What occurs in Wisconsin regarding campaign funding for elections should not be shocking to state residents. It’s a system that citizens, through their participation or lack of participation in the political arena, have created
Peter Cameron wrote a comprehensive piece of journalism for The Badger Project pointing out that the most recent election for the 17th State Senate District saw $1.5 million in campaign money raised by two candidates. It’s the highest amount of money ever raised in a state senate general election.
Incumbent Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) defeated challenger Kriss Marion (D-Blanchardville) with 54 percent of the vote.
Cameron’s story shows the difference in fundraising activities between the two campaigns.
Although 11,000 people donated money to Marion and 1,400 people donated money to Marklein, the incumbent, Marklein, raised $300,000 more than Marion. Through the donations of political action committees, or PACs, Marklein was more highly funded than the candidate who took donations in a more grassroots method.
It’s a stark contrast, yet this is the process voters have created by supporting legislators who have created the legislation that allows it to occur.
During the period of time that the state Legislature was redrawing state Senate and Assembly districts, and changing campaign funding rules, journalists throughout the state roundly covered what was happening. People had access to all of this information. Those who vote continued to cast ballots for politicians supporting these measures.
Noting such activities and recalling such history with an indifferent attitude is a reflection of the apathy that exists amongst the electorate.
It’s difficult to call those who exercised their right to vote in the most recent election an “electorate,” because that in some way denotes there are decisions being made in the voting booth by all the people. That doesn’t happen.
During the 2018 midterm elections across the United States there was a 50-year high for turnout among eligible voters.
This milestone turnout was 47 percent.
When it comes to the popular culture of politics, there is a great silence across the country. It’s difficult to comprehend “silence” when there are so many political mouthpieces screaming across all media. Those who continue to contribute to the acerbic, confrontational rhetoric push people away from politics. Those who are engaged are usually staunch partisans. Freedom of speech is a right, yet people should feel a responsibility for what they say. Often, partisanship causes conflict.
The conflict created by negativism is an enormous turn off for citizens. The “great silence” is from the majority of people who don’t vote in midterm elections or care to inform themselves enough to have an opinion on the issues that led to our current campaign finance laws.
Running for office is like volunteering to be a target in a mud-slinging contest. It’s difficult to judge candidates on their merits because political action committees and political campaigns often devote more time to negatively campaigning against their opponent than pointing out the positive attributes of the candidate they support.
What we have lost, and what we need to rekindle, is a commitment to statesmanship. Legislators must be committed to being pragmatic, sharing power for the sake of broad-based legislation that’s aimed at benefitting all. We need to create a peaceful, positive place for the exchange of ideas.
It’s difficult to find popular national news sources that are non-partisan. Media outlets that provide news are businesses. They must generate revenue to pay for what they provide the public. It costs less to provide opinions on the news than it does to commit to providing objective journalism.
Even at the most local of news outlets there is a difficulty, because the same people who cover the news are often involved in creating opinions about the news. There is no true guild that oversees the gatekeepers of news to ensure objectivity. Journalists must be their own watchdogs, holding one another to the highest standard of unbiased production.
The system that exists is the system we have created. It’s a system that has been supported by the judiciary — such as the Citizens United decision. Does this mean that what is currently in place is the best system for the people? No, because people make mistakes. Decisions made and enacted into law aren’t flawless. In fact, some decisions are egregiously unfair. They do not benefit all of the people to the greatest degree.
The only thing that can be done about it is by creating a renewed interest in current events among citizens and providing them with simple, clear-cut information through which they can form their own opinions.
When looking at the fundraising that occurred in our state Senate district in 2018, it can’t be said it was unlawful or unfair. It’s the system as people have allowed it to operate.
The desire to create change must come from people as individuals taking a greater interest in the political world that surrounds them.
— Matt Johnson is publisher of the Monroe Times. His column is published Wednesdays.
