Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Fresh Problems At Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

Life at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) is beginning to resemble the George Steinbrenner New York Yankees.

Fresh from another win last spring, when they purchased Max Gableman's seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, WMC's life, both on and off the field, is filled with uncertainty, recrimination and bitterness.

The problem is simple. Successive victories in Supreme Court races does not translate into control of the other branches of government. In 2006 WMC choose to go after Governor Jim Doyle. While they managed to elect the Attorney General, WMC failed to dislodge the incumbent Governor and simultaneously lost the State Senate to the Democrats.

With the November elections less then three months away, WMC must retain a majority in the Wisconsin Assembly, a daunting task, and attempt to win back control of the Senate, an almost impossible challenge.

To make matters worse, the most potent WMC weapon, massive vicious attack ads on television, which work in state-wide elections, rarely work in legislative races because of the large number of small legislative districts within each large TV market.

Faced with this difficult challenge, WMC is carving out radio markets in an attempt to surgically protect about a dozen Republican Assembly seats. Because it is radio, not TV, these ads will have to be more vicious, even by WMC standards. Some blanket TV ads will also be used, but they run the risk of producing more of a backlash than Republican voters in an election that will be dominated by the presidential election.

The problem is more than a strategic one as to how to purchase the media and run the attack ads.

It is complicated by the fact that Democratic legislators, the victim of the contemplated  media blitz, unlike Supreme Court justices, can mount an offensive and if they win, and subsequently orchestrate a payback. Add to all of this the higher than normal  dissension  in the WMC ranks, and life on E. Washington resembles the Steinbrenner-Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson clubhouse.

Someone may take a hike before this is all over.

Law and Order American Style: Fascist Home Wreckers

Last week's story from Prince George's County, Maryland was not unusual or rare except that the facts in this instance are so clear and unconverted. A police dog found a package at a shipping facility that contained thirty pounds of marijuana. They followed the delivery to the nice middle class home and then conducted a raid.

There was a problem. They knew nothing about the intended recipients of the package. Police raid Md. mayor's home and kill his dogs

Mayor Cheye Calvo got home from work, saw a package addressed to his wife on the front porch and brought it inside, putting it on a table. Suddenly, police with guns drawn kicked in the door and stormed in, shooting to death the couple's two dogs and seizing the unopened package...

...Police say the couple appeared to be innocent victims of a scheme by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.

Before this chaotic event was resolved, the two family dogs were shot,

Calvo insisted the couple's two black Labradors were gentle creatures and said police apparently killed them "for sport," gunning down one of them as it was running away.

and Calvo's mother in law was treated like the victim of a Fascist state:

But officials insisted they acted within the law, saying the operation was compromised when Calvo's mother-in-law saw officers approaching the house and screamed...

...when she was handcuffed and interrogated for several hours.

Nothing surprising here. Nor should you be stunned or shocked by the response of the police department:

Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High.. defended the way the raid was conducted. He and other officials did not apologize for killing the dogs, saying the officers felt threatened...But officials insisted they acted within the law, saying the operation was compromised when Calvo's mother-in-law saw officers approaching the house and screamed.

Years ago I had a discussion with Madison police officers on city policy regarding searches and intrusions without a warrant. One officer defended departmental policy saying, "Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions allow us to do it, it is within the law."

He was right, but I responded, "Just because the Supreme Court has lowered the bar, compromised rights to protect citizens from abusive process of law, does not require us to lower our Constitutional standards."

This is the result of the cynical appointments to the United States Supreme Court by Reagan, Bush, and Bush.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings are no different with the court now owned by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) The election of Anette Ziegler and Max Gableman ensured a right-wing majority that will do all within its power to limit citizens' protections against illegal search and seizures and unwarranted brutal force.

Years ago I created a Public Safety Review Committee for the city of Madison.  This is exactly the kind of subject they should examine. It would be wise for them to call in police officials and go over the Madison standards in these kind of situations. Nowhere is it written that we have to live by the lowest common denominator whether it is set by Clarence Thomas or Max Gableman.

These folks were white and middle class, and the mayor. Imagine being black and not so middle class, and not the mayor.

Two Views on The Integrity of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Sunday the Wisconsin State Journal, troubled by the large amounts of cash Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) spent to elect two justices and reflecting on the recent state Supreme Court decision in the Menasha tax case, observed, Restore public's trust in court:

This month the state Supreme Court decided a tax case that will result in refunds to Wisconsin businesses of up to nearly $300 million at the state 's expense...

...The problem was not the decision itself, which considered vexing legal questions regarding which kinds of software are exempt from sales tax...

