Yes, but will Ron Johnson ask the Chamber to name ITS foreign contributors?

by folkbum

At tonight's debate--observed here at casa folkbum entirely through the twitterations of locals who didn't have better things to do--Ron Johnson said he would ask the groups running ads in his favor to disclose their contributors' names, contra the recent Citizens United case.

At least, that's what the twitterers said, all, um, atwitter.

This is a great idea, and if Johnson lives up to that promise good for him. But I think he can do more, so so much more. More than I can say clearly in words. So, a picture!



Blogger's limitations being what they are, the graphic may be hard to see--you can click the pic to go straight to ThinkProgress whence the flowchart originated. The short version of it, though, is that the Chamber of Commerce takes in a ton of money from interests outside the United States. Those funds flow directly into a pot of money from which the Chamber is buying ads all over the country, including in the Wisconsin Senate race here.

The Chamber has refused to name names but they won't deny that they're doing what they're doing.

So how about it, Johnson? Will you ring up your buddies at the Chamber and ask them to name not just names, but the foreign interests those names represent? I have a guess at the answer--it's the same one your friends in the Senate chamber have been saying for four years straight: no.

Sometimes doing a Sista Souljah moment* is unavoidable

by folkbum

As it is in the case of Assembly Democrats' fundraising in the middle of doing the state budget.

When I first started blogging, I had this recurring fantasy that I would be recognized for my political acumen and invited to offer strategy to the Democrats my blog had single-handedly elected to run the state. Among the first pieces of advice the fantasy me offered in the fantasy strategy session was Don't screw this up by acting like politicians. People hate politicians, and when you look like a pol you lose the game. FAIL. Don't come crying to me when you get beat next year.

Fantasy me is now shaking my head at real them.

In real life, I have been a consistent advocate for campaign finance reform, against the stance of my union and bone-headed conservative bloggers and commentators. And, dangit, this is exactly why the whole system needs upending.

* For my younger readers.

Exhibit 1: folkbum's rambles and rants

by folkbum

I've done a lot of things and met a lot people that I never would have had I not started blogging way back when. It has almost always been a positive experience for me, and there's very little of it I would trade in given the chance.

One thing I never expected, however, was to be dragged into court.

I haven't been sued or anything yet--don't get me wrong. But I discovered today that apparently I have been a key ingredient in an ongoing State Elections Board complaint filed against a different Wisconsin blogger. Some highlights as narrated by Owen's buddy Jed:

Sitter’s complaint stated as follows:

I visited Boots and Sabers blog located at: http://bootsandsabers.com/. When on the blog I saw under the heading “Promos” an advertisement that stated “Blogs for Ziegler” with a picture of a laptop showing “Annette Ziegler Supreme Court” on its screen. I believe this is advocacy for a candidate for an election. Nothing in this ad identifies who sponsored and paid for the ad. When I clicked on the ad I was redirected to Annette Ziegler’s website for her campaign for Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Ziegler’s campaign then broke out the clue bat.

[. . .] 4. On information and belief, the practice of posting “Blogs for” pictures that link to a candidate’s Web site is a common practice by blog administrators to show support for a particular candidate. See example of “Linda Clifford” logo from the blog folkbum’s rambles and rants attached as exhibit 1.

[. . .] To get around the obvious fact that the “Blogs for Ziegler” button was the responsibility of no one other than your humble hosts, Sitter came up with this load of crap:

Judge Ziegler argues that the Boots and Sabers “Blogs for Ziegler” is not a paid advertisement and was not placed on the website by Ziegler’s campaign. Ms. Sitter concedes that no violation has occurred by Ziegler’s campaign if the website owner chose to “endorse” Judge Ziegler and place his or her endorsement on the website. See Wis. Stat § 11.30(4) stating, “This chapter shall not be construed to restrict… editorial comment or endorsement.”

Wis. Stat. § 11.30(4) reiterates that “[n]o owner or other person with a financial interest in a communications medium may utilize such medium in support of or in opposition to a candidate or referendum except as provided in this chapter.” Endorsements of candidates for office are an exception. However, promotions acting in support of a candidate are not. [. . .] The Ziegler promotion on Boots and Sabers website is an advertisement, not an endorsement, and therefore is a violation of Wis. Stat. § 11.30 by the owner of Boots and Sabers website or any party who paid for the promotion. [. . .]

The webblog folkbum’s rambles and rants endorsement of Clifford attached as exhibit 1 to Ziegler’s answer is an endorsement. It can be found with other endorsements under the heading: “folkbum’s rambles and rants officially endorses.” This communication would constitute a Wis. Stat. § 11.30(4) exception to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 11.30. Folkbum’s rambles and rants blog has unequivocally placed its endorsement within a section designated for endorsements. Therefore, folkbum’s rambles and rants endorsement need not comply with Wis. Stat. § 11.30 reporting and “paid for” requirements.

