Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Another Biased Poll - This Time from Scott Walker - He Cannot be Trusted

The political handlers for wasteful Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker announced the details of a poll they bought this past week. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the poll, not surprisingly, shows that the badly flawed Walker defeats all Democratic candidates, Poll shows Walker, Barrett are leading gubernatorial candidates in their parties  :

The poll was done this week for Walker's campaign by the Tarrance Group, a national polling firm for Republican candidates. The firm interviewed 800 likely primary election voters Tuesday and Wednesday. The results had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. (emphasis added)

For a poll to be meaningful, it must not only survey likely voters, but it must also have the proper demographics reflective of the voters who turn out on election day.

A poll of Waukesha County would produce different results from a poll of Milwaukee or Dane County. A poll that was of 98% white voters and excluded college students or Hispanics or Blacks, is of little value except to promote the candidacy of the beneficiary of such deceptive practices.

When it does come to time to cast real ballots the voters should not forget this deception from Scott Walker.

Given the reported outcomes of the various races, it is likely that the poll is heavily biased towards suburban Milwaukee County and surrounding collar counties.

 

Report: Doyle Not To Run? Trotting Out the Same Old Talking Points

The reports are only a few hours old, from politico.com - Gov. Jim Doyle won't seek re-election , and the Wisconsin State Journal says, Update: Report says Doyle won't seek a third term; Monday announcement expected . The pundits are already crafting the talking points:

Gov. Jim Doyle, the first Democrat in a generation to be re-elected to the state’s highest office, will not seek a third term... Republican Party of Wisconsin Chairman Reince Priebus...“Whether or not Governor Doyle runs again, Republicans will be well-positioned to take back the governor's office next year and get to work making Wisconsin great again,”...

Whether Governor Doyle runs for re-election or any of the numerous candidates offered up as possible Democratic or Republican contenders, they will all face the same challenge - convincing Wisconsin voters that they represent the best interests of the state.

We can expect to hear that Wisconsin:

• needs the smallest government possible with lower business taxes and less regulation

• needs the leadership of a fiscal conservative with compassion

• needs someone who is tough on crime and tougher on big spenders

• needs investment in education and creating jobs to strengthen our economy

• needs to look out for the working people of the state

• needs a governor who can right the state's economy

• needs a leader who can take the Packers to the Super Bowl.

I doubt that any of that is going to resonate beyond a small base that each candidate brings to the campaign.

Wisconsin, like the other forty-nine states, was the victim of a recession brought on by the war in Iraq, fueled by the greed generated when the financial services industry was deregulated by the Gingrich Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, and by bi-partisan trade polices that destroyed America's economic base.

The problems were complicated by Wisconsin leaders failing to create a plentiful 'rainy-day fund' back in the prosperous 1990's

The next Governor, Jim Doyle, or any of the other contenders, should not occupy that office unless they have a plan based in reality that is presented frankly and honestly, and is a good faith commitment to invest in our future.

 

The Point of Caperton v Massy

Last week I made the point that the importance of the Caperton v Massy decision may be its indirect consequences.  To make the case meaningful, there must be disclosure as to who contributes to issue committees in judicial races. I wrote  The Real Problem Caperton v. Massey poses to WMC and the Right Wing Fronts. "...For the U.S. Supreme Court decision to have any meaning, there must be disclosure as to the source of the funds. WMC, All Children Matter, Americans for Prosperity, all will have to reveal the funders..."

Legal scholar, legal commentator, and law school professor (I am none of them) Rick Esenberg makes two critical suggestions in his recent post, What Caperton ought not to mean.

Esenberg argues that the facts are so unusual that this kind of occurrence is not likely to happen again. After all Massy poured millions into the West Virginia race dwarfing other contributions. No doubt the standards will vary.  A contribution of $25,000 will gain little notoriety in a $3 million race but it might be significant in a $100,000 campaign.

Esenberg also notes that "...In fact, one might just as well argue that there is no due process problem as long as the donors are anonymous. The judge has no idea where the money came from and, therefore, does not know who she is "indebted" to..." 