...WMC 's influence in Ziegler 's election and Butler 's defeat and the potential for that influence to affect their decisions prompted Common Cause, a watchdog organization, to argue that both justices should have recused themselves from the case.

Clearly, the seeds of mistrust have been planted...

I am not ready to embrace appointed justices, but I share in the conclusion that pubic trust is shaken.

I observed in a post two weeks ago, without commenting about the substance of the decision, Best Joke of the Week. From WMC, of course.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state's largest business lobby, spent an estimated $2.2 million on behalf of Ziegler in her successful race for the Supreme Court last year.

In response  to this, conservative resident Wisconsin legal expert and ethicist Rick Esenberg wrote, Who's "swiftboating" the state Supreme Court?

My good friends at One Wisconsin Now weigh in and Paul Soglin does too. But here's the thing: None of them criticize the Court's reasoning...

...Nevertheless, questioning the integrity - as opposed to the the merits of the matter - of the Court is unwarranted.

Rick is correct, I did not get involved in the reasoning of the court. That is where his correctness begins and ends. The real issue is the the way the WMC activity in the Zielger campaign, unheard of in the entire history of Supreme Court elections, raised serious questions about her ability to independently rule in the matter.

The Wisconsin State Journal gets it, most of Wisconsin gets it, but the judicial ethicist does not.

Best Wisconsin Joke of the Week. From WMC, of course.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled today that software purchased by the Menasha Company was 'customized' and therefore not subject to Wisconsin sales tax. Wis. Supreme Court decision blows hole in budget.

Highlights from the story by Associated Press include:

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court may have blown a $265 million hole into the state budget on Friday.

• The divided court ruled that the state improperly was collecting sales tax on customized computer software sales.

• The ruling, written by the court's newest member Justice Annette Ziegler, takes the side of the state's business community.

• Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state's largest business lobby, spent an estimated $2.2 million on behalf of Ziegler in her successful race for the Supreme Court last year.

• The group also filed a brief in support of Menasha in the case.

• Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson, writing for the three dissenting justices, said the ruling was clearly wrong. "Wisconsin taxpayers will pick up the tab by those who have escaped taxation as a result of the majority opinion," Abrahamson wrote.

No matter how you feel about the ruling, righteous or not, this ought to bring a chuckle:

• "This is a major victory for taxpayers," said Jeff Schoepke, director of tax and corporate policy for WMC.

 

What Happened Between Cullen and Epic on WMC: An Educated Guess

This is my read of the situation.

Before April, 2008, David Cullen, J.P. Cullen CEO, like most WMC board members, was a marginal participant in Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC). He was pleased that WMC was committed to working for Wisconsin business. By serving on the WMC board he was helping his state and his community.

He was busy running his own company and was not a leader in WMC which meant that he 'went along' on most issues. However, he did not like, as a matter of personal conviction, the tone or tenor of the ads WMC ran against Clifford, Butler, etc.  He also questioned the wisdom of the actions - what if a candidate WMC slammed was to win elected office?

After the Louis Butler defeat, I speculate the Judy Faulkner called him and discussed the matter.

I have absolutely no knowledge about what transpired. I come to the following conclusions based on my knowledge of Judy and my one meeting with David Cullen.

Judy was disgusted with the WMC ads and decided not to sit still. She told Cullen her feelings. My guess is that she never threatened him. It is not her style. 

In fact, she does even tell people how to solve a problem. Her technique, reflected by her management style, is to have someone work through a problem on their own; the most she will do is help the person make sure that they have done a thorough analysis. Her style is to question, not to 'boss.'

My guess is that Dave Cullen, already wishing his business was not associated with the WMC attack ads, said to himself, "I am not comfortable with my role in WMC, I do not spend a lot of time on its agenda, I have too much to do here at Cullen. I do not want people to hold me responsible for these attacks which I did not author and which I do not approve.  The best thing is to leave the group and move on. My WMC membership is not helping WMC or my company. How do I manage that so I do not hurt Cullen, Epic or WMC?"

The result was Cullen's resignation from WMC and followed by Rick Esenberg's conclusion as to why Cullen left. Rick looked at the multitude of explanations and motivation about the Cullen resignation from WMC and concluded, in an incredibly flawed analysis, that they were mutually exclusive.

He never imagined, what I suspect is the truth. Cullen while exiting WMC do so motivated by a distaste for the issue ad campaign but also, did not want to hurt WMC since he believed in the core mission: to help Wisconsin business.

Cullen found a position that met all of his needs: It disassociated his business from the WMC issue ads, he did his best not to hurt WMC, and he looked out for the best interest of his company.

