Issue Focus: Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform

Every now and then, I want to share some thoughts and concerns I have on the issues we are debating at the State Capitol. I’m not asking you to agree with me. I simply ask that you keep these thoughts in mind as we go forward.

One issue that I have been especially concerned with is the lack of any campaign finance or ethics reform in Wisconsin. I can tell you this unequivocally: money taints not only major legislation, but nearly everything we do in the Capitol. It is rare that I see a good piece of legislation move forward that has not been tainted by special interest influence, especially via campaign donations. That is a sad reality.

Because of this, I have proposed in the last three sessions a bill that mirrors what the States of Maine and Arizona have in place, full public financing of elections. For a small state investment ($5-10 million), you would completely remove the influence of campaign fundraising from the process. No one can give you more than $5.00. Without a doubt, the best legislators as a group I meet at conferences come from the State of Maine, where you don’t have to put your hand out for months to get elected.

Having said that, I also recognize that there are other important measures that would go far to improve the ethical situation in Wisconsin. When Governor Doyle put his ethics reform package together, I was proud to join bipartisan support of the proposal. It truly would go far in making this a much more ethical place, AND I think it could pass in the legislature. Banning fundraising during our creation of a $54 billion biennial budget is a strong and much needed reform. Full public financing of Supreme Court elections is a great start to proving this form of campaign financing is an ethical and valid one. And, the other reforms include in the package are needed ways to clean up state government.

But some “reformers” are taking pot shots at the package, saying we should pass Plan A or Plan B instead. In my opinion, these calls are off mark and are more about passing legislation THEY advocate or get funding for, than they are about getting better government.

For example, yesterday one of the Republicans who endorsed the package decided it wasn’t enough, and instead we should pass HIS bill. Fine. His bill (in its original form before the special interests diced and sliced it) would be a fine companion to the ethics reform package, as would other bills. But reform isn’t about getting the bill with your name on it passed; it’s about moving the state forward in this area. Flipping your lid (no pun intended) over who gets credit is not about reform, it’s about ego.

I’ve proudly written columns in support of Rep. Steve Freese’s (R-Dodgeville) proposal to ban fundraising during the budget. It doesn’t matter that a real reform-minded Republican is the author; what matters is that it is a good bill.

So let’s quit deciding who is more of a self-proclaimed “reformer” or what name is on a bill. Let’s pass real reform in a bipartisan manner and not let up on asking for more in the future. It’s not a “one or the other” proposition. They can all work hand-in-hand.