State Supreme Court Election Results Demonstrate Widespread Citizen Support for Stronger Judicial Recusal Rules

---

Tuesday - April 10, 2018

Election Winner Supported Them; Loser Did Not

Last week's Wisconsin Supreme Court election results – and the size and scope of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Rebecca Dallet's victory over Sauk County Circuit Court Judge Michael Screnock – demonstrated the high level of citizen support for stronger judicial recusal rules for judges in the state. That issue became a central focus of the election campaign with Dallet, who supported strong recusal rules, decisively defeating Screnock – who, not only opposed strong rules, but spent much of the campaign trying to obscure the issue altogether.

According to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice of New York University, the most accurate tracker of the money spent in this and other Wisconsin Supreme Court elections:

"The nonpartisan election saw $2.6 million in spending on television and radio ads alone, with more than $1.7 million coming from outside groups. Outside groups’ ads focused on candidates’ rulings in criminal cases – one ad described Dallet as “one of Wisconsin’s toughest judges,” and one ad argued Screnock “has a record of throwing the book at murderers, abusers and predators.” Ads also attacked Dallet and Screnock for allegedly ruling leniently in particular criminal cases. The race attracted national attention, including robocalls by former Vice President Joe Biden on behalf of Dallet, and spending by the National Rifle Association on behalf of Screnock.

The race elevated judicial recusal as a central issue. Despite recent reform efforts, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has maintained lax recusal rules, which say that campaign contributions alone are insufficient grounds for recusal. Dallet and Screnock debated whether their opponent would step aside in cases involving special interests or lawyers who supported their campaigns. Dallet said after her victory that “one of her top priorities…is to reopen the idea of changing the court’s recusal rules.”

The biggest outside spender in the election, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), spent about a million dollars, including on particularly vicious and largely untrue attack ads against Dallet on a criminal matter. WMC, a business organization, was willing to tear down Dallet at any cost, to protect their investment in Screnock and his opposition to strong judicial recusal rules. Citizens might ask how running nasty, untrue attack ads is good for "business" in Wisconsin.

The current "non-rule" on judicial recusal was written by WMC in 2010 and was adopted verbatim by a narrow 4 to 3 conservative majority. It basically said that judges should recuse themselves from a case only if they felt the need to do so. Large contributions to their campaigns or a significant amount of money spent by a so-called "independent," outside special interest group (such as WMC) to benefit a candidate, do not trigger recusal from a case if the donor or outside group is a party to a case before the judge or justice – as it does in almost every other state.

As a result of this pathetic standard, Wisconsin has been judged to have the 47th weakest judicial recusal rules in the nation.

CC/WI has spent much of the past six months educating thousands of Wisconsin citizens about the need for stronger judicial recusal rules for judges at all levels. We strongly support the specific proposal put forward in January, 2017 by 54 retired Wisconsin jurists at all levels, in the form of a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was not only rejected by a 5 to 2 margin, but denied even a public hearing, almost exactly a year ago. CC/WI organized public hears last Fall in Green Bay, Milwaukee and in Madison, and this year has been further educating citizens over social media through two short videos on the subject of judicial recusal:





Please view both of these videos and let us know what you think. And share them with others so that more citizens will be educated about the need for reform in this critical area. Already more than 20,000 Wisconsinites have viewed them on our website, Facebook and YouTube. Please join them!

The issue of judicial recusal will continue to be very important this year as the Wisconsin Supreme Court will continue to be pressed to hold public hearings and consider stronger recusal rules. And the issue will likely play a central role in the upcoming 2019 State Supreme Court election, now less than a year away.

For more on this issue and for CC/WI's commentary on the 2018 WI Supreme Court election, go here, here, and here.

On Wisconsin!

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

Common Cause in Wisconsin Releases Videos to Educate Citizens About the Critical Need for Stronger Judicial Recusal Rules

---

For Release: Thursday - March 22, 2018

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices and Citizens Address the Issue

Wisconsin has the 47th weakest recusal rules in the nation for judges at all levels who receive campaign contributions or benefit from spending from outside spending groups with no threshold or limit.

A Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice could benefit from election spending of hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars from a special interest group or individual and not have to recuse her or himself from a case involving that interest group under the current recusal rule, which was written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association and adopted verbatim by the WI Supreme Court in 2010.

This lack of strong recusal rules has undermined the impartiality, credibility and public confidence in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This problem is so urgently in need of a strong remedy that it has emerged as a central issue in the current election to fill a vacancy on the Court which will occur on April 3rd.

A 5 to 2 majority on the Court rejected a strong and sensible proposal put forth by 54 retired jurists of all levels last April without so much as a public hearing. CC/WI organized three public hearings around the state last October to educate the public about the retired jurists' petition.

Today, we release two videos on the issue which will be disseminated widely to help educate Wisconsinites about this critical and vitally important matter. We invite you to share them widely as well – with family, friends and anyone who might or should care about a fair, independent, transparent and impartial judiciary and the need for more equal access to justice under the law.

View the video featuring retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Louis Butler and Janine Geske:



View the video "starring" five Wisconsin citizens sharing their impressions about the issue:




Wisconsin deserves to have a judicial system worthy of its citizens!

