Wisconsin State Senate Minority Leader Fitzgerald Finds "Video Competition" Bill Lobbying Shameful While At The Same Time Arguing For Bill

Stopped by the Capitol today and watched the Senate for a while.  They were debating one of the tiniest ethics reform issues: whether legislators should, like all other Wisconsin employees, be forced to wait 12 months before being permitted to lobby state government. Somehow, Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R- Juneau) managed to castigate Democratic Party Chair Joe Wineke, a former State Senator, for lobbying on behalf of AT&T on the "video competition" bill, and at the same time blast Majority Leader Judy Robson (D-Beloit) for holding up the bill.

That's why I could never be successful in politics; I find it hard to argue opposite positions on something simultaneously.

Nice editorial on the AT&T bill in the Capital Times today:

Real regulatory reform doesn't come from the corporations that are supposed to be regulated. It comes from citizens and their representatives, working with independent experts who understand how changes in technology and in the regulatory climate make it possible to do better for the state.

Legislators should set the agenda in the Legislature. They can do that by establishing a special committee or task force charged with examining current regulations in order to determine what changes would be best for consumers and communities.

Not this time, I'm afraid.

- Barry Orton

Comments

[Reality Check]

At least Wineke is being paid by a private company and advocating a policy that would lower costs for consumers, unlike Mr. Orton who is paid by the taxpayers to lobby for things that will take more money out of consumers' pockets.

I also don't buy the argument that Sen. Fitzgerald is taking opposite positions on anything. Just because he supports the bill Wineke is lobbying for doesn't mean that he can't find it unseemly that the Chairman of the Democratic Party would sign on to lobby on the bill the same week Senate Democrats started playing politics with it.

But I suppose facts don't matter as long as Mr. Orton can keep using this issue to hype the consulting business he runs out of his taxpayer-funded UW office using his taxpayer-funded UW website.

[Barry Orton]

Only one problem with your accusation, Mr. "Reality Check." The money from the consulting I do in my UW office goes to the UW.

And if you honestly believe that this bill will significantly lower costs for consumers, I've a bridge over Lake Mendota to sell you.

[John Foust]

Mr. R.C., if we prohibited building permits, surely the construction industry would benefit and it might save consumers some money. Under this bill, a video provider coming to town would need to do less at City Hall than you'd need to do if you were building a porch.

Mr. R.C., where exactly were the obstacles to competition in the past? Negotiating a franchise agreement was too onerous for AT&T, so our best approach is to eliminate what's essentially a building permit and statement of terms for them to use the public's right-of-way to run their business?

[Steve Vokers]

Barry, are you saying that Paul was sucessful in politics because he was able to argue two sides of an issue simultaneously? ;-)