Voters across the state are enduring smear campaigns waged by cloaked special interest groups intent on controlling the state Legislature. Little is known about the groups responsible because they are operating outside the law, exploiting a gaping loophole to get around disclosure requirements and skirt campaign contribution limits.
Swiss banks are known the world over as the place to stash ill-gotten gains, keep questionable finances one step ahead of the law or otherwise stockpile riches with no questions asked. So-called "issue ad" groups are their political equivalent.
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign maintains a section of our web site (www.wisdc.org) that we call "Hijacking Election 2008" (available online at http://www.wisdc.org/ind08issueads.php). We're now updating it several times a day as we learn of new under-the-radar hatchet jobs in state legislative races by groups like All Children Matter and Building a Stronger Wisconsin.
These shadowy front groups are creating a traffic jam on the low road, stuffing mailboxes and in some cases filling the airwaves in key battleground districts with paint-by-numbers attacks. All Children Matter assails Democratic candidates, claiming they all support health care benefits for illegal aliens. Building a Stronger Wisconsin attacks Republicans on the grounds that they don't care about school kids and rape victims.
All Children Matter is based in Michigan and is the brainchild of the DeVos family that founded Amway Corporation. Dick DeVos spent $40 million of his own money trying to become governor of Michigan and his wife, Betsy, has been the state Republican Party chief in Michigan. Her brother, Erik Prince, is head of Blackwater Security, which supplies mercenaries in Iraq and elsewhere.
Even less is known about Building a Stronger Wisconsin. It has a web site (www.buildingastrongerwi.com) and a post office box in Waunakee, Wisconsin. Its treasurer is listed as Randy Nash, a Milwaukee-area attorney and unsuccessful Democratic Senate candidate in 1996.
What is clear is that the money raised to fund their smears is not disclosed to the public. Voters have been kept entirely in the dark about who's paying for this gutter campaigning.
Four groups - Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Greater Wisconsin Committee, Club for Growth and the Coalition for America's Families - raised and spent two out of every three dollars in the last two state Supreme Court elections and accounted for nearly 90 percent of the television advertising in this year's race.
Voters have been given no clue about where the money came from to pay for all those ads either.
Electioneering by trade associations, lobbying organizations and party front groups abounds in state elections now, and who pays the bills is a secret.
It's secret because of that loophole I mentioned. Not only does it allow them to operate like Swiss banks, it allows them to effectively take the "r" out of "free" speech.
It's a loophole that can and should be closed. At its last meeting, the state Government Accountability
Board voted unanimously to assert it has the authority to rewrite rules governing electioneering by special interest groups. The board has signaled it intends to act.
Let's hope and pray it does. The sooner the better. The board's next meeting is November 11.
Mike McCabe is executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan government watchdog group. WDC's web site is www.wisdc.org.
28 Comments
First off, the democrats do support government health care benefits for illegal aliens! It was part of their $15 billion health care plan that was proposed last year.
So what is so secretive about All Children Matter if Mike McCabe is able to tell us that it is run by DeVos from Michigan? Also, what does the brother of the Betsy DeVos have to do with All Children Matter?
Why is Mike McCabe so concerned about the origin of legal advertisements, but not concerned about the illegal election activities of ACORN here in Wisconsin and across the country?
Also, why has Mike McCabe not blasted Barack Obama in the Small Business Times for his lie about agreeing to use federal funding for his campaign?
Why- because Mike McCabe and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign are like the Government Accountability Board, left-leaning individuals and groups (not nonpartisan) that want to control free speech, and excuse or ignore illegal election activity of the democrats for the benefit of the left.
Finally, what is Mike McCabe ultimately after with his "crusade" regarding these independent political advertisements? Does he want some board like the kangaroo Government Accountability Board to determine which ads are acceptable, or does he want to ban them completely at the cost of free speech?
Hey Bill - These groups represent the slime in the American political system. They operate in the shadows, accountable to no one, with their phony "issue ads." Only an idiot would defend them on either side, much less believe or give any credence to their commercials or their robocalls. The party's over. You lose.
Mike, I know you have to appear to be balanced here but Randy Nash is a very decent and respectable guy, and not someone who should be hauled out in public and labelled as "shadowy."
There is a lot more low, and I do mean low, hanging fruit that could have been offered up in your piece and as part of your otherwise admirable work.
John, I agree, ACORN does represent the slime in the American political system. As to, the groups advertising truthfully- I will defend their right to free speech.
As to the comment that the party is over and I lose- you apparently support Obama, who incidentally has run several ads that are flat-out lies (not unlike his pledge to use public financing for his campaign), including that John McCain is against stem cell research. But hey, followers of the one like you aren't concerned about the truth, its about shutting up the opposition, free speech be damned.