There's a lot of legalese in there, but I think in the end both sides--the Annette Ziegler campaign attorneys and the attorneys for Monica Sitter--are using this blog as an example of how to do things it right. Sitter's side noted that I clearly separate paid ads from editorial content such as endorsements (when I finally get moved to the new template, they won't even be in the same sidebar anymore). Ziegler's people argued that whatever I did was cool. It kind of would have been nice to know all of this was going on, though. I was quite gobsmacked to see it last night for the first time.

In a way, I feel kind of dirty being used by Ziegler's people and in defense of my sworn nemesis; but Sitter's complaint is, indeed, crap. It's crap for several reasons, not the least of which is something I've maintained all along: Blogs, at least locally, are just not as powerful as some people think they are. Even though Owen has traffic to die for, the number of people--specifically, Wisconsin residents likely to vote--visiting his site is still very small compared to the number of Wisconsin voters generally. Moreover, the subset of his traffic last spring who didn't already have their minds made up about the Supreme Court race was undoubtedly much, much smaller. The amount of people swayed by that "Blogs for Ziegler" graphic was probably somewhere near zero, and had Ziegler's campaign actually paid for it, they would have been throwing money away. For me, the same is true, but on 1/10 the scale.

More importantly, though, I thought Sitter's complaint was crap because any attempts to restrict Owen or me (or any other blogger) from making endorsements and promoting candidates and causes we like would place bloggers into a category or media all by themselves. Broadcast and print media do not suffer from restrictions on who, what, when, or how they endorse, and bloggers should not be treated any differently. This was a key element in the fight bloggers fought a year or so ago and won at the federal level. You can read at the Net Democracy Guide what the Federal Election Commission expects of bloggers, including this:

Q: My blog is closely associated with several candidates. I link to campaign web sites and republish campaign material on my site. I even have links directly to the candidates' donation pages. Am I still exempt from the rules?

A: Yes. The rule is clear that these ordinary Internet activities do not constitute an in-kind contribution to a campaign or trigger other campaign finance requirements, provided that the blogger is not being compensated for these activities. If you are compensated for these activities, as discussed more fully below, the primary campaign finance obligations would rest on the campaign that is paying you.

Had Annette Ziegler been a candidate for federal office, everything Owen did would not only have been legal, it would have been explicitly explained as such in existing FEC regulations. However, because the state of Wisconsin has not considered bloggers and electronic media in its campaign-finance legislation, the question remains up in the air. Owen's case here is the test case, and the State Elections Board's Counsel George Dunst has recommended tossing Sitter's complaint. (And we all know what value Dunst's opinions have anymore, eh?)

All of this brought to mind an email I got last fall from James Wigderson, asking for my reaction to a potential post of his. He never pulled the trigger and published the post, but here's a taste:

I'm going to pick on Jay Bullock for a moment because I like the additional traffic. Defending his presence in a Jessica McBride column, Bullock declares his blog, folkbum's rambles and rants, is not affiliated with the Democratic Party. Fair enough.

Um, Jay? I count seven ads that are either uncoordinated independent expenditures or else undocumented campaign contributions. They are for: Steve Kagen, Bryan Kennedy, Doyle/Lawton, Kathleen Falk, Feingold for President, Fair Wisconsin and No Death Penalty Wisconsin. On top of that, Jay has a box asking for contributions to the Democratic National Committee and the sister organizations Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Not a big deal, except Jay charges for advertising. [. . .]

As the blogosphere becomes more visible, they will become increasing targets of scrutiny by campaigns looking to silence them. I strongly suggest any blogger that charges for ads take a serious look at the campaign finance rules before they plug their favorite candidates.

I wrote Wiggy back that I felt safe on the federal campaigns, given the FEC's stance, and that I was willing to risk it with the State Elections Board, figuring that I could argue that I was still following the FEC, and acting in good faith that way.

In addition, I pointed out in response, months before the SEB arguments detailed above, that I had clearly labeled the ads, and clearly labeled the endorsements, and didn't pretend one was the other. I've always tried to play it relatively safe with this blog, and drawing as bright a line between those two things just always seemed like a no-brainer to me. I'm not suggesting that Owen was wrong to label his endorsements "Promos," given that Sitter's argument there relied on an internet dictionary to make its point. (Really!) But perhaps a better choice of words would have, in the end, avoided all the mess.

Of course, there's still a chance I might get dragged further into this; I'm hoping my new favorite attorney would be willing to help, if need be. Either way, at least I get to go down in history as something: Exhibit 1.

Troha, Doyle, and Campaign Finance Reform

by folkbum

Dennis Troha, while innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, probably did some illegal things. I say this not because I have any kind of special knowledge of what went down, but because Steve Biskupic doesn't usually bring indictments against people he can't convict.