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

Stronger Judicial Recusal Rules Vital for an Impartial State Judiciary

---

Monday - February 12, 2018

By Jay Heck

Wisconsin, from statehood in 1848 to about a decade ago, in 2007, had a national reputation for having among the most respected, impartial, non-partisan, fair and trusted state court systems in the nation. Much of this was because there was a generally-held belief among all Wisconsinites of all political persuasions and ideologies that the courts should be “above politics as usual.” In order to maintain the confidence of the citizenry, judges and justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court had to be scrupulously non-partisan and impartial and not be perceived as having been compromised by outside lobbying pressure, campaign contributions, or other political influence.

For decades, this standard not only survived, but flourished and as recently as the early 2000’s the Wisconsin Supreme Court was held up by legal experts across the country as the “gold standard” for how Justices should be elected and serve once in office in a state supreme court. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the 72 county circuit courts and the hundreds of municipal court judges also were perceived as having the highest standards for impartiality, non-partisanship and fairness across the state. And while Wisconsin legislators fell into public disrepute in the aftermath of the worst political scandal in the state in a century – the Legislative Caucus Scandal of 2001-2002, the reputation of state courts were not only unaffected by the legislative scandal, but enhanced in their execution of equal justice under the law.

However, the landscape began to shift about a decade ago when outside special interest groups, for the first time, began to pour millions of dollars into the election of two State Supreme Court Justices, one each in 2007 and in 2008. The expenditures made by these conservative business organizations: principally the Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, proved to be pivotal, particularly in 2008 when an incumbent Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court was defeated in a nasty, vicious, scurrilous campaign in which a record amount of money was spent – more than $8 million. It marked only the second time in state history that an incumbent state supreme court justice was defeated for election.

There had really been no recusal standard for justices or for other court judges receiving campaign contributions or benefiting from “independent” spending by outside interest groups up to that time because campaign money was not a significant factor in judicial elections. That changed with the 2007 and 2008 state supreme court elections. In 2009, in reaction to the unprecedented amount of money spend in the 2007 and 2008 elections, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a recusal rule that would force a Justice to recuse her or himself from a case in which one of the parties in the case had donated $1,000 or more to a justice, either directly, or to an outside special interest group spending in support of that justice’s campaign for election to the State Supreme Court. It was rejected by a 4 to 3 vote of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The following year, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial Citizens United v. F.E.C. decision, which effectively opened the way for corporations and other outside groups to make unlimited expenditures in behalf of candidates, including judges. Despite this, and shortly thereafter, the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 to adopt, verbatim, a recusal rule written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which said that Justices could choose whether to recuse themselves from a case but that receiving a campaign contribution of any size from one or more of the parties in the case need not disqualify them from hearing and adjudicating the case.

In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker repealed the Impartial Justice Law, which had been enacted in 2009, and had provided full public financing of elections of candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who voluntarily agreed to limit their total spending to $400,000. In 2015, Walker and the Legislature repealed longstanding prohibitions on campaign coordination between candidates and “independent” outside interest groups, thereby effectively eviscerating contribution limits for all elections in Wisconsin.

The result of all these actions has been that much more money, most of it undisclosed and unregulated, is flowing into elections in Wisconsin, including into non-partisan judicial elections at all levels. It was in this context and very different and new political environment that 54 retired jurists from all over Wisconsin, including two former State Supreme Court Justices petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court about a year ago to adopt strong and clear recusal rules for Justices and Judges at all levels with specific thresholds that would trigger mandatory recusal from cases. Wisconsin was found to have the fourth weakest judicial recusal rules in the nation and these retired jurists sounded the alarm.

While Common Cause in Wisconsin and other reform organizations and individuals were permitted to submit written comments in support (or opposing) the petition, the conservative majority of 5 justices voted against conducting any public hearings on the petition. The two other justices voted to conduct them. Similarly, on April 20. 2017, by the same vote, the Supreme Court rejected the petition of the retired jurists and kept the current policy of self-recusal in place.

But Common Cause in Wisconsin and the retired judges worked to “revive” the issue of judicial recusal in Wisconsin that had been seemingly buried with the Supreme Court’s action of April 20th.

The result was placement of a guest editorial on judicial recusal in Wisconsin’s largest daily newspaper, and the organization and execution of three public hearings in Wisconsin’s three largest cities during the month of October, 2017: in Green Bay on the 2nd, in Milwaukee on the 11th and in Madison on the 24th. More than 300 citizens attended and participated in the three public hearings and more than 1,000 more viewed and participated in them through Facebook Live. Thousands more citizens have viewed the videos of the public hearings, including the widely distributed and viewed program by Wisconsin Eye, the statewide video access channel/service, of the Madison public hearing. Two former State Supreme Court Justices, three former County Circuit Court Justices and a distinguished law professor and former candidate for the State Supreme Court joined CC/WI as panelists for the hearings.

As a result, interest has been rekindled and elevated in the issue of judicial recusal in Wisconsin and it is a central issue in the upcoming April 2018 election to fill a vacancy on the State Supreme Court. Two of the leading candidates for the position announced their support for strong recusal rules at the CC/WI public hearings. One other, recently, has announced his opposition to stronger recusal rules, citing “free speech” concerns.