One last thing, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign claims it is nonpartisan. Take a look at their board of directors: http://wisdc.org/wdcus.php It's full of leftists from groups such as the National Association of Social Workers-Wisconsin, Progressive Dane, and the Wisconsin Retired Educators' Association. They are nonpartisan and I am a martian.
I think we should talke all restrictions off of campaigns. McCain-Feingold only changed the way both parties and special interest groups get money. If a "watchdog" group, like yours, is only going to enforce the rules on one party, shouldn't they be under tighter scrutiny or restriction?
Let's really make elections a free for all instead of pretending they aren't and passing laws that change the rules but not the result.
Mike,
Here's a proposal to help clean up political campaigns. How about "The State of Wisconsin shall pass no law(s) restricting the right of anyone or any group to freely express their views."
>>> "Finally, what is Mike McCabe ultimately after with his "crusade" regarding these independent political advertisements?"
First let me say that I voted early and I voted for McCain-Pain. And I don't always agree with McCabe on the issues, especially Voter ID.
But he is 100% on target here. Special interest funding of issue ads -- at the very least -- help get elected or re-elected candidates that can be bought, and at worst the candidates ARE bought as a result of their "underground" funding of the elections. Oh, I'm sorry, they are not "coordinated."
And Bill, I've given WDC money too, because they espouse high ethics and good government policies. I wish we had more of them.
Art. I love it, but don't we have something like that on the books already? It is called the U.S. Constitution. I am surprised Campaign Finance "reform" laws" aren't knocked down by the first ammendment. That way we would not need "watchdog" groups limiting one group's free speech to enhance another.
Incredible. You people are sheep. The fact that oil companies write our energy policies and drug companies and hospitals write our health care policies and road builders dominate our interior policies, large investment banks write our financial regulations and so forth ... These huge special interests determine what gets done and not done! People move interchangeably from Congress to K-Street. That's what's gotten us into this huge mess in the first place. And you want to protect them so they can protect their own self-interests - at the taxpayer's expense. Ultimately, the joke is on you! Why should they get what they want, at your expense! Sheep! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Sheep, who are asking to be fleeced. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
That is indeed incredible, John. I wonder how many of these guys are CEOs that would allow their employees to take money from vendors and give away corporate assets in return. That's exactly what's happening under the current, corrupt political system and they turn their head to get fleeced.
McCabe and WDC are pushing for public funding of campaigns. What the hell, the public already IS funding the elections when the lawmakers take cash and give away the store in return. In the private world we call that bribery, and in the public world we call it campaign contributions.
OUR board of directors is on the take, and some of us turn a blind eye!
But let me also ask if anybody here has heard of our spiraling economy? Is there anyone who would argue that campaign contributions had nothing to do with this? Cash dollars ... sorry, speech ... flowed to the politicians of both political parties to influence the removal of regulations from the banking industry. Isn't this thing called freedom of speech wonderful?
** An no, freedom of speech is great. It is equating bribery with campaign cash that is warped.
Sorry John W. but I don't speak sheep. Obviously you know it well.
Oil companies write our energy policy? Um, we don't have a policy. If they did would they prevent themselves from drilling on domestic land? Prevent the building of refineries? Do the drug companies write all of the steps they have to go through to approve life saving drugs while people die waiting for them to be approved? Do financial institutions write regulations that force them to provide loans for those who cannot afford it?
You speak sheep well. I am sure you are fluent in lemming too.
Jack, I'm impressed that you already voted, you get a happy face sticker. With regards to your comment about CEO's taking money from vendors- it is very analogous to politicians taking campaign contributions from government employee unions, part of the reason Wisconsin has a $3billion budget deficit. I'm still waiting to hear you lefties blast the corrupt government union campaign contribution system we have on local, state and national levels. When you argue against both the corporations and the unions I'll give you a little respect.
Incidentally, some of these government employee unions are board members of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. I would love to see some true transparency at WDC, why don't they post on their web site all their sources of revenue, including all donations and grants they have received, including amounts and specific sources? Why are they working in the shadows?
Mike McCabe and WDC are against voter ID, haven't condemned ACORN for illegal election activity, have not condemned public employee unions that give campaign contributions to the same politicians that spend money on them (do some of the groups that are on the board of WDC make campaign contributions?), and have been nearly silent about Obama's lying and breaking of his pledge to abide by public financing system for presidential campaign (McCabe posted an editorial on his dead-end web site). Mike McCabe and WDC are a left leaning front group and are a joke when it comes to their claim of being nonpartisan.
