One Wisconsin Now

Update: Daniel Bice has the audio of a Tom Reynolds phone call to state Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee, 20), “a veteran Milwaukee Democrat, (who) has a direct and personal interest in what Reynolds was doing, so she signed up - using a fake name - with Clean Sweep Wisconsin.”

This is the link is to the audio of the Reynolds phone call, and the URL is: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=770314

Transcription of the Reynolds call, in part, follows:

“… In Milwaukee here, we are working on a full slate of 12 candidates; eight on the north side, and four on the south side. And we are at eight or nine candidates right now. ... We have a candidate against Sinicki and a candidate against Staskunas. And we're still working on Zepnick and Colón….”

An anti-Catholic-Reynolds ally in Colón’s district? That likely will not play especially well there; though it’s a fair bet that Reynolds’ brand of politics and hate will not play well anywhere in the Milwaukee area. See the Milwaukee-area Democratic State Reps chart at the end of this post.
***
What does a rightwing candidate recruited by a notorious anti-Catholic, Tom Reynolds, say if his/her name is on the ballot challenging Milwaukee-area Assembly Democrats in the September primary?

As little as possible.

And he/she hides from the public, staying in the shadows, an odd posture for candidates for public office, though consistent with the past odd behavior of former state senator Reynolds who reportedly had asked of prospective staff whether they were virgins.

Shortly after Annette Ziegler was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court she closed her campaign committee and took her seat on the high court. Not so for the latest Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) empty suit Michael Gableman. He has started campaign fundraising some 10 years early. He is scheduled to have a fundraiser in Pewaukee this evening at a private residence. The going rate to meet WMC’s latest rubber stamp is between $100 and $500. It would be interesting to see what types of people show up and exactly what special interests they may represent. Perhaps my standards are too high, but there is something unseemly about a Justice-elect having a special interest pow-wow only weeks before he takes his seat on the high court.

The contact person for the Gableman fundraiser is Republican insider Mary Stitt. It is no surprise to find her name associated with a Gableman fundraiser. After all Gableman did his share of fundraising for Republican causes, some of it appears to include calls to her. Stitt’s phone number is listed as being one of the questionable calls that he made from a state phone when he was Ashland County District Attorney. The record actually shows that he called her at least 11 times. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at tonight’s event. Maybe we could actually catch them in one honest moment as they reminisce about the good old days of fundraising for Scott McCallum. Maybe we could finally get a straight answer about Gableman’s questionable calls to her and others. As nice as it would be, I have a funny feeling that the event will amount to little more than a special interest love fest. Apparently it is never too early to have one of those, even if you are preparing to take a seat on the state’s highest court.

Gableman's disgusting campaign focused on racial fear-mongering. How low will McCain go?

John McCain fancies himself as a great reformer of our campaign finance system. Unfortunately he does not seem to be obeying some of his own rules regarding his own campaign travel. He had a stated policy of not using aircraft of companies with lobbying interests in Washington for campaign travel. The Boston Globe identified campaign reimbursements to at least 10 corporations for private jet transport. Unfortunately, he is not only violating his own internal policies on the issue, but he is also violating at least the spirit of a relatively new campaign finance law that he himself supported.

The New York Times reported this weekend that John McCain used a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife. For five of the seven months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes. The campaign paid a total of $241,149 for use of the plane during the seven month period. According to the New York Times analysis, that is approximately what it would cost to charter a similar jet for only a month or two at the most.

Recently Senator Herb Kohl wrote a piece appearing in the Monroe Times suggesting that elections happen on the weekend. As we saw on April 1, an embarrassing number of people just don’t make it to the polls, leaving the decisions to a very few. Although higher profile elections bring out a lot more voters, the participation is still severely lacking. In the piece Senator Kohl cites legislation that he reintroduced in the U.S. Senate changing our national election day to the weekend.

Senator Kohl’s legislation would move Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. People would actually get two full days to make it to the polls. This would give voters the best opportunity to vote because it would take place over two days, during a part of the week when most people have some free time. This plan would also greatly reduce long waits at the polls, a factor that has also driven down participation. Because Senator Kohl’s plan would require polling places to be open over a two day period, he has worked in some federal aid to help lesson any burden on facilities and poll workers.

Every election cycle we rightfully complain about low participation, but Senator Kohl is providing leadership to help solve this problem. There simply is no downside to his proposal and everyone should be able to enthusiastically get behind it. Who could possibly take issue with making voting easier?  Actually I have a few ideas, but I  wont go there.

On Monday we drew attention to All Children Matter, the pro-private school vouchers group founded by a Michigan Republican billionaire. Specifically we pointed to a recent unanimous ruling by the Ohio Elections Commission that the right wing group illegally funneled $870,000 into the state. The body also fined All Children Matter $5.2 million for their violations. This was of particular interest in Wisconsin because the same group violated election rules in their opposition to John Lehman’s successful bid for State Senate in 2006. The newly formed Wisconsin Government Accountability Board should take strong action like Ohio to protect the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections.

While we should all be concerned with All Children Matter’s troubling record, we should also be concerned with the massive amounts of money flowing to Wisconsin Legislators by their key donors.  One Wisconsin Now found that major donors for All Children Matter have given $10 million to them while also making 539 contributions to current Wisconsin Legislators. The total in contributions to Wisconsin Legislators reaches nearly $130,000. Legislators should think long and hard about whether they want to be associated with the major donors of an organization found to be violating election laws.

