The State Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology had a public hearing Monday on Governor Jim Doyle's Special Session Campaign Finance Reform proposal.
Parts of Doyle's proposal are a solid step toward meaningful campaign finance reform. Others are bad policy and may make campaigns even more controversial.
One part of Doyle's proposal would re-establish the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the best example of integrity and impartial justice by imposing realistic voluntary spending limits on campaigns in return for 100 percent publicly-financed grants. This would free justices from damaging conflicts of interest with campaign contributions or outside special interest groups who now seek to influence the outcome of current Supreme Court elections - and, presumably, decisions.
Anyone who believes this is not a problem need look no further than the most recently elected Supreme Court justice, Annette Ziegler. She was accused of not recusing herself from cases that presented a conflict of interest.
Plus, Ziegler and her opponent, Linda Clifford, had backers essentially down party lines, including outside groups that spent an estimated $1.7 million on promoting one of the candidates.
Supreme Court justices must have impeccable integrity. That integrity is compromised when they're bought into the position by special interests.
Another part of Doyle's proposal would require the disclosure by third-party issue ad groups of how much they are spending and who the donors to the organization are. With millions being spent on campaigns every year, much of it by third parties, it's essential that groups who use misinformation to attack candidates be held accountable.
Some groups run ads to support a particular candidate. Most, however, do so to tear down a candidate. And it's done essentially anonymously, with a voter being unable to determine who is behind the ad campaign. Full disclosure may or may not remove distorted attack ads from the political landscape, but it would at least add a measure of accountability.
Another element of Doyle's proposal would prohibit campaign fundraising by legislators and statewide elected officials from the time after the election until the state budget is enacted into law.
It's a step worth taking, but its impact likely would be more symbolic than practical. If you believe campaign donations are meant to influence voting outcomes - and why else would they be made? - they will continue to be made inside or outside of the budget process. It would simply look and feel better if they're not being made in the middle of a budget process.
One part of Doyle's proposal should not see the light of day. Doyle proposes increasing public funding of state election campaigns.
This is not a good idea. Certainly, the influence of special interests in a political campaign is unsavory. The alternative proposed, of using public funds instead, is even more unsavory. Public tax dollars should not be used to fund the campaigns of state lawmakers. Plain and simple.
Parts of Doyle's proposal are a solid step toward meaningful campaign finance reform. Others are bad policy and may make campaigns even more controversial.
One part of Doyle's proposal would re-establish the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the best example of integrity and impartial justice by imposing realistic voluntary spending limits on campaigns in return for 100 percent publicly-financed grants. This would free justices from damaging conflicts of interest with campaign contributions or outside special interest groups who now seek to influence the outcome of current Supreme Court elections - and, presumably, decisions.
Anyone who believes this is not a problem need look no further than the most recently elected Supreme Court justice, Annette Ziegler. She was accused of not recusing herself from cases that presented a conflict of interest.
Plus, Ziegler and her opponent, Linda Clifford, had backers essentially down party lines, including outside groups that spent an estimated $1.7 million on promoting one of the candidates.
Supreme Court justices must have impeccable integrity. That integrity is compromised when they're bought into the position by special interests.
Another part of Doyle's proposal would require the disclosure by third-party issue ad groups of how much they are spending and who the donors to the organization are. With millions being spent on campaigns every year, much of it by third parties, it's essential that groups who use misinformation to attack candidates be held accountable.
Some groups run ads to support a particular candidate. Most, however, do so to tear down a candidate. And it's done essentially anonymously, with a voter being unable to determine who is behind the ad campaign. Full disclosure may or may not remove distorted attack ads from the political landscape, but it would at least add a measure of accountability.
Another element of Doyle's proposal would prohibit campaign fundraising by legislators and statewide elected officials from the time after the election until the state budget is enacted into law.
It's a step worth taking, but its impact likely would be more symbolic than practical. If you believe campaign donations are meant to influence voting outcomes - and why else would they be made? - they will continue to be made inside or outside of the budget process. It would simply look and feel better if they're not being made in the middle of a budget process.
One part of Doyle's proposal should not see the light of day. Doyle proposes increasing public funding of state election campaigns.
This is not a good idea. Certainly, the influence of special interests in a political campaign is unsavory. The alternative proposed, of using public funds instead, is even more unsavory. Public tax dollars should not be used to fund the campaigns of state lawmakers. Plain and simple.