Cullen is probably busy running his company and using whatever free time he has, doing something constructive for Wisconsin.

The Nader Supreme Court - Right Wing as It Gets

It is clear that the Nader Supreme Court with the addition of the two most recent appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will viciously reshape American law until the time comes when one of the five conservative justices is replaced.

The decisions by the Supreme Court involving the  Washington D. C. hand gun regulations and the Millionaire Amendment dealing with political contributions clearly establishes that we now have a court driven by the right wing agenda.

Unlike the appointees of other Republican Presidents, these recent appointments made possible by the Nader effect, which gave George W. Bush the White House in 2000, are sorely lacking as legal scholars and will set aside legal precedents in their effort to rewrite the laws of the United Sates. 

Keep in mind that President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Brennan, President Ford  appointed John Paul Stevens, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner, and even the first President Bush appointed David Hackett Souter.

Once again conservative justices poke holes in the nonsensical right wing contention that, by definition, liberal judges and justices are 'activists.' Alito and his comrades continue to strike down laws from the bench, replacing their judgment for that of the legislative body. Exactly what conservatives contend that liberal justices do when they believe when legislative bodies over step constitutional boundaries.

The difference then is not in 'activism' but in ideological rigidity by these right wing fanatics that mocks the Constitution, weakens our government, and carries the intellectual and scholarly weight of a carp.

Johnsonville Sausage Reheats Hot Topic

Yesterday's post regarding Johnsonville Sausage selling its brats at Madison's Memorial Day weekend Brat Fest did not sit well with some readers. And the complaints were not from vegetarians.

It appears that many have a nasty taste in their mouths leftover from the last election.

For those with a short memory, one of the most incredible hit jobs in recent history on an honorable and fair man, Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, was approved, in part, by Johnsonville Sausage, LLC of Sheboygan Falls.

Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce  (WMC) paid the bill, perhaps as much as $2 million dollars for a series of radio and television ads that besmirched Butler. When you got done listening to the trash put out by WMC and its comrades one had the impression that Butler, while a justice, was spending most of his time freeing rapists.

WMC is run by a board of directors who authorize the content and publication of its issues ads. Johnsonville Sausage, CEO William R. Morgan, sits on the board of directors.

This is the same organization that trashed Governor Jim Doyle in 2006, Kathleen Falk when she ran for Attorney General in November 0f 2006, and Linda Clifford in April, 2007. The ads against Clifford gave the impression that she was personally carrying illegal aliens across the Rio Grande on her back.

WMC ads were nasty, cruel, and also tragically misleading. They make no apologies for what they do.

Next spring they plan to go after Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the "Queen Bee" as they call her. Meantime, we as consumers, buy the products of WMC members who use the profits to buy savage, false, ads that avoid the laws regarding political finance reporting.

(If anyone has knowledge about rumors that WMC met with Michael Gableman directly or though intermediates and made a commitment to raise a minimum amount of money to trash Louis Butler, please contact me.)

U.S. Supreme Court Engages in Activism: Ask Scalia

One of the phoniest, opportunistic ploys in recent years is the conservative assault on an independent judiciary calling for "judicial restraint" and attacking liberal or progressive justices as "judicial activists."

Rick Esenberg of the Federalist Society, takes this up in a paper used by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce in the last judicial race, A Court Unbound? The Recent Jurisprudence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Judges who seek to exercise restraint will tend to adopt techniques of construction that confine, rather than expand, their discretion...Judges practicing restraint will exhibit a sensitivity for the role of other branches of government....

Someone better get Esenberg's paper into the hands of the justices serving on the United States Supreme Court, starting with Anthony Scalia who Esenberg fondly quotes: "[a] text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. are having a difficult time following their own admonitions when it comes time to the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.

The issue is simple enough. Under the law individuals can contribute a maximum of $2,300 to a campaign. The candidate can spend as much as they like. If a wealthy candidate contributes over $350,000 of her own money, then the individual contributors of the opponent can go as high as $6,900.

Simple enough.

Now enter the reactionary justices on the Supreme Court. Hearing a case challenging the act, these conservative justices are wallowing in judicial activism.

Justices Assail 'Millionaires' Amendment'

"The campaign finance regimes we've approved up to now, the significant limitations, have had an anti-corruption rationale," Scalia said. "The only purpose of this is to level the playing field. And I am deeply suspicious of allowing elections to be conducted under a regime whereby Congress levels the playing field. That seems to be very dangerous."

and

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he found it "a particular vice" of the amendment that it allows the opponent of a self-financing candidate to have greater ties and to receive more money from his political party. "It puts this statute in the position of preferring one kind of speech over another. And we simply do not do that," Kennedy said.