It looks like Biskupic is going to get Troha for contributions to Jim Doyle in last year's governor's race. The pattern seems to have been that Troha "loaned" family members and employees money to cover what those others gave to Doyle's campaign. The Trohas were able to bundle the contributions together into one easy-to-pick-up pile of checks for the Doyle campaign.

This is not a pattern unique to Doyle; check out the Trohas' contributions to Paul Ryan, the congressman who represents them down there in Kenosha. Even the "unemployed" Lynn Troha was able to chip in $2100 (the maximum) to Ryan's re-election bid; I have a job and couldn't afford to give anyone that kind of money. But many of those checks were all written on the same day, and I wouldn't be surprised if they came bundled in one nice big pile for Paul Ryan's campaign staff to pick up.

So let's be clear who's been indicted and who's on trial here: Dennis Troha. Got it? Not Jim Doyle, whose campaign seems to have done nothing illegal or more unethical than calling a donor and saying, "Hey, Dennis, can you raise some money for us?" Not Paul Ryan, whose campaign may very well have made the same phone call.

There are some legitimate questions about whether the Trohas' money bought influence--in other words, one has to wonder whether Paul Ryan's intercession on Troha's behalf on the casino project came because of the money, or whether Doyle may be more likely to approve that casino because of the money, and what, exactly, Troha may have gotten from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whose members also got his money. That kind of influence peddling is much harder to prove than, say, giving your family money so you can skirt campaign finance laws, or outright bribery that involves handing over large sums of cash that a congressman then keeps in his freezer.

But even if Ryan, Doyle, Don Young, or Jim Oberstar did or will pull some strings for Dennis Troha, that's still not illegal. Unethical? Maybe. Unseemly? Most certainly. But not a violaton of the law.

Seth Zlotocha has probably the best reaction to this that I've seen--including a lot of great discussion in the comments--and I think he nails the problem quite sqarely:

this issue isn't just about casinos. It's a problem that pervades public policymaking. Unless the plan is to stop elected officials from setting public policy--in other words, doing their job--then no amount of futzing with the legislative process in relation to the campaign donation process is going to change the fact that elected officials are accountable first and foremost to those who help their chances at re-election the most. That is, those who give them the most amount of money.

The solution, rather, is to focus on the pay side of pay-for-play. If politicians are going to be accountable first and foremost to their donors and the goal is to make them accountable first and foremost to the public, then you need to make the public their donors, plain and simple.

This is an argument I have been making for a very long time now. But people on the right--including the Charlie Sykeses and Mark Bellingses who unfortunately drive so much of the political discourse in this state--see this as not Exhibit A in the case for campaign finance reform, but rather a chance to accuse Democrats, and only Democrats, of wrongdoing.

James Wigderson, whose solution to the Troha mess seems to be to spread authority out, perhaps to make sure more officials get big bucks from the likes of Troha, often laments that Democrats--and he names Russ Feingold in particluar--have succeeded in making money in politics de facto dirty. I remember his statement to that effect at the "Download 2006" event, and being amazed at the audacity of it, because at the same time as he was complaining about how we now perceive any campaign cash as dirty, every other conservative panelist that day assured us that Doyle was dirty because of the way he could be bought off with campaign cash. In other words, big-dollar campaign contributions aren't a problem, unless, of course, the money goes to Democrats.

But they are a problem. They have been and will continue to be a problem. Just the very thought of anyone, let alone Dennis Troha's unemployed relatives, being able to give $10,000 a shot to a campaign turns my stomach, and probably a lot of other people's, too. It leads to cynicsm and, as the ever-astute Recess Supervisor put it, it makes "people assume ALL politicians are dirty. So when one of them gets caught, it serves to affirm the public's perception of ALL politicians, not just Republicans or Democrats."

And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Doyle got caught here doing, what, exactly--obeying the law? And it has everyone crying foul. That means, to me, that it's the law that needs to change. Even, as I've suggested before, cutting the maximum contribution to a state-wide race from ten flippin' thousand dollars to something normal people might be able to pony up, one or two thousand, maybe. Or, more radically, as I've also suggested before, moving to a state-funded system like Arizona's or Maine's. The nice new ethics entity our lawmakers created to watch over themselves will remain toothless to address issues like the one involving Troha as long as what Doyle (or Tommy Thompson before him) does remains legal.

So go ahead, you righties, and demand Doyle's head on a stick (and Paul Ryan's, too, if you want to be consistent). You won't get it this time, the same way you didn't get it from Georgia Thompson, because Doyle's behavior here is not illegal. But at some point you need to recognize that crying foul on all these things will only make you hoarse. Or, like the boy who cried wolf, the public will finally tune out everything you ever say about scandal and corruption. (There are only so many people you can accuse who then walk away--since they did nothing illegal--before people stop listening.)