The list of All Children Matter's Top Donors and the money they gave to Wisconsin legislators' campaign accounts are as follows:

All Children Matter, a pro-private school vouchers group founded by a Michigan Republican billionaire was fined $5.2 million for illegally funneling money into Ohio campaigns. This is the same group that is under investigation in Wisconsin after the State Elections Board determined in 2006 that it violated election rules here.

In a 5-0 decision, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled that All Children Matter illegally funneled $870,000 to Ohio through a Virginia PAC, allowing it to exceed the state’s $10,000 limit on PAC contributions. One of the people donating to the illegal effort was Ohio’s largest operator of charter schools, David Brennan. Brennan and his wife have also spent large amounts of cash in Wisconsin. Most notably the couple gave the maximum total of $20,000 to Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Mark Green in 2006.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) successfully bought a corporate majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week. They accomplished their goal in the most dishonest and deceptive of ways, churning out a nonstop flow of deceptive ads. They were successful at kicking out one of the most brilliant minds and first ever African American on the high court. They replaced him with a dishonorable man that is not fit to carry a law license much less render decisions on the most complex aspects of the law. The one good thing to come of this tragedy is that WMC has finally over-reached and people are not going to stand for it anymore.

During the heat of WMC’s disinformation campaign blogger Jim Bouman wrote a letter to TDS Metrocom CEO Dave Wittwer, who also served on the WMC Board. Jim expressed how although he had only good experiences with TDS that he planned on taking his business elsewhere because of Wittwer’s service on the WMC board. Jim listed several WMC activities that were at the heart of his complaint including their backing of Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman. A short time later Wittwer wrote a letter back to Jim asking him to reconsider and announced that he was leaving the WMC board for “philosophical and personal reasons.”

Over the weekend the Associated Press ran a story pointing out the striking similarities of the current fight for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court and a new John Grisham novel, The Appeal. I have not read the book but just hearing some of the details, it seems like someone at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) got an advance copy and used it as a play book.

In the book: Corporate Interests lose a big liability case.

In Wisconsin: Corporate Interests lose a lead paint decision.

In the book: Corporate Interests plot to take out a sitting Justice that they have deemed “liberal” and an “activist”.

In Wisconsin: WMC attacks the high court in general and specifically takes aim at a sitting Justice that is up for election. They paint him as “liberal” and an “activist.”

Several newspapers have noted Michael Gableman’s inability to let go of his constantly repeated talking points. Even when a conservative paper tried to ask him about a case that he has used to criticize his opponent, he remained evasive. We can now see with less than a week to go, that Gableman simply refuses to answer any questions that depart from his script. The most recent examples were in his debate with Justice Louis Butler on Tuesday night and in an online chat on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website yesterday.

Having listened to Gableman constantly recite his memorized lines, I wondered what a debate with a less civil opponent might sound like. I came up with something like this:

CORY: Judge Gableman, we already know that you don’t like the decision in the lead paint case but can you tell me precisely why the decision was legally wrong?

GABLEMAN: I have spoken with many of the good people of this great state and they all tell me that they do not want a judge that legislates from the bench….

CORY: But I didn’t ask you about what the good people of this great state told you, I asked you exactly how the decision was legally flawed?

Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman has traveled around the state complaining about specific cases in which incumbent Justice Louis Butler rendered a decision. Although Gableman repeatedly fails to offer a legal argument that Butler applied the law incorrectly, he and his allies continue to use these selected cases as a basis for removing Butler from the high court. While he continues to list the decisions in these cases as being problematic, he does not mention that they were decisions by a majority, including a Justice that he publicly supported even after some of the cases in question.

Judge Michael Gableman was listed as a supporter of Justice Patrick Crooks on a document dated September 13, 2005. This support was also reported by Wispolitics on September 16, 2005. Justice Crooks garnered the public support of Michael Gableman even though only months prior he joined Butler and a court majority in several of the cases that Gableman now decries.

Most notably, Crooks concurred with Butler on the Thomas v Mallet case, which is the lead paint decision that upset the corporate lobby so much. Butler, Crooks and a majority of the court decided that case on July 15, 2005, three full months before Gableman was listed as a Crooks supporter. While many conservatives were attacking Crooks for the decision, Gableman was giving public support.

There seems to be a theme developing in the media regarding Michael Gableman. It is not one that would surprise those that have been paying close attention. Apparently they are just beginning to get a clue that this guy is little more than a walking breathing list of talking points.

A couple weeks ago I caught Mike Gousha’s TV show, UpFront. During the show he interviewed both Justice Louis Butler and Mike Gableman. During his interview with Gableman he asked him a very specific legal question, quoting an editorial from the Dunn County News. Here is a quote of the editorial from which Gousha framed his question:

Criticism of Butler’s vote on a certain case is only valid if a critic makes a legal argument that Butler applied the law incorrectly. It is not valid to complain that his vote did not produce the result the critic preferred.

Not only did Gableman fail to respond with a legal argument to support his criticisms of Butler, but he completely ignored the question. As has been the case in several debates and other forums, when pressed on actual matters of law, Gableman starts parroting the same political talking points. Those talking points include things like “activist judge,” “new rights for criminals,” and “law enforcement endorsements.” So after yet another important question of legal argument, Gableman punted and talked about his law enforcement endorsements.