Last October, after two public hearings on this issue had been held in the state, Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, NC polled Wisconsinites on a number of issues, including two on judicial elections and recusal rules, The answers to the two questions showed that 83 percent of Wisconsinites strongly or somewhat support greater disclosure of campaign contributions and spending in judicial elections, while only 10 percent strongly or somewhat oppose greater disclosure. Similarly, 82 percent of Wisconsinites strongly or somewhat favor the adoption of stronger recusal rules for judges while only 12 percent strongly or somewhat oppose them.
Clearly, citizens in Wisconsin support stronger election campaign finance disclosure and stronger judicial recusal rules.

Stronger judicial recusal rules have emerged as a front and center issue in the Supreme Court and other judicial elections in April. The fairness and impartiality of our judges depends mightily on their separation from the effect and influence of campaign contributors and outside, special interest campaign spending groups. You can advance this needed reform in Wisconsin by insisting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and judges at all levels support stronger recusal rules.

Jay Heck is the executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, the state’s largest non-partisan citizen reform advocacy organization.

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

Stronger Recusal Rules Needed for Wisconsin's Judiciary

---

For Release: Friday - September 8, 2017

CC/WI Has Organized Three October "Public Hearings" on the Issue:
in Green Bay, Milwaukee and Madison

Last April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court embarrassed itself and every citizen of our state when it discussed in “open conference,” and then voted 5 to 2, to reject a timely, reasonable and needed proposal that would have established reasonable thresholds for recusal for elected municipal court judges, circuit court judges, state court of appeals judges and state Supreme Court justices in cases where they received campaign contributions from a defendant or plaintiff appearing before them, or were the beneficiaries of spending by an “outside” special interest group.

We think this issue is far too important to simply be swept under the rug and forgotten. Therefore, Common Cause in Wisconsin has organized three "public hearings" on the issue to occur in October. On October 2nd, we will be in Green Bay and on October 11th in Milwaukee. Finally, we will hold a public hearing on October 24th in Madison, where two current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices will talk about why more effective recusal rules are essential.

Wisconsinites would be surprised to know that our state is considered among the four worst states in the nation with regard to the strength of our recusal standards for campaign contributions. In fact, we have none, and the current state recusal “non-standard" was written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which has spent millions of dollars over the years to elect conservative state supreme court justices. The “standard” was adopted verbatim by a 4 to 3 vote, seven years ago. It essentially says that each justice may decide for themselves whether to recuse in a case involving a party contributing to her or him.

Since that time, contribution limits to candidates have vastly increased and outside spending has risen exponentially. Public financing for state Supreme Court candidates who voluntarily agreed not to accept campaign contributions was repealed (in 2011) and now more money than ever before dictates the outcome of state Supreme Court elections and, increasingly, elections for state Court of Appeals, circuit court and even municipal court. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker enacted into law drastic changes to Wisconsin campaign finance law in 2015 that legalized campaign coordination between outside special interest groups and candidates. That means that “anything goes” and there is no wall between candidates and their financial backers.

As we said, the April vote and decision to reject the recusal proposal submitted in January by 54 retired judges — including two former Supreme Court Justices — was made without a public hearing. Individuals and organizations, including Common Cause in Wisconsin, were permitted to submit written comments to the court prior to the April vote, but the public was largely unaware that the shocking action by the Supreme Court even occurred because the conservative majority denied a request by the 54 retired jurists for a public hearing.

Here is what they proposed for recusal: For state Supreme Court justices, the threshold amount is $10,000; for judges on the state Court of Appeals, $2,500; for circuit court judges, $1,000; and for municipal court judges, $500. These are reasonable and prudent thresholds. But they were rejected, almost summarily, in one of the last “open conferences” the high court had. They have since voted (5 to 2, of course) to end even open conferences. Democracy dies in darkness.

This recusal issue is not “settled” and is certain to be a big issue in the April 2018 state Supreme Court election in which a successor will be selected to replace retiring Justice Michael Gableman, a “poster child” for the need for a justice recuse him or herself and a leading opponent against sensible recusal standards. Already, two of the three candidates to replace Gableman have declared support for the retired judges’ proposal. Support for recusal will be central in the upcoming campaign.

With the conservative majority on Wisconsin’s highest court refusing to hold a public hearing on this critical issue, Common Cause stepped into the void and organized three public hearings in Wisconsin in October in which the public will hear from former judges and State Supreme Court Justices – and from you, real citizens.

• At the October 2nd public hearing in Green Bay, panelists will include former Wisconsin Supreme Court Janine Geske and former Manitowoc County Circuit Court Judge Patrick Willis.

• At the October 11th public hearing in Milwaukee, panelists will include former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael Skwierawski, and Marquette Law Professor Edward Fallone, who was also a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2013.

• At the October 24th public hearing in Madison, panelists will include Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, and former Dane County Circuit Court Judge Gerald Nichol, who is also the former Chair of the non-partisan Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which was dissolved in 2016.

Sensible recusal rules are needed to restore public confidence in Wisconsin’s judiciary, once a model for the nation. This issue is too important to allow deep-pocketed special interest groups and their proxies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to simply crush it and attempt to sweep it out of the public eye.

These events are free and open to the public. Make plans to attend one of them, now.