Obviously these justices are substituting their own judgment for that of the legislative body, the United States Congress.

I am waiting for the critics of Louis Butler and Shirley Abrahamson to assail Scalia and Roberts for this exercise in judicial activism.

You can hear the crickets chirping.

The Real Reasons to Buy A Supreme Court

When Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) and its cohorts, the Club for Growth Wisconsin and the Coalition for America's Families, spent an estimated $3-4 million to buy their second seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the message was crime.

The advertisements focused on distortions and falsehoods about the record of Justice Louis Butler in an effort to entice voters to select a new justice, Michael Gableman, who would follow their right-wing agenda.

The conventional wisdom was that the real issue was so-called tort reform.

Wrong.

While there are a small minority of WMC members, concerned about their liability in tort cases, that issue was of minimum concern to the coalition established to control the Supreme Court.

One need go no further than WMC's own surveys of its members to see the irrelevance of tort reform. In its 2006 survey of its members, when asked, "What is the top business concern facing your company?" the  lowest response polled was lawsuit abuse with a measly response of 1.23%.

One look no further than the legislative agenda of these three organization (WMC, WCFG, CAF ) to get a real understanding of why they want to own a Supreme Court:

• Health Insurance. Health care is the single, most significant cost facing employers, if it is part of benefit packages. The standard for coverage is set by labor unions, particularly public employee and teachers unions. When buying a court, WMC and its friends are trying to gain favorable rulings against labor agreements in general, and and legislation in specific, that might require them to pay a fair share of the cost of health care.
• Unions. Because of their bargaining power in the marketplace, WMC needs a court that will weaken the power of unions. Unions are an impediment to exporting jobs overseas, hiring immigrant workers with H-1-B visas, outsourcing, and lowering safety standards.
• The Environment. As the public becomes more conscious of global warming, the significant monetary value of fresh water, calls for clean air and water, increase. This results in more regulations, particularly on manufacturers, who subsequently need a Supreme Court that will take an activist position and overturn progressive legislation designed to ensure the publics health and safety.
• Education. Long ago, convinced that public schools produce a liberal and progressive citizenry, these reactionary organizations want to get more and more children into private and religious schools where they can be indoctrinated into conservative values. To do this, public monies are needed. The problem is that there are serious constitutional problems in funneling money into private schools, particularly if they teach religion. These right wing extremists need a Supreme Court that will open the door for public money to be used for private education.
• Privatizing government. These right wing organizations do not want to stop public services, they just want to be able to make a profit offering them. Whether it is outsourcing wars to Blackwater and Halliburton or having private companies provide fire departments and water, the idea is to crush the local governments and their public employees as a first step towards a feudal system of governance. Note that when no-bid contracts, landed with fraud and mismanagement, are offered to the private sector, these organizations never protest or complain.

Over the past year, I have met with dozens of business leaders who I would describe as moderate and thoughtful in their approach to government and public policy. When asked what are the most important issues facing their companies and the state, they respond, "A trained and educated workforce, as well as a satisfactory resolution to the health care problem."

As you might expect, these business leaders are not comfortable with many left leaning Democrats.  But they are just as uncomfortable with the kind of Republicans that presently control the Wisconsin Assembly. These business leaders are going to play a critical role in solving Wisconsin's problems if they can wrest control of the public policy discussion from WMC and its collaborators, and then fashion solutions with organized labor.

Take Your Gun To Work -What Would Gableman Say?

The dilemma is rather simple, and yet places a number of values in conflict.

Before 'conceal and carry' was enacted, the problem did not exist. After all, you did not have employees urged on by the  National rifle Association claiming that the Second Amendment meant you can put your weapon in your car or truck, drive to work, and park the vehicle in the employer's parking lot.

After conceal and carry was passed in Florida, employers, standing on their property rights, insisted that weapons be left at the plant gates. Employees were not to bring weapons on to the property, in or out of their vehicles.

With the employers remaining steadfast, Florida legislators enacted a law that allows individuals to drive on to private property with their weapons. Private property owners could not control their own property. Passed by the Florida legislature, the bill awaits the signature of the governor.

Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

...the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property...

...Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property...

...Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited

So what does a righteous unbound Supreme Court justice do if it becomes law?

On the face of it, they must allow it to stand; after all, they are not in the business of legislating from the bench. But then again, we have the rights of property owners. Wal-Mart is going to claim they have the right to control their property and the government has no need to enact such a socialistic statute that allows the state to interfere with the enjoyment of their property.