A Debate Is Needed on How to Really Get Ethics Reform
There is little doubt that Wisconsin is in need of ethics reform.
The real question is how do we best accomplish it.
Most say (including myself) that Sen. Mike Ellis’ SB-1, the Ethics Reform Bill, is the best way to achieve substantive reform. In a nutshell, the bill combines the Ethics and Elections Boards, and gives the new board real independent authority to go after ethics violations.
Governor Doyle agrees with this position. The State Senate passed this bill 28-5; the State Assembly killed it.
The issue gets more complicated when we have to decide what is the best way to ultimately pass real reform (SB-1).
Some say we go after legislators who voted against reform and make them answer to their constituents this fall. Throw the bums out and replace them with reform-minded replacements.
Others say that the best way to get reform is to have Governor Doyle call a special session on ethics. Since the legislative session is over, Doyle could call the legislature back, and it could show up to answer the call. Since the GOP majority in the Assembly already voted against taking up the bill, it would be an option to try and force the vote again. (Note: The Assembly leadership has ignored past calls for special sessions.)
Under the second scenario, two "positive" outcomes could happen. The best option is that the GOP shows up and passes SB-1 in the version passed by the State Senate. The second is if they don’t, everyone realizes once again that the GOP is full of it on ethics. These are the fairytale outcomes; everything works out in the end. We pass the bill OR we again show who are the obstacles to reform.
The problem as many see it, however, is either of those special session alternatives has little to no chance of occurring.
Far more likely, one of these alternatives would occur:
1) The GOP heeds the call for a special session, but passes SB-1 in a form that has been proposed by Rep. Mark Gundrum. That version merges the boards, but kills the enforcement mechanism. In essence, they pass SB-1, but kill ethics reform. The GOP claims victory. The Governor either signs a sham bill or vetoes it. If he vetoes it, “independent” 527 groups will spend a half million dollars or more saying Doyle vetoed ethics reform. Ouch.
Why is this option most likely? Well, Mark Green said so in his own “ethics reform” package released last week. Green claims he supports SB-1, yet calls for an “inspector general” to investigate ethics violations. Why would you need that if it is already included in SB-1? Because Green knows if the legislature is called back into session it will kill the enforcement mechanism. Thanks for the heads up Mark. Other GOP sources have confirmed this as well.
In the end, passing SB-1 kills ethics reform.
Or 2) The GOP heeds the call for a special session, but sends a bill that doesn’t resemble SB-1, but instead resembles the “ethics reforms” proposed by Mark Green. Ethics reform - Mark Green style - helps Mark Green and the GOP largely, not the greater public. Being so close to an election, Green’s sham plan gets credibility. The Governor has to either sign a bad bill or veto “ethics reform”. If he vetoes it, once again fake groups kill him on television saying he killed ethics reform.
Under either scenario, the big losers besides the public are the legislative Democrats and the Governor. Clearly, the Assembly Democrats voted unanimously for pulling SB-1 for a vote, following Governor Doyle’s lead on the bill. Only five Assembly Republicans did, though they later voted three more times to kill reform. We have a strong vehicle to go to the voters with and try to replace the legislators who oppose reform. The best issue to hit the state in a decade would be lost, as all the Republicans who killed ethics reform would now have a second vote, on a potentially fake bill, in their pocket to confuse the issue. Bottom line: the GOP majority stays in office for another term and no reform occurs.
Oh, and one more possible scenario: The GOP lets a few more members off the hook to vote for SB-1, but doesn’t get the same version passed in the Senate and Assembly. No bill actually passes, due to different versions in each house, but more Assembly Republicans vote for “ethics reform” to ensure their reelection. Again, no reform, but political confusion wins.
So, do we work hard to defeat anti-reform legislators this fall or do we try to force a vote with a special session, hoping for a postive outcome?
Currently I am concerned that there are far more outcomes under the special session scenario that would mean some version of SB-1 passes, but in reality ethics reform is killed. The real SB-1 bill in its current form would not be what passes. I certainly don’t want that to happen.
So, here’s the question. What should we do? Is there another positive strategy we could follow?