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

CC/WI End-of-Summer Reform Review

---

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Obviously, 2017 has been a tough and difficult time for Wisconsinites like us, who care about honest, progressive, enlightened, open, and transparent state and federal government and politics. With the most dishonest, least qualified person ever to occupy the White House – Donald Trump – and the most regressive, egocentrically hyperpartisan, reactionary Governor in state history – Scott Walker – we have faced some daunting challenges and stinging setbacks: not just since Trump’s election last Fall, but since Walker and an ultra-conservative Republican majority swept into power in 2010 and have been dismantling Wisconsin’s honest, fair, transparent and democratic traditions, ever since.

But CC/WI has not backed down and we will never quit standing up for what we all know Wisconsin was once, should be, and will be again – a model and beacon of light for the rest of the nation, not the shameful political backwater we have been transformed into: somewhere between Alabama and Mississippi.

The very good news is that we are making progress in advancing our core democratic reform agenda during 2017: nonpartisan redistricting reform, curbing voter suppression, campaign finance reform, recusal for judges receiving campaign contributions, and stopping conservatives from destroying democracy by convening an unprecedented “constitutional convention” to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s what we are doing:

Fighting Partisan Gerrymandering

CC/WI has led the statewide effort to enact a nonpartisan redistricting process for Wisconsin since 2013, when we united legislators, reform organizations and citizens in support of adopting Iowa’s non-partisan redistricting process. We forced the Republican-controlled Assembly to finally hold a public hearing on the issue last year and we have mobilized unanimous support from all the state’s daily newspaper editorial boards. This year, we took the leading role in forcing GOP legislative leaders to cap the amount of taxpayer money they will spend on defending Wisconsin’s unconstitutional 2011 legislative redistrict maps and to disclose the law firms they hired, and we have been all over the state educating Wisconsinites about the pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Gill v. Whitford, which declared Wisconsin’s 2011 maps illegal, and which would, if the nation’s highest court upholds a federal court decision, dramatically curtail hyperpartisan gerrymandering nationwide. New CC/WI State Chair, former State Senator Tim Cullen of Janesville, is a leader in the landmark court case.

We have also gathered nearly 4,000 of our target goal of 5,000 signatures in support of redistricting reform legislation – Senate Bill 13/Assembly Bill 44 – which we hope to reach this Fall. If you have not signed the petition yet, or have but know others who haven’t, please go here and do so!

Voting Rights

CC/WI continues to counter the suppressing effect of Wisconsin’s extreme and restrictive voter photo ID law (in full effect since last year) by providing information to eligible citizens about what they need to be able to vote and what documentation they must have to obtain the requisite form of photo ID. We have been the leading resource for college and university students in the state to find out if their student ID is acceptable at polling places and how to get the correct form of ID if it isn’t. CC/WI partners particularly closely with the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin to get more citizens what they need to vote. This is critically important because the voter photo ID law caused Wisconsin to experience a large drop off in voter turnout in 2016 compared to 2012 and Trump carried the state by just 22,000 votes – in part because of this voter suppression.

Campaign Finance Reform

In June, CC/WI participated in a press conference in the Capitol to support a package of campaign finance reform measures, introduced by State Senator Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee), which we pointed out would merely restore to Wisconsin some of the laws we had in place 20 years ago and which have all been destroyed by Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature over the past seven years. We have a long way to go to get back to where we were, and educating Wisconsinites about what we need to do is crucial.

Judicial Recusal

In late July, CC/Wisconsin single-handedly reignited the important issue of recusal for judges in the receipt of campaign contributions or benefiting from special interest “outside” electioneering spending, with the recent opinion-editorial in the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin’s largest newspaper.

The conservative majority (5 of 7) on the Wisconsin Supreme Court last April voted 5 to 2 not to adopt sensible recusal rules for judges at all levels proposed last January by 54 retired state jurists, including two former Supreme Court justices. The majority would not even allow a public hearing on the matter. Wisconsin currently ranks 47th of the 50 states in the strength of its recusal procedures. But the issue is front and center in the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, 2018 to replace retiring ultra-conservative justice Michael Gableman, the state “poster child” for the need for judicial recusal. CC/WI is organizing public hearings and forums on the issue this Fall in Milwaukee, Green Bay and Madison and former jurists and you, the citizens of Wisconsin, will participate!

Measures to Amend/destroy the U.S. Constitution

Despite many other pressing state budget issues of great concern to Wisconsin citizens, Republicans in the State Assembly carved out time in June to vote on measures no one is calling for except for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and some other wealthy special interest groups that bankroll the state GOP – such as Wisconsin Club for Growth. Measures to make Wisconsin the 28th state (of 34 needed) to call for an “Article V Constitutional Convention” passed.

All are misguided measures written for the stated purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but which would take us well beyond even that draconian, disastrous outcome. A convention like this has never been called and assembled before in our nation's history since the first and only Constitutional Convention establishing the nation in 1787 and it could be a very destructive and dangerous event. It could extend well beyond a balanced budget measure and go on to alter or eliminate citizen rights currently protected by the Constitution. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, an end to democracy and freedom itself. The possibilities are endless.

Seven Assembly Republicans joined all the Assembly Democrats in voting against the call for a convention. Public opposition and pressure by CC/WI played a big role in their opposition. Fortunately, prospects for passage in the State Senate appear much less certain at this time. GOP Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) has expressed grave reservations about the matter, as have other State Senate Republicans. But we will have to work hard to make sure it is not passed in that chamber because Walker is very supportive of it.