As to John Wolters- you are raising the lefty bar by your excellent arguments- calling people idiots and sheep. Please keep it up.
So if you ban political speech by corporations, will you ban political speech by unions? How about fraternal organizations or organizations of people with common interests such as the NRA or Sierra Club? Why not the media? They are clearly in the tank for Obama. What is the value of all that free, lapdog press? We're talking billions of dollars.
Finally, I find it laughable that John Wolters is so righteous about this issue while his messiah is completely wrecking the public financing system for presidential campaigns that was established after Watergate. Who is going to pledge to accept public financing in the future after they look back and see how Obama lied about his pledge and took advantage of McCain who stood by his pledge?
I missed the fun yesterday, very lively discussion. The passion and flying fur (wool?) is one of the bright spots of my day.
I read through everything said, and the common thread seems to be 'conflict of interests' pure and simple. Many of us are in business or have a business. I would personally march one of my staff out the door if he/she was taking anything more than a lunch/dinner/golf with a supplier or client.
Yet here we have politicians quite literally beholding to those with the money to continue pursuing their career. Because if the money goes elsewhere, so goes the guy/gal's job. Anyone not see an issue with this?
So, if knowing the problem is half the solution, how do we get the other half? Tougher than we might think. But here is the plan as I see it; I would love to hear better plans than mine.
Set one target and only one. Ban all outside money and gift for elections funds; including personal funds. Candidates can only use $xx,xxx in primary and election cycles.
Once in office, elected officials can only accept their salary, benes; period.
We'll need to address issues with:
PAC's - possibly require debates and solo question formats to address public questions and concerns, fact checking - but we must support free speech.
Lobbying - Allow only a standardized format for official consideration or possibly public addresses to state reps... Only on official time and only in the officials office.
What else do we need to address?
Bill, I did vote for McCain, so I hope that tells you that (a) I am not a total left wingnut, and (b) I deserve *two* smiley faces. But you are absolutely correct that union money is no cleaner than corporate money, and if you recall I have written that on numerous occasions. That business outbids unions by a factor of 7-to-1 is no consolation, it is both corrupt and it all must be eliminated.
I don't know who is on WDC's board, but in fairness I have seen them nail Doyle to the cross on numerous occasions. And I would agree that they are left leaning because the left favors a clean political system more than the right, and WDC's main purpose in life is to pass public funding of campaigns regardless of who gets elected to do it. Right now, with the exception of Mike Ellis, the GOP has nobody else, so maybe that's why they look more left than right.
I can assure you that WDC is no happier with Obama breaking his pledge than you or I are. We have said so and McCabe should too (if he hasn't already). But as to prohibiting free speech, public funding of campaigns doesn't do that, on either side. When a clean candidate (from the left or the right) gets bombarded with issue ads from the wackos, the fund kicks in matching funds to all the clean candidate to stay in the race.
Thanks to Bob and Jack for bringing this conversation back to civility.
Bob: You plan is worth discussion but haven't we tried to contain and/or manage campain funds at least since Watergagte? Have they ever worked?
What do you go about a George Soros or Swift Boat Vets? A candidate can distance, or pretend to distance themselves from such groups. Will that still impact them? Yes, it will put more funds in their opponent's hands. What if the candidate claims the Journal/Sentinel is supporting his opponent?
Quite seriously, my feeling is more campaign laws would be as useless as passing more gun/drug laws to prevent gangs from getting guns/drugs. It never works. They find ways and they won't be legal.
Jack: How can you assure us "that the WDC is no happier with Obama breaking his pledge?" Why wouldn't the Executive Director say so, if it were so? I don't particularly like unions but I have no right to limit their ability to get people elected. If I were running a union, I would do the same. Just as I would if I ran a business.
Jack, if issue ads kick in matching funds, who makes the determination? The WDC or another group who says nothing about a candidate breaking his pledge on an issue that is at the core of their existence. Hmmm, no thanks.
Please understand I don't fault Obama for declining public funding. It was obviously a smart move on his part.
McCain/Feingold prevented me from having my letter to the editor published on a referendum that was important to me and my community, two weeks before the election. That is suppression of free speech. I don't need any more help from do gooder campaign reformers limiting my rights and the rights of others.
Guys,
We all agree that we should have the right to associate with whoever we want.
We all agree that we should have the right of free speech.
If we associate together and decide to speak as a group, or elect/appoint a spokesman that is also our right.
So we should all be able to as a group or individuals say what we want, when we want, through whatever medium we choose, if we have the ability to do so.
It is difficult to read all of the justifications for limiting speech, and that's exactly what your comments are. What a shame.
