On the campaign trail and during his freshman term, Rep. Steve Hilgenberg has been a champion for campaign finance reform in Wisconsin. One area of emphasis for the Dodgeville Democrat has been trying to eliminate campaign donations from special interests to state Supreme Court candidates.
Last week, the court gave Hilgenberg good reason to renew that attempt.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court last week blew a hole of about $265 million into the state budget with a 4-3 ruling that the state was improperly collecting a 5 percent sales tax on customized computer software sales. The money collected in taxes over the year will have to be returned.
The decision forces the Legislature to find more budget cuts a few weeks after making additional reductions.
One of the justices in the majority was Annette Ziegler, and Hilgenberg says her vote was a conflict of interest. The lawsuit was brought by Neenah-based Menasha Corp., and it was supported by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the state's largest lobbying group. The problem, Hilgenberg says, is that WMC was one of Ziegler's largest contributors in her successful 2007 campaign.
Whether the donation of about $2.5 million influenced Ziegler's decision can't be known unless the justice says that it did. Ziegler's not going to say that; if she did, she'd be removed from the court. Or maybe not, more on that in a second.
But donations like those from the WMC and other special interests create suspicion about a conflict, and thus can taint any decisions involving campaign contributors.
Which is exactly the reason that special interests should not be allowed to make campaign contributions in judicial elections.
Which is why the court's own decision earlier this year to give Ziegler a punitive slap on the wrist for an admitted conflict of interest was disappointing and will prove to be no deterrent to unethical activities by justices.
Hilgenberg's been proposing an Impartial Jury Bill that would set a cap on the amount of money judicial candidates can raise during campaigns and curb the donations of special interests.
"This case clearly shows that we have to confront the influence of big money in the elections and affairs of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices," Hilgenberg said in a news release. "The public's confidence in the court will continue to wane as long as special interest groups play such a large part in electing judges."
Hilgenberg is fighting a good fight on this issue, although it's an uphill battle in an environment where lawmakers are reluctant (to say the least) to take any steps that limit campaign contributions. They benefit from them, too.
But that obstacle isn't likely to deter Hilgenberg, nor should it.
Last week, the court gave Hilgenberg good reason to renew that attempt.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court last week blew a hole of about $265 million into the state budget with a 4-3 ruling that the state was improperly collecting a 5 percent sales tax on customized computer software sales. The money collected in taxes over the year will have to be returned.
The decision forces the Legislature to find more budget cuts a few weeks after making additional reductions.
One of the justices in the majority was Annette Ziegler, and Hilgenberg says her vote was a conflict of interest. The lawsuit was brought by Neenah-based Menasha Corp., and it was supported by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the state's largest lobbying group. The problem, Hilgenberg says, is that WMC was one of Ziegler's largest contributors in her successful 2007 campaign.
Whether the donation of about $2.5 million influenced Ziegler's decision can't be known unless the justice says that it did. Ziegler's not going to say that; if she did, she'd be removed from the court. Or maybe not, more on that in a second.
But donations like those from the WMC and other special interests create suspicion about a conflict, and thus can taint any decisions involving campaign contributors.
Which is exactly the reason that special interests should not be allowed to make campaign contributions in judicial elections.
Which is why the court's own decision earlier this year to give Ziegler a punitive slap on the wrist for an admitted conflict of interest was disappointing and will prove to be no deterrent to unethical activities by justices.
Hilgenberg's been proposing an Impartial Jury Bill that would set a cap on the amount of money judicial candidates can raise during campaigns and curb the donations of special interests.
"This case clearly shows that we have to confront the influence of big money in the elections and affairs of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices," Hilgenberg said in a news release. "The public's confidence in the court will continue to wane as long as special interest groups play such a large part in electing judges."
Hilgenberg is fighting a good fight on this issue, although it's an uphill battle in an environment where lawmakers are reluctant (to say the least) to take any steps that limit campaign contributions. They benefit from them, too.
But that obstacle isn't likely to deter Hilgenberg, nor should it.