Now, let me get straight to the point on a related issue: CC/WI needs your financial assistance – as soon and as generous as possible to continue and to build on this body of work. Please send your check or credit card payment (Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Discover) today. We need it. Period, end of story. Here is our address:

Common Cause in Wisconsin
P.O. Box 2597
Madison, WI 53701-2597

If you would prefer to make a contribution to CC/WI online, go here. Or, you can call the CC/WI office in Madison to make a credit card payment/contribution: 608/256-2686. I will likely answer the phone and would be delighted to talk with you!

Thank you for caring about democracy in Wisconsin. I am grateful to you.

Sincerely,

Jay Heck – Wisconsin Director (since 1996!)

---

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

Sensible Judicial Recusal Rules for Campaign Contributions Needed for Wisconsin Judges at All Levels

---

For Release: Monday - July 31, 2017

This Issue is Central in Upcoming Supreme Court Election

Note: This release appeared in the Sunday, July 30, 2017 "Crossroads" Section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in the form of an opinion editorial.

Last April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court embarrassed itself and every citizen of our state when it discussed in “open conference,” and then voted 5 to 2, to reject a timely, reasonable and needed proposal that would have established reasonable thresholds for recusal for elected municipal court judges, circuit court judges, state court of appeals judges and state Supreme Court justices in cases where they received campaign contributions from a defendant or plaintiff appearing before them, or were the beneficiaries of spending by an “outside” special interest group.

Wisconsinites would be surprised to know that our state is considered among the four worst states in the nation with regard to the strength of our recusal standards for campaign contributions. In fact, we have none, and the current state recusal “non-standard" was written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which has spent millions of dollars over the years to elect conservative state supreme court justices. The “standard” was adopted verbatim by a 4 to 3 vote, seven years ago. It essentially says that each justice may decide for themselves whether to recuse in a case involving a party contributing to her or him.

Since that time, contribution limits to candidates have vastly increased and outside spending has risen exponentially. Public financing for state Supreme Court candidates who voluntarily agreed not to accept campaign contributions was repealed (in 2011) and now more money than ever before dictates the outcome of state Supreme Court elections and, increasingly, elections for state Court of Appeals, circuit court and even municipal court. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker enacted into law drastic changes to Wisconsin campaign finance law in 2015 that legalized campaign coordination between outside special interest groups and candidates. That means that “anything goes” and there is no wall between candidates and their financial backers.

The April vote and decision to reject the recusal proposal submitted in January by 54 retired judges — including two former Supreme Court Justices — was made without a public hearing. Individuals and organizations, including Common Cause in Wisconsin, were permitted to submit written comments to the court prior to the April vote, but the public was largely unaware that the shocking action by the Supreme Court even occurred because the conservative majority denied a request by the 54 retired jurists for a public hearing.

Here is what they proposed for recusal: For state Supreme Court justices, the threshold amount is $10,000; for judges on the state Court of Appeals, $2,500; for circuit court judges, $1,000; and for municipal court judges, $500. These are reasonable and prudent thresholds. But they were rejected, almost summarily, in one of the last “open conferences” the high court had. They have since voted (5 to 2, of course) to end even open conferences. Democracy dies in darkness.

This recusal issue is not “settled” and is certain to be a big issue in the April 2018 state Supreme Court election in which a successor will be selected to replace retiring Justice Michael Gableman, a “poster child” for the need for a justice recuse him or herself and a leading opponent against sensible recusal standards. Already, two of the three candidates to replace Gableman have declared support for the retired judges’ proposal. Support for recusal will be central in the upcoming campaign.

With the conservative majority on Wisconsin’s highest court refusing to hold a public hearing on this critical issue, Common Cause will step into the void and organize two or three public hearings in Wisconsin in late summer and early fall.

Sensible recusal rules are needed to restore public confidence in Wisconsin’s judiciary, once a model for the nation. This issue is too important to simply allow deep-pocketed special interest groups and their proxies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to simply crush it and attempt to sweep it out of the public eye. Stay tuned.

Jay Heck is executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin.

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

Wisconsin Supreme Court Should Adopt Strong Recusal Rule Proposed by Former Jurists

---

For Release: Thursday - April 10, 2017

On April 20th, the Wisconsin Supreme Court may consider, in open conference, a petition submitted three months ago, in January, 54 retired judges – including two former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices – unveiled a strong proposal that would establish reasonable thresholds for recusal for elected municipal court judges, circuit court judges, state court of appeals judges and state supreme court justices in cases where they received campaign contributions from a defendant or plaintiff appearing before them. The full petition from the retired jurists is here.

Wisconsinites would be surprised to know that our state is considered among the four worst states in the nation with regard to recusal standards for campaign contributions. In fact we have none – and the current state recusal "standard" was written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, one of the state's most powerful special interest groups that has spent millions of dollars over the years to elect conservative state supreme court justices. It was adopted verbatim by a 4 to 3 vote, seven years ago.

