|
MADISON - More taxpayer dollars would be
directed toward Wisconsin Supreme Court campaigns in an effort to blunt
the impact of special interest money in the officially nonpartisan races
under a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
Supporters said the measure passed
Thursday would give candidates a new revenue stream and reduce fears
that special interest groups control the court through campaign
contributions.
"Citizens need their high court to
be completely above board," said the bill's main author, Sen. Pat
Kreitlow, D-Chippewa Falls. "A well-padded checkbook has no place
in that chamber."
Critics blasted the measure, saying it
did not offer enough money to attract candidates or address so-called
issue ads, unregulated commercials from third-party groups that attack a
candidate but don't expressly advocate for his or her opponent.
"As much as they may try, more
competitive and more expensive state Supreme Court races are here to
stay," said Joe Murray, a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Realtors
Association, which opposes the bill. "There's too much at stake.
They may want the old days, but I don't think they can recreate
them."
The state Senate and Assembly both passed
the bill on Thursday, the last day of session for the year. Gov. Jim
Doyle, a Democrat, has said he will sign the bill.
Supreme Court races in Wisconsin have
become big-money affairs, raising questions about who justices owe and
whether they can set those connections aside when they rule on cases.
The push for reform began after Annette
Ziegler and Michael Gableman won election in 2007 and 2008 in races
marked by big spending by outside groups. Wisconsin Manufacturers and
Commerce, the state's largest business group, alone spent an estimated
$4 million to help Ziegler and Gableman combined, according to the
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a government watchdog group that has
registered in favor of the bill.
Last week the Supreme Court adopted rules
proposed by the business group and realtors to allow judges to hear
cases involving their biggest campaign donors.
Reformers say public campaign financing
for court races would remove the stigma that special interests own the
justices.
The state already offers candidates
public money for their campaigns through a fund built with a voluntary
$1 checkoff on people's tax returns. That system offers Supreme Court
candidates a maximum of $97,000 and limits their total spending to
$215,625.
The fund, though, also covers candidates
for other statewide offices, such as the attorney general and governor.
State election officials have had to prorate Supreme Court candidate
funding since 1989.
The new bill would create a $3 voluntary
tax checkoff. One dollar would go to the existing campaign account. The
remaining $2 would go to a new account dubbed the Democracy Trust Fund.
The money in that account would go
exclusively to Supreme Court candidates. If the fund can't cover every
candidate, money will come out of the state's general fund.
Eligible candidates could get a $100,000
grant for a primary campaign and another $300,000 grant for a general
election run. If their opponents or groups that expressly support their
opponents outspend them by a certain percentage, the candidates would
get more state money to match that amount.
"This would enable candidates to be
free of this money race," said Mike McCabe, executive director of
the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
The system could cost the state about
$3.5 million per election, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
The realtors' Murray said the state,
which faced a $6.6 billion deficit in its last budget, can't afford
that. Even if lawmakers can generate the grants, they don't provide
enough money to run a realistic statewide campaign and candidates won't
participate.
"The only people running will be
wealthy people," Murray said.
Sen. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, complained the
bill does nothing to address issue ads. The ads for years have been a
sore spot for politicians, who complain mysterious groups use the ads to
attack them with impunity.
Interest groups will still outspend
publicly financed candidates by spending right up to the level that
triggers matching funds but not go beyond it, he added.
"Let's stop fooling the public.
Don't we want to take back these elections?" Ellis said.
Kreitlow acknowledged that the bill
wasn't perfect but called it a start.
|
