest non-partisan citizens reform advocacy organization.  Their website is and his e-mail address is For more information call 608/256-2686.


Friday, September 17, 2010

Wisconsin Supreme Court Expected to Rule on Campaign Spending Disclosure Rule Today

Press Release
September 17, 2010


Jay Heck – 608/256-2686


Citizens Ability to Know Who the Donors of Millions of Dollars Worth of Campaign Communications in 2010 Elections May Be at Stake

On Friday the 13th of August a bitterly divided Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 4 (Gableman, Prosser, Rogensack and Ziegler) to 3 (Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks) decision to commit an unprecedented and irresponsible act of judicial activism. It blocked from continuing in effect, a disclosure rule that would require outside organizations trying to influence the outcome of elections in Wisconsin -- through disseminating campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy -- to disclose their donors and register with the state: Court halts rule on political ads.

The rule, which was promulgated by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) -- and not opposed by the Wisconsin Legislature -- took effect on August 1st. But the narrow majority on the court intervened at the behest of several outside special interest groups seeking to preserve the corrupt status quo - which is no disclosure of these phony issue ads. Since the Court's injunction on August 13th, the citizens of Wisconsin have been robbed of needed transparency in our elections. CC/WI strongly supports the GAB rule and has been pushing for transparency and disclosure of the donors of phony issue ads since we first proposed a similar rule and legislation back in 1997.

Several special interest groups on the right and one on the left sued the GAB earlier in August over the rule in two federal courts as they sought to preserve the ability to influence your vote without telling you who they are. Those suits are still pending. Then, the Wisconsin Supreme Court intervened in this matter -- unnecessarily.

Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue their decision about whether or not they will take jurisdiction over the GAB rule.

They ought to bow out of this matter. Several members of the court have been the beneficiaries of undisclosed, phony issue ads run by outside organizations and it would appear that if the court decides to take the case, that they would be wading into a big conflict of interest. In addition, the United States Supreme Court last January in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision ruled 8 to 1 that more robust disclosure can and should be required of organizations that seek to influence the outcome of an election -- as the phony issue ads run in Wisconsin clearly do. So the matter has already been decided by the nation's highest court.

CC/WI has been at the forefront of efforts in the Legislature to pass disclosure laws and now to preserve the GAB disclosure rule. To see why this is so important you can watch or listen to a debate between the CC/WI executive director and opponents of disclosure that was recently filmed on Wisconsin Eye.

For earlier discussion and defense of disclosure and transparency by CC/WI on the state-wide public affairs television program Up Front with host Mike Gousha, go here.

CC/WI will have more to say about this critical matter after the Wisconsin Supreme Court has rendered its decision.


Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703

Want Good Government?
Join Common Cause in Wisconsin!