Below is the letter we sent last week to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on this critical matter:

---

April 5, 2017

The Honorable Patience D. Roggensack
Chief Justice
Wisconsin Supreme Court
P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688

Dear Chief Justice Roggensack,

On behalf of the State Governing Board and the more than 12,000 members and activists of Common Cause in Wisconsin, we respectfully request that the Wisconsin Supreme Court consider and adopt Rule Petition 17-01 on recusal, submitted to you in January by 54 retired jurists, including two former members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Rule Petition 17-01 requests that the Court amend the Code of Judicial Conduct to establish an objective standard for requiring recusal or disqualification of a municipal court judge, circuit court judge, state court of appeals judge, or a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice who has received campaign contributions from a party or lawyer. It further supports amending the Wisconsin Constitution so that the Supreme Court can maintain a quorum in the event of such a recusal, as lower courts routinely do now.

We believe that a failure to adopt sensible, reasonable recusal rules, such as those laid out in Rule Petition 17-01, put the integrity and reputation of all Wisconsin Courts at greater risk than they suffer currently, resulting in the further erosion of public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of judges at all levels and, in particular in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

As the retired jurists noted in their statement of purpose, “As money becomes more predominant, citizens rightfully ask whether justice is for sale. The appearance of partiality that large donations cause strikes at the heart of the judicial function, which depends on the public’s respect for its judgments.”

Public opinion polling in Wisconsin over the last half decade suggests that the public’s respect for the judiciary has never been lower.

The problem stems, in part, to the failure in 2009 of a majority of this Court to adopt a proposal, put forth by Justice N. Patrick Crooks, to require recusal if a justice had received substantial election support from one of the parties in the case. This error was compounded in 2010 by the adoption by a majority of the Court of essentially, a non-recusal rule written and accepted, apparently verbatim, from two of the state’s largest business organizations, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

As a result of these two actions and because of the failure of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a strong recusal rule at the explicit invitation of the Supreme Court of the United States in the wake of its landmark 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company decision, our state currently ranks 47th of the 50 states in terms of the strength of its recusal rules according to a survey cited by the retired Wisconsin jurists in Rule Petition 17-01. That is simply shocking and unacceptable.

Further, strong recusal rules are even more necessary in the aftermath of the Court’s 2015 decision to strike down Wisconsin law that had prohibited campaign coordination between candidate campaigns with outside special interest groups who spend vast sums of money engaging in non-express advocacy or phony issue advocacy, with a clear intent to influence the outcome of elections.

This controversial decision exceeded even the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United v. F.E.C. decision in allowing coordination between so-called issue ad groups and candidates. Citizens United prohibited this type of coordination. The fact that the four Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices who voted in 2015 to decriminalize this kind of coordination, had themselves been supported by one or more of the organizations engaging in that coordination during the 2011-2011 recall elections, further underscores the urgent need for strong recusal standards and rules.

The most recent contested Wisconsin Supreme Court election in 2016 further illustrates the growing need for recusal rules. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “issue ad” groups spent more than $2.25 million attempting to influence the outcome of the election while the two candidates themselves spent a combined total of $777,440 – about one third as much as the outside spending. And yet one of those outside groups could conceivably appear as a party to a case that came before the Court and the justice who benefited by the election spending of that group would not be required to recuse herself under current law.

That is simply a standard that invites even deeper cynicism and distrust on the part of citizens of all political and philosophical persuasions in the ability of this state’s highest court to be able to render justice fairly and impartially.

You, and the other six justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have it within your power to restore a modicum of citizen confidence and trust in not only the state’s highest court, but in state courts of all levels by adopting the thresholds recommended by the distinguished group of 54 retired jurists in Rule Petition 17-01.

We respectfully urge that you seize this opportunity to do so.

Sincerely,


Jay Heck
Executive Director

---

CONTACT:

Jay Heck
608/256-2686 (office)
608/512-9363 (cell)



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

Read More...

Intro only...

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Matching Public Funds But the Effect on Wisconsin is Not Clear Yet

---

Common Cause in Wisconsin Reform Update - June 27, 2011

1. Nation's Highest Court Takes Another Swipe at Clean Elections
   
2. Redistricting Reform in Wisconsin to be Launched Tuesday

---

1. The U.S. Supreme today -- in a narrow and sharply divided 5 to 4 decision -- struck down a provision in Arizona's campaign finance law that provides public matching or "rescue" funds to candidates for state office in that state who abide by spending limits and agree to utilize only public financing in their own campaigns. Those candidates were then eligible to receive additional marching or rescue funds if their opponent did not abide by spending limits and/or if outside groups spent money attacking the candidate or supported the abiding candidate's opponent.

The decision in McComish v. Bennett was not a surprise at all and was fairly narrow in its scope and application. What it did not do is strike down public financing itself, as many experts feared it might do. The matching or rescue funds provision is but one aspect of Arizona's (and Wisconsin's) public finance law and there are a number of ways to repair it. And today's decision may not have a lot of practical effect on Wisconsin's Impartial Justice Act, which was enacted into law in December, 2009 and which provides full public financing to candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who abide by spending limits. There is a matching funds provision in the Wisconsin law, but it was not utilized in the April State Supreme Court election narrowly won by Justice David Prosser over challenger Joanne Kloppenburg. Both Prosser and Kloppenburg abided by spending limits of $400,000 and both utilized no private contributions. And the matching funds provision of the Impartial Justice Act never "kicked in" for outside spending because outside groups used phony issue ads which are not yet subject to required disclosure which, in turn, would have triggered the matching funds provision of the law had they been subject to disclosure.

