As Wisconsin considers a 100 percent increase in state political contribution limits, new analysis suggests the effect of the proposed increase will not serve the interest of the majority of Wisconsin voters.

United Wisconsin has obtained data developed in preparation for a forthcoming comprehensive report on campaign contribution limits and donor distribution in state politics by the National Institute on Money in State Politics based in Helena, Mont. The data reveal that during the 2010 election cycle, only 1,855 (2.1 percent) of the nearly 85,000 campaign donors to candidates in Wisconsin state legislative races reached the maximum annual contribution limit allowed by state law.

A similar trend was seen in Wisconsin’s regular 2012 state legislative races, when only 2,263 (2 percent) of approximately 112,948 contributors reached the annual maximum contribution limit. (Contributions during the special recall elections were not included in this analysis.)

A look at the numbers makes it crystal clear that only a handful of Wisconsinites donate at the maximum level to state political candidates. Raising contribution limits magnifies the voices of this 2 percent at the expense of the rest of us who cannot afford to give at such high levels. By raising the cap on campaign spending, expect to see the wealthiest donors expanding their influence over our elections – and over our elected officials – while the power divide between the wealthy and the rest of Wisconsin grows.

In a study released in November 2010, by researchers at George Mason University, an analysis of data spanning more than two and a half decades on the relationship between campaign contributions and the competitiveness of elections found that limits on campaign contributions have a significant effect on the competitiveness of races. The study further concluded that a strong correlation exists between increased campaign contribution limits and decreased competitiveness.

Pumping more money into elections will dilute public trust and confidence in Wisconsin’s elected officials and serves to dissuade potential candidates from ever running for public office in the first place. Increased contribution limits will allow incumbents to pad their war chests, leaving newcomers unable to compete. Not only will higher contribution limits increase the reliance of our elected officials on big donors for financial support, but this move will also further protect incumbents from competitive elections, diminishing our democratic process.

In a political system already flooded with big special interest money, the last thing we need is an infusion of even more cash into politicians’ campaign coffers.

Lisa Subeck is executive director of United Wisconsin, an independent grassroots organization of citizens restoring the Wisconsin tradition of democracy in action. www.unitedwisconsin.com.

6/17/13

New data reveals only a small percentage of Wisconsinites stand to gain from doubling of campaign contribution limits

MADISON – As Wisconsin considers a 100% increase in state political contribution limits, new analysis suggests the effect of the proposed increase will not serve the interest of the majority of Wisconsin voters.

United Wisconsin has obtained data developed in preparation for a forthcoming comprehensive report on campaign contribution limits and donor distribution in state politics by the National Institute on Money in State Politics based in Helena, Montana, revealing that during the 2010 election cycle, only 1855 (2.1%) of the nearly 85,000 campaign donors to candidates in Wisconsin state legislative races reached the maximum annual contribution limit allowed by state law.

A similar trend was seen in Wisconsin’s regular 2012 state legislative races when only 2263 (2%) of approximately 112,948 contributors reached the annual maximum contribution limit. Contributions during the special recall elections were not included in this analysis.

“A look at the numbers makes it crystal clear that only a handful of Wisconsinites donate at the maximum level to state political candidates. Raising contribution limits magnifies the voices of this 2% at the expense of the rest of us who cannot afford to give at such high levels,” said United Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck. “By raising the cap on campaign spending, expect to see the wealthiest donors expanding their influence over our elections – and over our elected officials – while the power divide between the wealthy and the rest of Wisconsin grows.”

In a study released in November, 2010, by researchers at George Mason University, an analysis of data spanning more than 2 and a half decades on the relationship between campaign contributions and the competitiveness of elections found that limits on campaign contributions have a significant effect on the competitiveness of races. The study further concluded that a strong correlation exists between increased campaign contribution limits and decreased competitiveness in elections.

“Pumping more money into elections will dilute public trust and confidence in Wisconsin’s elected officials and serves to dissuade potential candidates from ever running for public office in the first place. Increased contribution limits will allow incumbents to pad their war chests, leaving newcomers unable to compete,” Subeck said. ”Not only will higher contribution limits increase the reliance of our elected officials on big donors for financial support, but this move will also further protect incumbents from competitive elections, diminishing our democratic process.”

Subeck concluded, “In a political system already flooded with big special interest money, the last thing we need is an infusion of even more cash into politicians’ campaign coffers.”

SIGN OUR PETITION CALLING ON THE STATE SENATE TO SAY NO TO INCREASED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS!

United Wisconsin is an independent grassroots organization of citizens restoring the Wisconsin tradition of democracy in action. For more information, visit our website at www.unitedwisconsin.com.