That, of course, is an enormous leap of faith. There are always efforts to build a firewall between the judicial candidate and the issue committee so they do not run afoul of the law. I am not about to accept the fact that the judicial candidate does not get information about who is raising money for the issue committee. The rest of us do not know, but I am not about to accept a denial from Ziegler or Gableman that they had no knowledge or suspicion as to where the millions of WMC Issue Committee funds were raised.

Raise and spend the money - but disclose.

Who Pays For WMC Watch

Someone with the initial 'B' wrote a comment to the post, The Real Problem Caperton v. Massey poses to WMC and the Right Wing Fronts:

I'd like to know an itemized list of where the money for WMC Watch is coming from. If you demand accountability from others, you have to have the integrity and honesty to list your donors as well. Pot calling the kettle black?

These guys just do not get it. But let us try one more time.

WMC and the other fronts like All Children Matter raise millions of dollars to be put into elections. The money goes to buy media -TV, radio and mailers. The money is spent to elect candidates by purchasing advertising in an election.

All the money Soglin Consulting LLC. and WMC Watch receives that is used to elect a candidate is revealed. The amount is zero. Nada. Zilch. Zip.

Soglin Consulting LLC does have income for doing research and monitoring WMC and the other right wing groups. That income is not spent on electioneering. None of that money is spent on electioneering.

A majority of Americans believe that the sources of money used to finance campaigns should be disclosed. No one is telling WMC it cannot participate in the electoral process within the law.

The only issue for WMC and the others, like Americans for Prosperity, is disclosure.

Reflections on the Election

Shirley Abrahamson's re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was rewarding:

• She proved that you do not have to run from your core beliefs to win a state wide election to the court. Neither Louis Butler or Linda Clifford ran from their core beliefs but they both lost.
• Among the WMC, All Children Matter crowd, those who called for a full all-out negative television campaign against Abrahamson and successful Superintendent of Pubic Instruction candidate, Tony Evers, were vindicated. Clearly the anonymous bundled millions of dollars that were used by the issue committees in the fall 2008 and the previous two Supreme Court races in 2007 and 2008 was effective. The absence of these funds in this election was obvious. Expect WMC and its surrogates to come to the next gunfight well armed.
• Look for Randy Koschnick to return for another Supreme Court race. WMC and the Americans for Prosperity left him out on a limb, having encouraged him to run, promising money, and then sitting out the election. They will repay him if Dave Prosser does not seek reelection in 2011 with a full press, state wide effort.
• Shirley Abrahamson  proved that a non-partisan progressive candidate can put together a solid functioning campaign. Credit goes to  Heather Colburn, Rick Phelps, and the rest of the crew that managed and strategized the victory.

I was quite pleased that Bridget Maniaci won the Madison second aldermanic district race over incumbent Brenda Konkel. I was surprised, upon hearing the results, that I felt sad for Brenda in her defeat.

Other thoughts:

• Kathleen Falk, re-elected as Dane County Executive, proved she is mortal. While no longer the Teflon candidate, now measured by normal standards, her victory over Nancy Mistle was convincing and impressive.
• Biggest winner in Madison who was not running: Mayor Dave Cieslewicz. He got victories in the two most critical city council races where he made endorsements.
• Losers who deserve better and we hope to hear more from them: Hamilton Arendsen who lost in Madison's fifth aldermanic district to Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, and Stephen Ehlke, who was defeated by Julie Genovese for Circuit Court Judge, Branch 13. Congratulations to both of the victors.
• Sly, the morning maverick at WTDY AM, 1670, reminded us that in a discussion with Charlie Sykes he suggested that maybe right-wing Milwaukee radio, not Madison, is the 70 square miles surrounded by reality. He may have something there.

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.

Wisconsin State Journal Is Wrong About the Supreme Court Election

For the second consecutive year, the Wisconsin State Journal refuses to make an endorsement in a spring Supreme Court race. Last year they refused to join fifteen of Wisconsin's major daily newspapers in endorsing Louis Butler as a Supreme Court justice.

