Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Additional Thoughts on Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Act 10

Public investment in transportation systems, education, parks and sewers are essential for inclusive economic growth. As I stated, I have always believed, as noted by Justice Crooks in yesterday's opinions, "as thoughtful people from across the political spectrum and around the world have long recognized, collective bargaining benefits workers, employers and society itself."

The City intends to follow any labor agreements permissible under the law that were signed to be effective for 2015 and 2016.

There is no question that fair wages and benefits to workers are a key part of keeping our local and state economy moving forward. That continues to be my focus as Mayor.

 

Thoughts on Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling on Act 10

 

Tragically, Act 10's continuation will hold back economic progress for all of Madison and Wisconsin. We know that public investment in transportation systems, education, parks, and sewers are essential for inclusive economic growth. Before Act 10, with collective bargaining for public employees, Wisconsin had one of the lowest costs of operation for government in the United States. I fear that the false assumption underlying the enactment of this law will undermine our ability to hire and train the bright men and women who historically were, dollar for dollar, the most productive in the United States.

Where legal, City of Madison will continue to negotiate labor agreements in good faith with our workers. Where Act 10 violates this principle, we will develop constructive alternatives that recognize the dignity and rights of public employees. I have always believed, as noted by Justice Crooks, in today's opinions, "as thoughtful people from across the political spectrum and around the world have long recognized, collective bargaining benefits workers, employers and society itself."

City attorneys are reviewing today's decision in detail. In the meantime, the City of Madison will continue to work under the existing labor contracts until January 1, 2015 when the handbook and related ordinances will replace the contracts.

Perhaps more egregious than its ruling on collective bargaining is the Court's complete misreading of the Home Rule Amendment applicable to cities and villages throughout Wisconsin. The Court continues a pattern of reading the Home Rule Amendment out of the Constitution, a pattern that must be reversed.

There is no question however, that fair wages and benefits to workers are a key part of keeping our local and state economy moving forward. That continues to be my focus as Mayor.

Right Wing Radical Extremists Legislate from U.S. Supreme Court Bench

With the decision to throw out the legislated ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns, the fanatical right wing U.S. Court majority tore up the Constitution and legislated from the bench.

As any school child knows, the freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot shout "Fire" in a crowded theater intending to create a panic or disturbance. Two mobsters cannot discuss the execution of their boss and get away with it, even if they do not kill him.  And you cannot go up to a stranger in a convincing manner and threaten to punch out his lights.

Every protected freedom has to pass a balancing test.

For over a century, from state houses to the U.S. Congress, there were laws limiting contributions to political campaigns, particularly by corporations.

In this one instance the five justices rewrote over a hundred years of legislation and prior judicial decisions, and with judicial activism that would make the Warren Court blush, plunged our nation into political chaos.

If there is a sliver lining in this dreary cloud, it will be the right wing pundits rationalizing that this is not conservative activism as regarding a  decision that even moderate Republicans despair.

The decision drips with hypocrisy.

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.

Arlen Specter Always Uncomfortable, Never a Leader

The problem for Arlen Specter (PA) and the Democrats is that this man who knows better will probably be as uncomfortable as a Democrat as he was as a Republican.

Arlen Specter's  jump to the Democratic Party surprises no one. For the past half dozen years it was clear that Specter was uncomfortable with the Neocons and right-wing zealots in his party. The addition of one more vote in the Democratic column is all he brings, along with his desk and chair.

Over two years ago we posted Arlen Specter Makes a Deal: Sells Out The Constitution for Power. At the height of one of the Constitutional crises presented by the out of control Bush White House that had no recognition of civil liberties, Specter made a lot of noise about freedom and then collapsed:

Specter went into negotiations with the White House and his own party, knowing that his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee was at stake. He caved.

...It is hard to believe that the Arlen Specter of the nineteen-eighties—the maverick who defied his party on an issue of the magnitude of the Bork nomination—would have considered yielding on a question as fundamental as habeas corpus ...

He destroyed the foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence and took us back to the days of the Star Chamber Courts.

...Specter is hoping the courts will restore the rights of the detainees to bring habeas cases. “The bill was severable. It has a severability clause. And I think the courts will invalidate it,” he told me. “They’re not going to give up authority to decide habeas-corpus cases, not a chance.” Others are less sure.

When you look at Specter's record on all matters Constitutional in 2006, the man has no shame. He signaled all year that he was unprincipled and shallow.

Unlike most of the Republicans in power at the time, Specter knew better as to what was right and what was wrong. Like all of the Republicans, he failed to show any leadership.

Specter is as good as those who surround him. He is not a leader.

That is why he choose to be a Republican in the first place, that he why he failed to lead during the Bush Constitutional crisis, and that is why, faced with sure defeat as a Pennsylvania Republican, he switched parties.

What power he gathered was through seniority, not command.

His vote is welcome; his addition to the majority is welcome.

Never count on him to lead.

Pete Seeger - A report from a friend on his recent concert

I attneded my first Pete Seeger concert when I was around eight or nine. It was probably at Mandel Hall at the University of Chicago. I do not know how many of his concerts I attended over the years, perhaps a half a dozen. Some were fund raisers for the secular, South Side school of Jewish Studies (for several years we were located in a YMCA) which I attended.

Each one was fresh and and exciting.

When PBS broadcast the American Masters program last February, Pete Seeger, The Power of Song, I regretted that I had not seen him in concert in over thirty years.  I figured I would never get an opportunity to see him perform again.

Yesterday I got a message from friend Vicki Gabriner who was Miss Sifting and Winnowing at the 1967 Dow Demonstration. Vicki mentioned that she had seen Seeger, who will be ninety in May, in concert. 

I told her that when I saw him perform, on at least one occasion, he chopped a log as he sang a chain gang song.

I asked Vicki to share her thoughts:

No axes or chopping wood but there's still that essential Pete Seeger-ness, his optimism, good humor, good politics, smart lyrics, ability to pull the audience along with him even though his voice is nothing like it used to be. My favorite song was AMAZING GRACE, holding note after note for a long time, feeling the vibrations of the notes. And amazingly, he ended with BLUE SKIES (nothin' but Blue Skies do I see . . . ) and OVER THE RAINBOW.

I missed Woodstock, Dylan at Newport, great performances at Monterey, and I missed one more Pete seeger concert. Drats. And it would have been fun to see him with old friends. That is the way life should be.

Also from the New York Times: Pete Seeger, Still Singing His Message at 89

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.