April 6, 2003

Last Tuesday's elections in Wisconsin--in terms of campaign money raised and spent--provided some illuminating information about the current role of campaign money in Wisconsin and where campaign finance reform efforts ought to be headed in the months ahead.

The state Supreme Court contest narrowly won by Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Pat Roggensack of Madison over Barron County Circuit Court Judge Ed Brunner of Rice Lake did not turn out to be the campaign spending free-for-all many had predicted or feared it might be. Total spending in the race was about equal to what was spent in the last contested state
supreme court election in 2000 won by Justice Diane Sykes over Milwaukee Municipal Judge Louis Butler when both candidates abided by the state statutory spending limit of $215,625. Spending in the this year’s supreme court election was only about one fourth of the record $1.6 million spent in 1999 when Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson turned back a challenge from Green Bay Attorney Sharren Rose.

With Justice William Bablitch retiring this year, there had been speculation that Democratic-leaning special interest groups such as the Wisconsin Education Association Council and other labor unions might weigh in heavily -- with independent expenditures and phony issue ads--on Brunner's behalf in order to keep the present 4 to 3 conservative majority on the court from widening to a 5 to 2 margin. Aside from about $12,000 spent by the MTI, the Madison teacher's union, this anticipated outside spending didn't materialize.

It helped that Roggensack challenged Brunner to call on outside independent interest groups from spending on behalf of either candidate and, aside from MTI, none did in any substantial way that we know of, thus far. What also held down spending in this race was that Brunner agreed to abide by the voluntary statutory spending limit of $215,625 after CC/WI challenged both candidates to do so in February. Brunner ended up spending probably something less than that amount while Roggensack, who declined to agree to the CC/WI limit, spent in the neighborhood of $300,000 (with well more than half of that amount coming from her own resources)--or about twice the amount Brunner spent.

What also kept the spending relatively low in this contest was the fact that neither Brunner nor Roggensack took any special interest political action committee (PAC) money to fund their campaigns, an action proposed by Brunner which Roggensack emulated. This marks the first time in memory in Wisconsin where neither finalist in a State Supreme Court election took any PAC money.

Campaign spending was a constant issue in this election and became a major topic of debate between the candidates. Neither wanted to be portrayed as being influenced by special interest groups and both attempted to portray themselves as being the more independent-minded jurist, free from taint from their campaign contributors. This is now the second consecutive contested
supreme court election in Wisconsin in which the candidates basically “policed” themselves and largely neutralized big money as a factor in their election or defeat. While Roggensack did indeed outspend Brunner, it wasn’t by the margin many expected and it appears that her narrow victory was not simply a function of having spent more.

In sum, campaign spending in the Roggensack-Brunner contest was relatively moderate and with no PAC money accepted by either candidate and very little spending by outside special interest groups, this supreme court election was the “cleanest” in Wisconsin in many years.

Contrast the spending in that statewide election with what was spent in just one State Senate Democratic Primary contest in north central Wisconsin where about a half million dollars was burned in a bruising, nasty contest in which big money was decisively defeated because it became a central issue in the campaign.

Wisconsin Rapids attorney Alex Paul spent about $400,000 ­ of which 85% was family money­to challenge Democratic State Representative Julie Lassa of Stevens Point for the Democratic nomination for State Senate to replace Kevin Shibilski who left office to join the cabinet of Governor Jim Doyle as Secretary of Tourism.

Despite Doyle’s endorsement, and saturation media ads trumpeting his name and Doyle and Shibilski’s endorsement, Paul was defeated by a 2 to 1 margin by Lassa, who raised and spent only about a quarter of what Paul spent in the contest. In this election, campaign money was a huge issue with the wealthy Paul being perceived as simply trying to buy himself a State Senate
seat that pays about $45,000 a year by spending almost ten times that amount.

Lassa also may have benefitted from the backlash against a very nasty attack on her late last year orchestrated by the notorious media consultant Todd Rongstad of Madison, who attempted to link Lassa with the disgraced former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala through a very negative mailing which is now the subject of a defamation lawsuit. Whether Alex Paul had any
connection to the attack on Lassa is probably unlikely but even the thought of possible association with Rongstad could not have been helpful to Paul. Democratic U.S. Congressman David Obey blasted Paul and his campaign for their negative attacks on Lassa which obviously benefitted Lassa as well.

Lassa, who appeared with reform leaders Sen. Mike Ellis (R-Neenah), Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) and CC/WI at a press conference last November to unveil the revised comprehensive campaign finance reform measure­Senate Bill 12, is a strong supporter of comprehensive reform. Paul seemed less so and while this wasn’t the only issue in the primary, campaign spending was a big issue. Cynics and reform opponents may suggest that the voter rejection of the high-spending Paul is all the campaign finance reform that is needed­he lost and therefore big money does not need to be regulated. Just the opposite is the case. Lassa is a strong supporter of reform and in the wake of the biggest political scandal in Wisconsin's history with five legislators charged thus far with campaign fund-raising-related violations of the law; and following the most expensive gubernatorial election ever, voters embraced her message to clean up the mess in Madison and get big money out of our elections and out of public policy-making decisions. Her victory is a sign that embracing campaign finance reform is good politics as well as being good public policy.

The April 1st election demonstrates that comprehensive campaign finance reform of all legislative and statewide elections is what is needed in Wisconsin and not a piece-meal approach targeting just one office. Big, special interest money has proved not to be a big problem in the state supreme court election for the second consecutive time. But big money, or the threat of big money continues to rear its ugly head in legislative races and, obviously in elections for Governor. Attempts to clean up only supreme court elections in Wisconsin make no sense and would, instead simply let legislators and the Governor “off the hook” of having to reform their own elections because they could say they “accomplished” campaign finance reform (of the supreme court but not of themselves). The real problem in Wisconsin and the source of the legislative caucus scandal is in the financing of legislative races. Campaign finance reform measures that don’t address legislative campaign financing and financing for statewide offices such as Governor simply miss the mark and sidestep the problem. Reforming campaign financing for state supreme court elections ought to be part of a comprehensive solution, not a substitute for it.

In sum, the most important reform the Wisconsin Legislature can pass and Governor Doyle can sign into law is the Ellis-Erpenbach comprehensive reform bill, Senate Bill 12. Anything less than that simply won’t cure the sickness that currently ails us.