Proponents of the bill claim that these measures will increase transparency by providing legal channels for individuals and organizations to make donations. They argue that the low caps provide incentives for these high-income individuals to influence policy from outside the system using PACs or similar interest groups. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign:

“State Democratic Party head Mike Tate told the Journal Sentinel he favors relaxing contribution limits, arguing that such changes might create greater transparency by allowing donors to give larger amounts directly to candidates and parties rather than funneling the money to outside interest groups that sponsor their own campaign advertising.”

In their eyes, it is unavoidable that the wealthy will influence politics – it is simply a matter of how effectively the public can monitor their activities. However, scholarly research on the topic suggests otherwise.

The non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice looked into this topic closely in a 2009 paper titled Electoral Competition and Low Contribution Limits. In this study, the authors focus on the substantive advantage afforded to incumbents in state-level elections:

“Incumbency rates for house assemblies across America are nearly 95 percent. Frequently, voters do not have a meaningful choice between candidates; and, in many races, incumbents run unopposed or against opponents who are so weak they are not viable candidates. In our 26-year, 42-state, sample, more than 40 percent of state assembly incumbents did not face a viable challenger.”

In seeking an answer to this puzzle, the researchers arrived at a number of telling conclusions.

New statistical analytic research on state house races demonstrates:

• Contribution limits lead to more competitive elections: the lower the limit, the more competitive the election.

• Lower contribution limits ($500 and below) increase the likelihood that challengers will beat incumbents.

• Lower contribution limits reduce incumbents’ considerable financial fundraising advantage.

• State public financing programs, like low contribution limits, can increase the competitiveness of elections.

From this, it is reasonable to suggest that states with high contribution limits, and those without any contribution limits, consider adopting low contribution limits as one means of increasing electoral competition and choices for voters at the ballot box.

Moreover, a meaningful system of contribution limits provides a useful foundation for successful and attractive public funding systems. States that offer only privately financed elections should add the benefits of enhanced electoral competition to the long list of other reasons that favor the adoption of public financing systems for campaigns, such as freeing lawmakers from the burdens of fundraising and reducing corruption by giving candidates access to funds that are not tied to special interests. To enhance participation and improve democracy, while allowing candidates to collect sufficient funds to run a viable campaign, these reforms work best when they are implemented together.

This research strongly suggests that increasing individual contribution limits will do little to make races more competitive, or to remove the corrupting power of money from politics. In this way, AB 225 fails to bring any substantive reform to Wisconsin politics.

Former Kansas GOP Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole made some wise remarks on “Fox News Sunday” a few weeks ago. He suggested that the GOP take a time-out and hang a “closed for repairs” sign while it tries to develop a positive program. Dole went on to say that he and Ronald Reagan would not feel at home in the Tea Party-driven GOP. He chided Republicans: “It seems to me almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation. I mean, we weren’t perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done.”

Dole took his congressional duties seriously. Once the elections were over, political leaders had to govern through compromise and negotiation. The conservative WWII hero collaborated with his polar opposite, South Dakota Democratic Senator George McGovern, also a WWII hero. They successfully fought to expand the Food Stamp Program (now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – SNAP), take it out of partisan politics and feed the hungry. How far we have fallen as some in the GOP now use racial innuendo to attack SNAP, and many, including Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, vote for draconian cuts in our primary safety net program. There used to be a better way.

Former Wisconsin GOP Governor Tommy Thompson was a conservative with a brain and heart. He successfully expanded Wisconsin’s Medicaid-BadgerCare Program with Democratic support. And, at various points Thompson endorsed the core of the Affordable Care Act, built on compromise with GOP ideas. The individual mandate, once supported by the Heritage Foundation and many GOP senators, is designed to maximize participation in private health insurance plans with a tradeoff of ending discriminatory insurance practices, e.g., denying coverage if an individual gets sick or has a pre-existing condition. Generous tax credits will be available for many to buy affordable and comprehensive health insurance through health care exchanges in 2014. And, Medicaid for the poor will be greatly expanded with extraordinary federal support in an economy with a plummeting U.S. deficit (4 percent of GDP as opposed to 10.1 percent in 2009).

Why is the Affordable Care Act necessary? Simply put – about 50 million Americans, including nearly 600,000 Wisconsinites, do not have health care coverage. And, there are real problems with quality and cost. Delay, lies and obstruction will not solve this national and state tragedy. However, Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker stands in the doorway blocking implementation and rejecting compromise / negotiation. A stark contrast to other GOP governors who are moving forward to accept Medicaid expansion and/or setting up their own health care exchanges. Meanwhile, gloom and doom Wisconsin GOP Representative Paul Ryan, supported by Johnson, predicts that health care reform “collapses under its own weight.”