Another difference between Arizona and Wisconsin is that their matching or rescue funds provision applies to all statewide and legislative elections, whereas Wisconsin's law applies only to State Supreme Court elections. Courts, including the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which is now reviewing Wisconsin's Impartial Justice Act, may view judicial elections and the application of public financing and matching funds somewhat differently than they view matching or rescue funds for legislative and other non-judicial elections.

So, the "jury" is still out on how this U.S. Supreme Court decision will apply to Wisconsin. The decision was misguided and wrong, in our judgment, as Justice Elena Kagen wrote in her strong dissent which was joined by three other justices. But this is not the "death knell" for public financing as some predicted it would be. Far from it. And Wisconsin's Impartial Justice Act was not completely undermined by today's decision. The state budget, which became law yesterday and which stripped away funding for Impartial Justice, was a far more damaging public policy action.

---

2. With secret maps being quietly circulated in the Capitol about what new state legislative and congressional districts might look like -- all being done at taxpayer expense but out of the public eye -- reform of Wisconsin's secretive and partisan redistricting process is clearly needed. Tomorrow (Tuesday) at Noon, concerned citizens and legislators will hold a press conference in the Assembly Parlor of the State Capitol to discuss newly introduced redistricting reform legislation and what needs to be done in Wisconsin to fix our system.

CC/WI will have more about both the McComish decision and redistricting reform soon, so stay tuned.

---

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!
Holding Power Accountable Since 1972

Read More...

Intro only...

Joint Finance Committee Republicans Kill Public Financing to Fund Voter Suppression

---

Press Release

May 26, 2011

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

BUDGET PANEL REPUBLICANS VOTE TO END PUBLIC FINANCING 
OF ELECTIONS IN WISCONSIN AND USE MONEY FOR 
MOST EXTREME VOTER ID LAW IN THE NATION

This Tuesday, in a stunning display of horrible judgment and complete and utter disregard for Wisconsin's tradition of honest, open and accountable state government, all 12 Republican members on the Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Finance Committee voted to end the state's 33-year old public financing system of elections and to use the funds to begin to implement the most restrictive and onerous voter identification law in the nation. The four Democrats on the budget panel opposed this misguided action.

Wisconsin was one of the first states in the nation to pass and implement public financing for state elections, beginning in 1978. And less than two years ago, Wisconsin became the third state in the nation to pass full public financing for qualifying candidates for the state Supreme Court who agree to limit their campaign spending to $100,000 in the primary election and $300,000 in the general election. Both incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and challenger Joanne Kloppenburg agreed to the spending limits and accepted full public funding in one of the closest elections in Wisconsin's history.

Now, Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee have swept away spending limits and public financing and have invited special interest groups and unlimited campaign money to fill the void left by the destruction of these reforms. Unlimited fund raising and spending by candidates and outside groups for all state offices will replace sensible spending limits, allowing deep-pocketed special interest groups to assert even greater control over Wisconsin elections and the public policy-making process than they do now.

Governor Scott Walker first proposed this attack on the Impartial Justice Law and spending limits in his inaugural budget address on March 1st. In supporting this measure, three Republican State Senators who had supported public financing and the Impartial Justice measure in the past, "flip-flopped" and now oppose campaign finance reform: Senator Alberta Darling of River Hills, Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls and Senator Luther Olsen of Ripon. All three face recall elections this Summer.

Then, to add insult to injury, Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee decided to use the $1.8 million intended for public financing of state elections to begin the implementation of the new Photo Voter ID program -- the most restrictive and extreme such program in the United States, which the State Senate passed last week.

In a single action, Wisconsin legislative Republicans have reversed and sent back into the Stone Age, two of Wisconsin's proudest and most widely heralded election principles: State Supreme Court candidates free from special interest taint and unlimited campaign fund raising, and the ability to cast a vote in Wisconsin without burdensome and restrictive conditions.

Does this make you mad?

It should! Contact both your State Senator and your State Representative and let them know you oppose ending public financing and using that money for voter suppression. If you are not sure who your State Senator and/or your State Representative is, go here.

__________________________________________

Jay Heck, Executive Director
Common Cause in Wisconsin
152 W. Johnson St., Suite 212
Madison, WI 53703
608/256-2686

Read More...

Intro only...

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!

Read More...

Intro only...

In the News - December 2009

---

Suit seeks to block public financing for Supreme Court races
December 22, 2009 - Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Group sues over public financing of court candidates
December 18, 2009 - Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Federal lawsuit filed over Wis. campaign law
December 18, 2009 - Scott Bauer, Associated Press

Reformers win a fight to clean up court races
December 3, 2009 - Editorial, The Capital Times

Doyle signs bill for public financing of judicial races
December 2, 2009 - Alicia Yager, The Badger Herald

Doyle signs high court election bill
December 1, 2009 - Patrick Marley and Lee Bergquist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Doyle to sign Impartial Justice bill
December 1, 2009 - Bob Hague, Wisconsin Radio Network

Read More...

Intro only...

