Randy Koschnick Campaign Goes After Annette Ziegler

Just when the commentators credited Randy Koschnick as superior when compared to his two right wing predecessor candidates, Annette Ziegler in 2007, and Michael Gableman in 2008, the Jefferson County Circuit Judge smacked the entire state with a dose of reality.

It turns out that while Koschnick may be brighter, more articulate, and more honest about his conservatism than Ziegler and Gableman, he is just as capable of selective standards, not an admirable quality in a jurist.

As I watched his latest television advertisement, I paused to reflect about the nature of its offense. The content is not significantly different than the TV spots purchased on behalf of the Ziegler and Gableman campaigns:

• Abrahamson is a liberal
• She is an activist judge
• She takes campaign contributions from attorneys who appear before the Supreme Court
• She 'votes' to release sexual predators.

What is so curious about the Koschnick campaign effort is his torpedoing his conservative friends on the Supreme Court.

Annette Ziegler is the poster child for taking contributions from individuals with business before the Supreme Court. She took $42,296 from lawyers and lobbyists. 

When you exclude her own money, the combination of funds she received from the financial service sector (banking, insurance, securities industry) and litigators represented over 20% of her campaign finances.

None of that include the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that was funded through Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce (WMC) on her behalf.

One has to wonder if Koschnick would like to join the millions of his fellow Wisconsinites in calling upon Ziegler to step down because of her tainted campaign contributions.

Comments

[froggyprager]

I just hope that people vote on Tuesday! This is just ilke the John Grishom book The Appeal, these folks push these ads which lie and no one calls them on it and people believe it.

[louis]

randy koschnick was the first person to educate the public to Shirley's record of decisions (while in minority--thank GOD--and briefly in majority.)
all you needed to do was read those decisions and you'd see she was not the person we believed her to be. she let us down and her 'legacy' is changed from good person to...fill in your own word here.
as to mr. soglin, he needs to heed the words of edward r. morrow who wrote: 'just because we have a microphone (or for some, a typewriter) in front of us it doesn't mean we have any more knowledge than when we sat at the end of the bar."