Wisconsin Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin has a better way: “put progress ahead of politics”. Baldwin called on Walker to stop shooting himself and our beloved state in the foot by turning down federal funds to extend health care coverage “to our most vulnerable citizens”, thereby increasing the burden on state taxpayers who will have to pay for uncompensated medical care, and blowing off a shot in the arm for the state’s economy. Baldwin went on to say that “Wisconsinites are tired of partisan politics. They want bipartisan actions and solutions.” Forward, not backward.

– Kaplan wrote a guest column from Washington, D.C. for the Wisconsin State Journal from 1995 – 2009.

“Sonya is a hard-working mother of two and learned during November 2012 that she was expecting her third child. While considering abortion, Sonya took advantage of a free ultrasound after seeing an ad on a bus. Sonya saw her seven week old son via ultrasound pictures and instantly knew she would carry the boy to term and love him forever. Sonya’s Law [SB 206] ensures women in Wisconsin have the same opportunity as Sonya, securing their right to make fully informed decisions about their pregnancy.”

Unfortunately for Senator Lazich, her manipulative anecdote falls flat relative to the facts. The Republican majority currently hides behind the clause exempting ultrasounds in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother – but in doing so only further intimidates women. However, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports “cases of rape and incest must be reported to the police for those exceptions. About half of rapes are reported, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.”

And of course, as anyone who has done any research on the topic of helping women who have been raped know the first two things to do if you want to help:

1. Believe them.
2. Let them stay in control

Clearly, the requirement for women to report cases of rape and incest to the police in order to avoid having their doctor show them the heartbeat of their rapist’s baby flies in the face of the best advice from the experts.

We at United Wisconsin feel obligated to state what ought to be obvious: That women’s rights are fundamental human rights not subject to legislation or government meddling. Governor Scott Walker has already  stated he would sign the bill if it came to his desk, meaning the last chance to stop this bill and stand up for the women of Wisconsin is in the State Assembly.

It is imperative that you contact your representative and speak out against this outrageous overreach into the healthcare of women all over the state.

On Monday, the Wisconsin Medical Society issued a press release detailing which parts of the bill they found most troubling:

“The Society’s main concern about SB 206 is how it infringes upon the physician-patient relationship in regards to decision making for a legal medical procedure. That SB 206 focuses on an emotional topic—abortion—makes the overall issue more complicated, yet the underlying principle remains the same…The Society believes that all medical care should follow a full and confidential discussion between a patient and her/his physician—there should be no exceptions to that relationship simply because a certain procedure is controversial.

The legislation injects specific steps that a physician must take when discussing a patient’s impending
decision:

• Performing or arranging for an ultrasound.
• Providing a simultaneous oral explanation during the ultrasound, with specific information.
• Displaying the ultrasound images in a way that allows the patient to view them.
• Providing a medical description of the ultrasound, with further specific information required.
• Providing a way for the patient to visualize a fetal heartbeat while providing an oral report.

This legislation essentially provides a script that the physician must follow: perform a test and provide information that may not be medically indicated, or else face monetary damages and potential civil liability—even in a lawsuit filed by a patient’s relative. This intrusion in the patient-physician relationship is unacceptable. Physicians should be deciding with their patients what tests and procedures are needed and will be performed based on the best available medical evidence, guidelines of care, and shared decision making between the patient and physician. Mandatory performance of an ultrasound before an abortion is not an accepted medical practice or standard of care. Thus, this practice does not add to the quality or safety of the medical care being provided…”

Other organizations of medical professionals issues similar statements in opposition to this legislation. The Wisconsin Section of the American Congress of Obstreticians and Gynecologists (ACOG) writes:

“The medical practices surrounding elective abortion, including the role of ultrasound when medically indicated, are the domain of the physician-patient relationship, in which the government has no valid role…To force a physician to recite a scripted oral description of the findings if the pregnant woman declines is abusive. The proposed requirements do not make abortion safer for women, but do create unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and add both emotional and financial stress to an already difficult decision.”

Aside from the blatant overreach into doctors’ offices around the state, this bill also includes language obviously designed to discriminate against abortion providers – with the intention of restricting women’s access to these services altogether. Specifically, one section of SB 206 requires that a doctor may not provide abortion services unless he or she has admitting privileges at a hospital within a 30 mile radius. ACOG also came out specifically against mandating this unrealistically high requirement, writing:

“The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes physicians who provide medical and surgical procedures, including abortion services, in their offices, clinics, or freestanding ambulatory care facilities should have a plan to ensure prompt emergency services if a complication occurs and should establish a mechanism for transferring patients who require emergency treatment. However, ACOG opposes legislation or other requirements that single out abortion services from other outpatient procedures. For example, ACOG opposes laws or other regulations that require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. ACOG also opposes facility regulations that are more stringent for abortion than for other surgical procedures of similar low risk.”