Wisconsin Right to Life's Assault on the "Impartial Justice" State Supreme Court Reform Law Will Not Go Unchallenged

---

Press Release

December 22, 2009

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

Wisconsin Right to Life's Assault on Impartial Justice Will Not Go Unchallenged

Late last Friday afternoon, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) -- an organization that has long hated any and all campaign finance reform -- filed a lawsuit in Federal Court to block and strike down part of the Impartial Justice Act- the new law that provides full public financing to qualifying candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that was signed by Governor Jim Doyle on December 1st. The suit alleges that the matching funds provision of the law - under which candidates who abide by spending limits would be eligible to receive a capped amount of matching funds if outside groups (like WRTL) spend against them or for their opponent - "chills" the speech of outside groups (like WRTL).

We emphatically disagree with WRTL. The matching funds provision does nothing to prevent WRTL and other outside groups from spending and running their communications. It simply provides the target of their attacks with limited means to defend themselves so that the election is not completely dominated by the outside special interest groups (like WRTL). A similar provision was upheld by the courts in North Carolina, which also has a full public financing system (and matching funds) for state supreme court elections.

To read the press release issued by WRTL's Indiana-based lawyer go here: Wisconsin Right to Life files suit against 'Impartial Justice' bill and then - See the lawsuit

To read news accounts in the Associated Press and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which include Common Cause in Wisconsin's reaction to the WRTL lawsuit, see: Federal lawsuit filed over Wis. campaign law and Group sues over public financing of court candidates

Also today, failed 2009 Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Randy Koschnick, together with the Virginia-based Center for Competitive Politics, a right-wing, anti-reform group, filed a lawsuit against the Impartial Justice law on even broader grounds than WRTL. To find out more, see: Koschnick suit challenges constitutionality of Impartial Justice. To read the complaint, go here.

CC/WI is reviewing all the options available in defending this sweeping new campaign finance reform law against these vicious attacks. We are in touch with state and national legal experts and we will do all that we can to protect the integrity of Wisconsin's Impartial Justice Act -- the most significant and sweeping campaign finance reform to become law since 1977.

Stay tuned............................

* * *

As 2009 draws to an end, please consider making a contribution to support the work of Common Cause in Wisconsin. Your assistance, in any amount, would be welcome and needed. Please mail your check or credit card payment to the address below or call Jay Heck at 608/256-2686. To download a form to send with your donation, go here.

Thanks and Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

__________________________________________

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...

"Impartial Justice" is Law - Disclosure and Regulation of Phony Issue Ads on Deck

---

Press Release

December 3, 2009

CONTACT:

Jay Heck – 608/256-2686

IMPARTIAL JUSTICE REFORM IS LAW
PHONY ISSUE AD REFORM IS ON DECK

On Tuesday, December 1st, Governor Jim Doyle signed into law the "Impartial Justice" legislation, that will provide full public financing to qualified candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who agree to abide by a spending limit of $400,000 (for the primary and general elections).

This is the most sweeping and significant campaign finance reform in Wisconsin since public financing was first established in 1977. We now join North Carolina and New Mexico as the only states to have enacted into law full public financing for state supreme court elections.

For more on this momentous event, read the front-page article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Doyle signs high court election bill and in the The Badger Herald: Doyle signs bill for public financing of judicial races. Both articles contain commentary from Common Cause in Wisconsin (CC/WI).

See also this editorial in The Capital Times: Reformers win a fight to clean up court races about the role of reform organizations and others in the battle for Impartial Justice.

To listen to a recent CC/WI analysis of Impartial Justice on Wisconsin Public Radio, go here.

As we have said repeatedly, passage and enactment into law of the "Impartial Justice" measure is not enough to clean up Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. The 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court elections were dominated by nasty, undisclosed, unregulated campaign communications masquerading as issue advocacy. The donors to these phony issue ads must be disclosed and the money used to pay for them must come from a regulated source. That said, the criticism from some that the Impartial Justice law doesn't address the phony issue ads is unjustified. Separate legislation to require the disclosure of the donors and regulation of the funding for sham issue advocacy in all Wisconsin elections (not just those for the state supreme court) will be considered after the United States Supreme Court renders a decision later this month (perhaps as early as next week) in a critical, landmark case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which will provide 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. It would have made no sense to tie the phony issue ad measure to the Impartial Justice bill because we do not know yet how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on this matter.

Pending in the Wisconsin Legislature is Senate Bill 43, a bipartisan proposal requiring 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 during the period of 60 days or less prior to an election. This electioneering disclosure and regulation legislation mirrors new rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board in November of 2008. An identical Assembly version of the legislation is Assembly Bill 63. Both measures are ready to be considered by the full Assembly and State Senate. Common Cause in Wisconsin (CC/WI), the first state reform organization to recognize the critical importance of this reform, proposed a version of this measure back in 1997 -- and has been leading the effort to get it enacted into law ever since. Depending on what the U.S. Supreme Court does this month, there will still be plenty of time to pass and enact into law Senate Bill 43/Assembly Bill 63 in January and in time to be in effect for the 2010 legislative and statewide elections.

Wisconsin has hit a home run with the enactment into law of the Impartial Justice legislation. But to win the ball game, we need to shine light on the donors and regulate the money behind the plethora of campaign communications that masquerade as issue advocacy. There are enough votes to pass the Senate Bill 43/Assembly Bill 63 in the Wisconsin Legislature and Governor Doyle has promised to sign the measure. We just need to find out what the U.S. Supreme Court will do before we can act.

Stay tuned...................

__________________________________________

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...