There has been some self-congratulating going on in Madison this week over the Impartial Justice Bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Jim Doyle. To be sure, the law that creates a "democracy trust fund" for state Supreme Court candidates is a positive step away from the very negative situation that exists today in campaigns for the court. Unfortunately, the "Impartial" bill only provides partial relief.
The scourge of big money and special interests in recent Supreme Court races is well documented, and cause for reform. More than $5.8 million was spent in the 2007 election of Justice Annette Ziegler - more than four times the amount spent in any previous high court campaign. The following year, another $6 million-plus was spent in Justice Michael Gableman's victory over former Justice Louis Butler. There was far less spent earlier this year in Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's re-election, though Abrahamson still spent more than $1.3 million in an easy victory over a poorly-funded opponent. In the first two of the three recent elections, the candidates were far outspent by special interest groups.
The escalation of big money in Supreme Court elections is disconcerting. It's important for Wisconsin residents to know their justices don't belong to anyone - special interest groups, large contributors, no one. Public financing would help solve that problem.
And that's what the Impartial Justice Bill attempts to accomplish. The law increases the amount of public taxpayer dollars that will be available to Supreme Court candidates. Justice candidates who raise between $5,000 and $15,000 from at least 1,000 different sources can receive $100,000 for the spring primary and $300,000 for the spring election.
There are three problems with this plan. First, the law does not require Supreme Court justice candidates to take public financing and commit to a campaign spending limit. It only allows candidates to do so.
Secondly, the public financing that's available to candidates isn't nearly enough to allow them to compete against candidates who are free to raise and spend what they wish. That's what's happened to the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund that was established in 1977.
An article in the conservative publication, "Wisconsin Interest," entitled "Anatomy of a Failed Idea," makes the point that public financing may actually have made political campaigns worse. "Virtually the only people who use the fund are either Assembly-seat challengers who have no chance of winning or incumbents in safe seats," the article asserts. In other words, the public tax dollars spent by those campaigns essentially are wasted.
It's understandable why. Assembly candidates participating in public financing can receive no more than $7,760 and spend only $17,250. In any contested race, that's a pittance. The limits are equally restrictive to Senate and gubernatorial hopefuls. Candidates won't opt for public financing if it guarantees defeat.
Finally, the law does nothing to stop unregulated commercials from third-party groups that attack a candidate but don't expressly advocate for his or her opponent. These so-called issue ads also harm the integrity of Supreme Court candidates and the position they seek.
So, those patting themselves on the back for the Impartial Justice Bill should instead be rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty in real work toward cleaning up Supreme Court campaigns. Mandatory public financing and the ban of issue ads would do the trick.
The scourge of big money and special interests in recent Supreme Court races is well documented, and cause for reform. More than $5.8 million was spent in the 2007 election of Justice Annette Ziegler - more than four times the amount spent in any previous high court campaign. The following year, another $6 million-plus was spent in Justice Michael Gableman's victory over former Justice Louis Butler. There was far less spent earlier this year in Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's re-election, though Abrahamson still spent more than $1.3 million in an easy victory over a poorly-funded opponent. In the first two of the three recent elections, the candidates were far outspent by special interest groups.
The escalation of big money in Supreme Court elections is disconcerting. It's important for Wisconsin residents to know their justices don't belong to anyone - special interest groups, large contributors, no one. Public financing would help solve that problem.
And that's what the Impartial Justice Bill attempts to accomplish. The law increases the amount of public taxpayer dollars that will be available to Supreme Court candidates. Justice candidates who raise between $5,000 and $15,000 from at least 1,000 different sources can receive $100,000 for the spring primary and $300,000 for the spring election.
There are three problems with this plan. First, the law does not require Supreme Court justice candidates to take public financing and commit to a campaign spending limit. It only allows candidates to do so.
Secondly, the public financing that's available to candidates isn't nearly enough to allow them to compete against candidates who are free to raise and spend what they wish. That's what's happened to the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund that was established in 1977.
An article in the conservative publication, "Wisconsin Interest," entitled "Anatomy of a Failed Idea," makes the point that public financing may actually have made political campaigns worse. "Virtually the only people who use the fund are either Assembly-seat challengers who have no chance of winning or incumbents in safe seats," the article asserts. In other words, the public tax dollars spent by those campaigns essentially are wasted.
It's understandable why. Assembly candidates participating in public financing can receive no more than $7,760 and spend only $17,250. In any contested race, that's a pittance. The limits are equally restrictive to Senate and gubernatorial hopefuls. Candidates won't opt for public financing if it guarantees defeat.
Finally, the law does nothing to stop unregulated commercials from third-party groups that attack a candidate but don't expressly advocate for his or her opponent. These so-called issue ads also harm the integrity of Supreme Court candidates and the position they seek.
So, those patting themselves on the back for the Impartial Justice Bill should instead be rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty in real work toward cleaning up Supreme Court campaigns. Mandatory public financing and the ban of issue ads would do the trick.
