Two significant campaign finance reform measures that received public hearings Wednesday in Wisconsin make so much sense it's hard to believe they haven't already been passed.
One would create a system of full public financing for state Supreme Court races, the other would require groups making "issue ads" during campaigns to publicly disclose their donors and the amounts donated. Both bills should be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.
The past three Supreme Court elections are evidence public financing is needed. More than $5.8 million was spent in the 2007 election of Justice Annette Ziegler - more than four times the amount that had been 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 this year in Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's re-election - only because Abrahamson had most of the money and challenger Randy Koschnick had little financial backing. In all three elections, the candidates were far outspent by special interest groups.
It's important for Wisconsin residents to know they're justices don't belong to anyone - special interest groups, large contributors, no one. Public financing would solve that problem.
Another problem in need of a solution are the countless "issue ads" that dominate political campaigns. Anyone who remembers the most recent 80th Assembly District election and the ridiculous, essentially anonymous, attack ads against both challenger John Waelti, D-Monroe and Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, know that "issue ads" can hijack a campaign. The ads are basically anonymous, because no one knows who, specifically, is behind them. Requiring issue ad makers to disclose names of donors and how much they contributed would remove the cloak of anonymity. Amazingly, groups like Common Cause and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get similar legislation passed.
It's time for the wait to end. The Legislature should pass the Impartial Justice Bill (SB 40/AB 65) and the Electioneering Disclosure Bill (SB 43/AB 63).
One would create a system of full public financing for state Supreme Court races, the other would require groups making "issue ads" during campaigns to publicly disclose their donors and the amounts donated. Both bills should be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.
The past three Supreme Court elections are evidence public financing is needed. More than $5.8 million was spent in the 2007 election of Justice Annette Ziegler - more than four times the amount that had been 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 this year in Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's re-election - only because Abrahamson had most of the money and challenger Randy Koschnick had little financial backing. In all three elections, the candidates were far outspent by special interest groups.
It's important for Wisconsin residents to know they're justices don't belong to anyone - special interest groups, large contributors, no one. Public financing would solve that problem.
Another problem in need of a solution are the countless "issue ads" that dominate political campaigns. Anyone who remembers the most recent 80th Assembly District election and the ridiculous, essentially anonymous, attack ads against both challenger John Waelti, D-Monroe and Rep. Brett Davis, R-Oregon, know that "issue ads" can hijack a campaign. The ads are basically anonymous, because no one knows who, specifically, is behind them. Requiring issue ad makers to disclose names of donors and how much they contributed would remove the cloak of anonymity. Amazingly, groups like Common Cause and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get similar legislation passed.
It's time for the wait to end. The Legislature should pass the Impartial Justice Bill (SB 40/AB 65) and the Electioneering Disclosure Bill (SB 43/AB 63).