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has announced that were SB 206 to pass the legislature, they would be forced to stop providing abortions in their Grand Chute clinic. According to the Public Policy Director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, this “means women from Appleton and rural areas seeking abortions would have to travel hours to Planned Parenthood’s other facilities in Madison and Milwaukee, where more qualified physicians are available.”

In sum, the move by Republicans on Capitol Hill to shove through this controversial bill while most of Wisconsin is still reeling from the JFC’s outrageously partisan budget is fundamentally irresponsible. We urge you to contact your representatives and show your support for free and uninhibited women’s healthcare in the state.

6/10/13

MADISON – United Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck released the following statement in response to passage of an amended AB 225 out of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections.  The original bill sponsored by Republican Reps. Jeff Stone and Robin Vos was an omnibus bill that would create roadblocks to voting in Wisconsin. The amended bill passed today by the committee on an 8-1 vote removed the most egregious voter suppression provisions and includes some progressive reforms such as allowing Wisconsin residents to register to vote on-line. However, concerns remain over the bill’s impact on campaign spending, as it seeks to increase individual contribution limits and expands the period during which lobbyists can give money to politicians.

“Wisconsin voters can breathe a sigh of relief today knowing that, at least for now, the latest attack by Republicans on the right to vote in Wisconsin was stopped in its tracks.

The original AB 225, which included another attempt at an unconstitutional Voter ID law and significant new restrictions on absentee voting, was met with overwhelming public opposition during its only public hearing. We applaud the committee for listening to the voice of the people and removing the most egregious voter suppression measures. The addition of on-line voter registration is a common sense measure that will make it easier for Wisconsin voters to register and reflects the technological day and age in which we live.

Serious concerns remain regarding, as the bill doubles individual campaign contribution limits – essentially doubling the impact that the wealthiest donors have on our elections. And loosening regulations on the time period during which lobbyists can donate to politicians may open the floodgates to corruption.

While certainly not a perfect proposal, we thank the members of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections who listened to hours of testimony and worked to address many of the concerns raised by citizens.”

United Wisconsin is an independent grassroots organization of citizens restoring the Wisconsin tradition of democracy in action. For more information, visit our website at www.unitedwisconsin.com.

“Private schools, by their nature, lack accountability and transparency. They do not participate in the school report card system unveiled by the State of Wisconsin this year to inform parents, schools, and teachers of  their students’ educational progress.  Private schools also do not need to follow open meetings or open records laws, a bedrock of transparency.”

An article in the Wausau Daily Herald highlights precisely these same issues in monitoring and assessing charter schools. The author notes that the majority of these private schools are too small or new to even register on the radar of state officials. The only charter school large and well-established enough for the Department of Public Instruction to evaluate earned a dismal 61 out of 100 points. Michael Wridt, principal of the Wausau Area Montessori school, admitted that the “poor showing was mostly because some students struggled in the state’s math and reading tests.”

And yet, despite the clear evidence that charter schools can and do perform demonstrably worse in essential areas like math and reading, Governor Walker and his Republican allies continue to stand by their expansion plans. According to the Wisconsin State Journal:

“‘Our goal is to have no changes made to the budget,’ said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.

Walker went on talk radio in Milwaukee to praise the plan, saying it achieved his goals of making vouchers available to more students statewide. And Republican Senate President Mike Ellis, a voucher opponent who worked on the compromise that also included more money for public schools, said the deal would stand.

‘We’ve worked out a compromise on the voucher subject,’ Ellis said. ‘I am satisfied with the plan. I do not anticipate a breach in the Republican ranks.’

Republican Sen. Glenn Grothman, one of 12 Republicans on the budget committee who approved the voucher plan, wasn’t having a change of heart Thursday.

‘I’d be shocked if there were changes,’ Grothman said.

While the voucher expansion plan has made it out of the Joint Finance Committee, there is still time to stop it before it passes in the Assembly. Contact your representative today and demand that they support our public schools in the final budget.