Bob, it's my guess that if it were egregious enough you might even call the cops or lawyers as you marched the employees to the door.
That's exactly what McCabe's fighting to eliminate, the bribery, whether legal or illegal. To level the playing field. To eliminate the "substance rather than form" payola. To get elections so they are not bought, by anybody. That's my fight too.
With public funding of campaigns, when WMC or WEAC or WRTL or PP (or Soros) throws a $2M advertising campaign, the "clean candidate" is prohibited from using tainted money but receives offsetting funds to remain in and run a credible race. Those matches will ultimately dissuade interest groups from breaking the bank to buy an office and control the candidate. Can't afford it? We can't afford not to do it, as the current economy has proven.
I like requiring debates and solo question formats, but it's important to know that these and public funding must be voluntary or they won't pass constitutional muster. Arizona and Maine have had this for years and 70% of their legislators were elected under this system.
And incidentally, it doesn't eliminate lobbying, just lobbying with cash in hand.
Ted, I can't put words in McCabe's mouth. If WDC is unhappy with Obama for not taking public funds I should let them say so themselves. I do know that because the average contribution was $89, a few who were pulling for Obama were likely saying "Okay, it's about time for the ground swell. The little people are fighting back. Let's give them a piece of their own medicine." I don't agree with that, but it was a means to an end.
The "determination" is made by a non-partisan committee, not the candidate or any outsider. See
http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html
It's also my guess that McCain/Feingold didn't block and would not block your letter to the editor, the editor did and used any excuse he could muster.
Art, public funding of campaigns is voluntary. If you don't like the program, don't go there. Take all the cash you want and convince your constituents that you are not prostituting your office. But let the candidates that want to avoid getting into bed with their funders do so, rather than forcing them to whore themselves with the rest of them.
Are you a believer in one-person-one vote, or in whatever a vote sells for on the open market? Why should I be allowed to use my cash to drown out your vote? Why is cash equivalent to speech?
Have we not learned anything from the recent destruction of our capitalistic society? It was due solely because of politicians that were bought and paid for by the banking industry.
Ted, you ask some very good questions. Art makes a good point as well that we need to maintain free speech. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive.
More laws question: I'm suggesting we eliminate the thousands of pages and replace with "candidates can only use the funds provided them by the state". I've found that the more words used the easier it is to find loopholes.
Regarding PAC's: We need them because we need free speech and even more so now that the media is not to be trusted or even respected. But the PAC's themselves are not the true problem. Many (all?) are not telling the truth is the problem. Whether it be an outright lie, or half truth, or out of context, or a lie of ommission, it is not the whole truth.
So rather than look at eliminating them, how can watch dog them, fact check them, etc. without removing free speech. We don't allow a person to yell fire in the movie house. Why would we allow a group to promote a lie that can affect people's choices.
Anyone got an idea how we can police without restricting free speech?
Retaining free speech is important, and restricting speech is not what WDC or others are attempting to do. They ARE trying to prevent CASH from buying so much speech that it becomes a megaphone that drowns out the speech of everybody else, especially that of candidates who refuse to prostitute themselves. With the system of public funding of campaigns, speech is actually INCREASED when good but poor candidates are given enough to run a credible campaign, and when matching funds are given to offset the outside PACs and special interests throw money at a race.
Now, the special interests don't like clean candidates getting matching funds because it requires them to spend even more cash, and it levels the playing field that they are trying to unlevel.
The Arizona and Maine systems have been working extremely well, and that's why the special interests are trying to reverse the laws.
And guys, free speech is not free when it requires money to exercise it. Those with money have it, those without money don't have it. In politics, therefore, exercising speech is really a poll tax.
Guys, free speech is not free when it requires money to exercise it. Those with money have it, those without money don't. In politics, therefore, exercising speech is really a poll tax.
But worse, it is a corruption that our society cannot afford.
Jack:
I can see why you are skeptical about my letter being blocked. They don't publish anyone's letter pertaining to elections. Call your editor and ask if you can publish a letter to the editor. They even print the notification in the paper.
How is this preventing anything but free speech. It is the stupidest law on the books.
FYI, I have run for office and was elected. The forms and documentation was massive for someone running for local school board. This just intimidates good plain folks from running.
This is a test message from the editor ... This is only a test.
Ted, if the newspaper chooses not to print any political letters it is a newspaper policy that has nothing to do with McCain-Feingold. But I have had letters published elsewhere.
And Steve, thanks for fixing the posting mechanism.
Where can I read about the Maine and Arizona election process with campaign financing?
See Arizona at http://azclean.org or the document http://azclean.org/documents/8-9-042002SuccessStats.doc and Maine at http://www.mainecleanelections.org/