Last week the newspaper refused to join the responsible newspapers who are endorsing the re-election of distinguished jurist Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

For Supreme Court: merit reform

In the April 7 election for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, the State Journal editorial board endorses no candidate.

Instead, the State Journal endorses a better method of choosing state Supreme Court justices -- merit selection.

The reason is simple. Madison's morning newspaper does not like the role of untraceable funds going into the judicial campaigns through 'issue committees.' I do not like that either.

The paper does not like any campaign money affecting judicial races. Neither do I. However, in balancing the value of voter participation in Supreme Court elections, I part with the newspaper and see no reason to rush to an appointive process.

There are a number of ways to improve the selection of justices. Perhaps pending legislation that would require disclosure of issue committee money is one solution. Other options include public financing of judicial campaigns as well as the appointment process.

To refuse to participate in the election or to endorse a candidate because one's preferred solution is not in play is not responsible. The Wisconsin State Journal made its point, but has failed its readers. 

Nowhere is it written that the Wisconsin State Journal cannot endorse and call for reform.

Tammy Baldwin: No Bailout Money For Political Campaigns

In a letter to Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Madison's U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (Dem -2nd) wrote, "Taxpayers must be assure that their money is being used to improve operations and performance...not being used to further the same policies that led to the current economic crisis."

Beginning in 2001 AIG sent several million dollars to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for lobbying purposes. Over the years the distributions amounted to tens of millions of dollars. This money was not used to hire staff to wander the halls of Congress.

Last fall the U.S. Chamber spent $2 million to support the efforts of Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota to survive the challenge from Democrat Al Franken.

As Baldwin notes in her letter:

• Only three days after receiving $25 billion in bailout funds, Bank of America sponsored an event to raise funds for candidates opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act.
• Principal Financial Group, which has applied for $2 billion in bailout funds, lobbied against Employee Free Choice throughout 2007 and 2008.

Baldwin is right when she says we must be careful not to inhibit free speech and we must  protect First Amendment rights for individuals and private companies. She is also on solid ground when she notes that just as any other recipient of government funds cannot use the money for political purposes, these bailout institutions must accept the same standard.

No one is forcing these companies to accept the bailout funds. They do not have to take the money for their corporate jets, Caribbean cruises and retention bonuses for already departed employees. If they want the money, they have to play by the rules.

 

 

 

AIG: A Fresh Perspective - Maybe There is a Role for You

Last night Sara and I were watching the evening news and taking in the reports about the anger emanating from Washington D.C. over the bonuses paid to AIG executives. The $165 million in bonuses, some of which are over $1 million and designed to 'retain' executives who already left the company.

Raising three girls, two still in college and one a recent graduate and a struggling actress, coupled with my self-employment has meant things have not always been flush around here the past year.

Sara, fork in hand, gestured at me, "Why don't you go work for AIG?"

More Great Ideas for Eliminating the Right To Vote

Racine mayoral candidate Jody Harding wrote last year, complaining that people who do not pay taxes should not have the right to vote Henny Penny and the Right to Vote

The large (and growing) segment of our society that is living off government handouts is voting to decide how that government is run.  They are voting to decide how tax dollars - dollars to which they do not contribute - are spent...

... I believe that any individual who is receiving a government subsidy should lose his/her right to vote for as long as s/he receives that subsidy.

Not much doubt about this one. We can return to 1790's when only white male property owners would have the right to vote.

But imagine all of the glorious groups of Americans that will be disenfranchised:

• All of the executives and of the banks and insurance companies that were part of the first $800 million bailout will lose the right to vote.
• They will be joined by all of the automobile manufacturers and capitalists who benefited form the second bailout.
• Anyone who has unpaid parking tickets, since that debt to the government is really a free loan so long as it is unpaid.
• Of course, any property owner who owes real estate taxes loses the right to vote along with those who fail to pay their income taxes - another form of government subsidization.
• Recipients  of tax incremental financing (TIF) along with any form of development tax break clearly qualifies as  a subsidy and would lead to disenfranchisement.
• I suppose Jody might argue about this next one, but anyone who gets a bloated, fat, government contract without a bidding process like Blackwater should also lose the right to vote.