I’m fearful that short of getting an ironclad promise from Rep. Mike Huebsch (in essence, the real GOP leader in the Assembly) on a up-or-down vote on the State Senate's version of SB-1, we could easily give the GOP an out while they kill reform.
I’m seeking your input. What are your thoughts? What is the best way to get ethics reform?
Vote the legislators who killed SB-1 out of office? That's where we are now. Or open the process up and take our chances? Or is there another strategy we could take? Please share your thoughts.
Whatever ultimately happens should be what gets us closest to passing real reform. I think a little more debate about what process should occur to get us there needs to happen first.
posted by Mark Pocan @ 7:27 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
If a sham SB-1 bill is passed without the enforcement mechanism, is there a way to let voters know that it essentially kills ethics reform?
If the GOP does kill it with a sham bill, there is a third option called the word-item veto that Doyle has effectively used in the past. But IF the Republicans attempt to kill it, it will be the end of their majority rule. The public is sick and tired of the corrupt status quo, and the grass roots groups are waiting to pounce.
But I get the distinct impression that Doyle is afraid to live by SB1 rules too, when instead he should be demonstrating to the public that he is indeed the reform governor. After all, wasn't he once our top cop? He should be that again.
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
Hi Jack, thanks for your thoughts. Here is the problem with the word veto option...it doesn't work anymore. The GOP got wise to the power of the veto, and they can pass bills with fiscal impacts in separate legislation. The net effect is the Governor can partially veto. They've done this several times this past session, sort of finding a loophole to limit the veto outside of the budget bill itself.
The problem remains, we have been told by GOP leadership they will kill it if forced, but it will be very hard to match the dollar for dollar 527 lies that would come out of this.
Again, the reason why you and I support 100% public financing is more than clear once again.
Then Mark, I'd say let the GOP kill it and pay for it at the polls. For Doyle to do nothing looks even worse for the Dems, like they are just fine with it not coming to a vote. I think Doyle needs this to save face himself, in light of travelgate, and if he refuses to bring it to a vote it will be him who pays at the polls. I see it as a win-win for him.
So perhaps we ought to just sit back and take it on the chin? I don't think so, and as the private money increases and the public trust decreases, we will see the public become more involved. We'll just educate them on what the corrupt political system is currently costing them on a yearly basis (which is $1300 in Wisconsin alone). An 88% public distrust of politicians is meaningful. That six Republicans and Democrats were convicted and served time in jail indicates that this is not a fake crisis. It is the tip of the iceberg.
And for the record I have nothing to gain in this battle. I receive no income outside of my social security and investments, so my special interests turn out to be children and grandchildren ranging from 50 to 1 year old.
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
This from Wisconsin Democracy Campaign:
2006 is not shaping up to be a good year to be a state office holder seeking re-election. According to the most recent poll by the right-wing Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, 62% of state residents think it is important to elect new people to office.
Only 6% of those surveyed by WPRI in mid-June think that elected officials represent the interest of voters, a finding that exactly mirrors an earlier poll conducted late last year. Only 3% of residents surveyed for the most recent poll trust state government to almost always do the right thing.
A whopping 81% believe that lobbying groups have more power than voters, and 73% say campaign contributors are more powerful than voters. All this led the La Crosse Tribune to editorialize again in support of action on ethics reform.
There is no remaining doubt that Wisconsin citizens know there is an ethics problem in state government and they know that campaign contributions are at the heart of the political corruption. But citizens also appear doubtful that there is a solution. When asked by WPRI whether they favor using tax dollars to finance Wisconsin political campaigns, 65% said no.
What is most sadly striking about the leading question WPRI asked and the public sentiment it evoked is the apparent lack of awareness that taxpayers will always foot the bill for political campaigns, one way or the other. Taxpayers either can pay directly for campaigns through a system of public financing of elections or they'll pay indirectly for them by having to pick up the cost of government favors that go to big campaign donors.
Publicly financing state election campaigns would cost each taxpayer between $5 and $10 annually. Democracy Campaign research shows that the cost of tax breaks, pork barrel spending and government contracts given to wealthy campaign donors exceeds $1,300 a year for each and every taxpayer in the state.
Post a Comment
<< Home