However, in a recent Joint Finance Committee meeting on June 4, Republicans voted against the acceptance of this federal aid. This move plays into a Tea Party mindset that “big government” is a foe not to be trusted. Speaking on the issue to the USA Today, Governor Walker said that he hadn’t come across a “federal entitlement program the states are involved in that once you get in, there’s any way to get out of it.” In other words, Walker believes the states will get stuck with the bill, because the federal government can’t support its claims. This attitude boosts his Tea Party credentials, given their dedication to reducing the size and scope of government. It also explains the political motivations behind such a deal.  In that same interview, Governor Walker stated that due to the fact that he and many other governors elected in 2010 had great Tea Party support,  it would be “dangerous for those governors. . . to facilitate [Obamacare].”

This attitude suggests that Governor Walker’s political ambitions are a higher priority for him than the well being of the citizens of Wisconsin. Obviously, Walker intends to run for governor yet again in 2014. He will likely need the Tea Party support to drive up turnout for his re-election. However, it is clear that the Governor has his eyes set on a much larger prize: the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. His name is commonly floated as one of the most likely candidates – ranking high among other Republicans like Chris Christie, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal. The Iowa GOP seems to be enthusiastic about Walker, as according to Human Events . By rejecting federal Medicaid money, Governor Walker is rallying support from his Tea Party base to further propel his presidential aspirations.

Given the highly partisan nature of the Republican primary process, it seems natural Scott Walker would reject federal aid in Medicare. Even though 85,000 more people could be helped in the state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker won’t help them to keep his support. Whether he is planning on a presidential bid, or only staying in the state of Wisconsin as a governor, Scott Walker knows one thing for sure: he will not compromise on his radical right wing ideology.

Grassroots campaign underway to place referendum on Wauwatosa ballot

WAUWATOSA – Building upon the nationwide movement to get big money out of elections, United Wisconsin members kicked off a petition drive in the city of Wauwatosa this weekend to place a referendum on the ballot calling for the reversal of Citizens United.

The petition drive in Wauwatosa marks the latest city in Wisconsin to go on record in opposition to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which granted corporate entities the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, overturning nearly a century of settled law regarding the financing of electoral campaigns.

“This issue runs far deeper than any partisan issue,” said Wauwatosa Alderman Greg Walz-Chojnacki. “For me, it comes down to the question of whether democracy means ‘one person, one vote’ or ‘one dollar, one vote.’ This referendum is an important opportunity for the citizens of our city to pause and consider the meaning of democracy in America.”

On April 2, 2013, Chippewa County, along with the cities of Fort Atkinson and Whitewater all passed referendums by wide margins calling for the reversal of the Citizens United, joining the cities of West Allis, Monona and Madison, along with Dane and Eau Claire Counties who have taken similar action since 2010.

Petition circulators will have 60 days to collect the nearly3,800 signature goal set by organizers to place the referendum on the ballot in Wauwatosa for the next scheduled general election. According to state statute, placing a municipal referendum on the ballot requires 15% of the total votes from that municipally in the last gubernatorial general election.

Local grassroots community groups, including Grassroots Tosa and Move To Amend- Milwaukee, have joined United Wisconsin in the campaign.

“Spending on our elections is out of control, and has eroded trust in both our elected officials and the very foundation of our country,” said Alan Nichols, United Wisconsin volunteer leader and Grassroots Tosa activist. “When corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy our elections, how are we to trust that those sent to higher office are working for our best interests and not theirs?”

Since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, special interest spending on elections has skyrocketed. According to a recent report released by the WISPIRG Foundation and Demos entitled “Billion Dollar Democracy”, total spending on the 2012 election cycle topped $5.2 billion, with over $1 billion coming from outside groups like Super PACS. Even more alarming, nearly 60% of the total Super PAC funding came from just 159 individuals making contributions of at least $1 million.

Currently, 13 states have already called for a constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United, with the state of Maine joining the list earlier this month.

“Unlimited election spending by corporations and wealthy special interests gives them a bullhorn that drowns out the voice of everyday citizens,” said United Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck. “This movement taking place in Wauwatosa and across our state is an example of the people taking direct action to ensure their voices are heard. We are calling on our legislature to stand up for the principles of democracy and join the growing list of states demanding an end to the corrupting influence of big money in politics.”

The full language of the proposed referendum follows:

Shall the City of Wauwatosa adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED, the City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:

1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and

2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort

WANT TO SIGN THE PETITION? Visit the Wauwatosa Public Library (7735 W North Ave) between 9:30am-4:30pm Monday through Friday and visit our table right inside the main entrance!

Click here to get involved in the campaign!

# # #

United Wisconsin is an independent, grassroots organization of citizens restoring the Wisconsin tradition of democracy in action. For more information, visit our website at www.unitedwisconsin.com.

(Photo courtesy of the Overpass Light Brigade)