But if you'd rather make a difference, perhaps it's time you stand with those of us who see the problem for what it is--an institutional one--rather than hope to make partisan hay out of it. The only way to stop the Dennis Trohas of the future or, for that matter, the Jim Doyles of the future, if you must think that way, is to change the system that perpetuates them. It's time for campaign finance reform now.

This Blog will not be Regulated

Probably.

The FEC seems to have issued its draft rules clarification for internet communications. I am pleased (my italics):

How do the new rules affect bloggers?
Bloggers will not be regulated under the new rules. Uncompensated blogging, whether done by an individual or a group of individuals, is exempt from regulation under the new individual Internet exemptions. (§ 100.94 and § 100.155). These exemptions are extended to incorporated blogs that are wholly owned by an individual or individuals, are engaged primarily in Internet activities, and derive a substantial portion of their income from their Internet activities. Additionally, a blogger or blog may qualify for the media exemption. (§100.73 and § 100.132)

So I can continue on in my state of mind that I am, in fact, mainstream media.

The other nice rule is that I won't have to disclose or disclaim if a candidate (cough, cough, hint) hires me to blog for him/ her. I would, of course, disclose, but only after someone (cough, cough) does hire me.

Assuming the FEC adopts this draft. Which they should. Wouldn't want them to harsh on my media state of mind.

Campaign Finance and the Culture of Responsibility

Right Cheddarsphere denizen Lance Burri picks up on the Brian Burke Goes to Jail story, with a focus on calls for stricter campaign finance laws. He's against 'em:

We’ve already got laws on the books, and in [Burke's] case, those laws did their job. But never mind that. A pittance. A trifle. Not worth mentioning. No. We need more laws.

True, there may be episodes like Burke’s that go unprosecuted and unpunished. For example, this dreadfully underreported story: Wisconsin’s state government gave a travel contract worth $750,000 to a company that didn’t earn it, after the company’s owner gave $10,000 to Governor Doyle’s campaign.

Chicken feed, compared to the $700,000 the Indian casinos spent on Doyle’s 2002 campaign. But then, their payoff was supposed to be bigger.

Was pay-to-play involved? It sure looks that way. According to Madison’s Channel 27, at least 5 out of 7 members of the committee responsible for choosing a bidder preferred another company – the one that gave them the lowest bid.

But, when the smoke cleared, the state gave the contract to the Governor’s contributor.

It’s not likely we’ll ever prove pay-for-play. Linking a criminal act back to Governor Doyle and his administration would be next to impossible. So: that’s proof that the laws we’ve got aren’t enough. Right?

I suppose you could make that argument, but consider: in Burke’s case, a District Attorney aggressively pursued allegations of wrongdoing, which resulted in serious consequences for a powerful State Senator.

In the Governor’s case, a news team is aggressively pursuing a story. A story that looks dirty, even if all involved are really as clean and white as a Christmas Day snowfall. A story the voters deserve to hear.

End result? We – the voters – can make up our own minds when election time rolls around again.

Legal consequences in the first case. Potentially, political consequences in the second case. Because our legal system did its job, in the first case. Because our professional journalists did theirs, in the second.

To a real extent, Lance's argument makes sense. If what Burke (and Jensen and Foti and Chvala and so on) did was illegal, there are legal consequences that can be applied. If the voters disapprove of J-Dizzle's pandering (or that of Gard or others), they can vote him out. In traditional Republican parlance, this might be considered the "culture of responsibility"--when people do wrong, punish them.

I, on the other hand, take a more traditional Democratic position; I would rather see the motivation to do wrong reduced or eliminated. Take the war on drugs, for example. Republicans salivate at the thought of imprisoning addicts and dealers, while Democrats would rather bring jobs to drug-addled neighborhoods and heal, rather than punish, addictions.

In the realm of campaign finance, the Democratic solution is to eliminate the culture of corruption that led Burke (et al.) to break the law, and led J-Dizzle (and Gard) to skirt the law in his deals. Public financing of campaigns--a system like Arizona's, maybe--would eliminate the constant need to trawl for more money, stopping before they begin the kinds of crimes or ethical challenges that Doyle (and Gard) and Burke (and friends) were doing that led to prosecution or journalistic scrutiny.

Right now, Madison is so deeply mired in the business of campaigning, rather than the business of governing, that the people's business is not getting done. Republicans are too busy posturing for the Pro-Life Wisconsin crowd to effect real change, for example. Every day I get an email from some Democrat asking for money. While I could remind them that I am a humble public servant and can't afford it all, I'd rather remind them that they were elected to govern, not solicit.

So, there you have it, Lance. I'm not looking for more laws for the sake of more laws; I'm looking to change the culture of corruption in Madison. And that's not a pittance.