As a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, nothing gets me riled up more than a blatantly expressed advocacy campaign camouflaged as an issue ad campaign. Say what? While the boring details of campaigns and elections may not be dinner table talk, the nasty political ads run every commercial break during the last Supreme Court race certainly were a discussion item for many people all around Wisconsin.
Right now the Government Accountability Board has the ability to regulate all issue ads in Wisconsin. Its first step should be to regulate all illegal spending in judicial races to restore civility, the public confidence, and legal spending in judicial races. The best part is it won't cost taxpayers a dime, and it even will save illegal campaigners millions they can plug into the economy some other way.
More than $3 million in illegal money was spent in the Supreme Court race decided on April 1. Why, if it is illegal, can it be spent in the election? Well, the answer is in the vague differences that do not really exist between issue advocacy and expressed advocacy. When a group wants to expressly advocate for a candidate, they have to register with the State Elections Board (now the Government Accountability Board) and follow the rules and regulations of political campaigns in Wisconsin, including no illegal corporate contributions and no illegal union funds. When a group wants to "issue advocate," they don't have to register, they can spend illegal money without regulation simply because they don't say "Vote for" or "Vote against" - they just say "call the scum bag now."
What, you may ask, is the difference? Well, there really is not any difference, but groups have successfully argued they have the right to lobby the public on legislative issues. Indeed, anyone has the right to lobby legislators. There are rules that should be followed by anyone who lobbies; including reporting of all lobby expenses to the Government Accountability Board. Issue advocacy groups skirt the law by claiming they are not trying to influence the outcome of an election, but common sense tells anybody that you don't spend $3 million in advertising in the six weeks before an election without trying to influence that election.
Nowhere is it clearer that we have the legal power to regulate issue ads right now than in judicial races like the Supreme Court race just run this spring. Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court validated sections of federal campaign finance law and reaffirmed the way that true issue advocacy campaigns are run. The Justice Roberts-authored decision says that election communication, both just plain old issue ads and expressed advocacy, can be regulated, however they cannot be banned by states. In addition, Roberts said there still must be a place for the right by lobbying groups to lobby the public on legislative issues. Judges have no constituency; they write no bills and vote on no laws. Since judges do not participate in legislative decisions, there is the clear ability for illegal money to be banned completely, right now. Since it is illegal to lobby a judge, there is no need for any group to advocate to the public to lobby a judge. In fact, ex-parte communication with a judge is strictly prohibited by state rules, so calling a judge, to tell them they are a scum bag, is illegal. Groups that encourage illegal acts should not be allowed to continue encouraging citizens to break the law.
While it is said with drama for added effect, the facts of all that I have stated are both intact and the action truly what I believe should be done. While I would love to regulate all issue ads tomorrow, the GAB can at least take the first step today and regulate issue ads in judicial races in Wisconsin immediately.
- Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, represents the 27th Senate District, which includes Green County and parts of Dane, Rock and Lafayette counties.
Right now the Government Accountability Board has the ability to regulate all issue ads in Wisconsin. Its first step should be to regulate all illegal spending in judicial races to restore civility, the public confidence, and legal spending in judicial races. The best part is it won't cost taxpayers a dime, and it even will save illegal campaigners millions they can plug into the economy some other way.
More than $3 million in illegal money was spent in the Supreme Court race decided on April 1. Why, if it is illegal, can it be spent in the election? Well, the answer is in the vague differences that do not really exist between issue advocacy and expressed advocacy. When a group wants to expressly advocate for a candidate, they have to register with the State Elections Board (now the Government Accountability Board) and follow the rules and regulations of political campaigns in Wisconsin, including no illegal corporate contributions and no illegal union funds. When a group wants to "issue advocate," they don't have to register, they can spend illegal money without regulation simply because they don't say "Vote for" or "Vote against" - they just say "call the scum bag now."
What, you may ask, is the difference? Well, there really is not any difference, but groups have successfully argued they have the right to lobby the public on legislative issues. Indeed, anyone has the right to lobby legislators. There are rules that should be followed by anyone who lobbies; including reporting of all lobby expenses to the Government Accountability Board. Issue advocacy groups skirt the law by claiming they are not trying to influence the outcome of an election, but common sense tells anybody that you don't spend $3 million in advertising in the six weeks before an election without trying to influence that election.
Nowhere is it clearer that we have the legal power to regulate issue ads right now than in judicial races like the Supreme Court race just run this spring. Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court validated sections of federal campaign finance law and reaffirmed the way that true issue advocacy campaigns are run. The Justice Roberts-authored decision says that election communication, both just plain old issue ads and expressed advocacy, can be regulated, however they cannot be banned by states. In addition, Roberts said there still must be a place for the right by lobbying groups to lobby the public on legislative issues. Judges have no constituency; they write no bills and vote on no laws. Since judges do not participate in legislative decisions, there is the clear ability for illegal money to be banned completely, right now. Since it is illegal to lobby a judge, there is no need for any group to advocate to the public to lobby a judge. In fact, ex-parte communication with a judge is strictly prohibited by state rules, so calling a judge, to tell them they are a scum bag, is illegal. Groups that encourage illegal acts should not be allowed to continue encouraging citizens to break the law.
While it is said with drama for added effect, the facts of all that I have stated are both intact and the action truly what I believe should be done. While I would love to regulate all issue ads tomorrow, the GAB can at least take the first step today and regulate issue ads in judicial races in Wisconsin immediately.
- Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, represents the 27th Senate District, which includes Green County and parts of Dane, Rock and Lafayette counties.
