An opinion column by Gary Sherman The Daily Press (Ashland) May 01st, 2002

Examination of the WDC press release revealed that I was found to have incompletely reported a $500 contribution. Since I don't receive many contributions of over $100, it was a simple matter to check all five such contributions on that report carefully for error. Again, I found none.

If there were an error, it would have to be very minor to escape my scrutiny and that of the Wisconsin Elections Board, with whom the report is filed. How could a single, insignificant error result in a grade of F?

I contacted the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign to demand that they either justify their public criticism or retract it. Their response was both illuminating and frightening.

They responded that, while I had given both the home and business address of one of my contributors and had identified him as an attorney, all as required, I had not given the name of his law firm.

There were two things wrong with that response. First, the attorney in question was in sole practice and had no law firm and simply practiced in his own name, like most sole practitioners. Second, there is no rule stating that the firm name must be shown. Nothing in the published instructions from the Elections Board indicates that this is required.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign responds that it is helpful to know what firm an attorney works for, so that influence peddling can be more easily traced. Apparently, this private group claims the right to make its own rules and impose them on unsuspecting citizens without notice. The State Bar posts all of that information about every lawyer on the Internet where anyone, especially an experienced special-interest group like the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, can look it up. In any event, I have always disclosed the name of an attorney contributor's law firm, if they have one. It is pretty hard to do so if they do not.

The other aspect of the methodology is even more troubling. How could I rate an F over such an insignificant matter and one that is not even a violation of the rules, at that? Apparently, to the WDC, only contributions of over $100 "count." For those of us who exist primarily on small contributions, this is unreasonable.

On my report, there were only five contributions of over $100. Those were the only ones the WDC looked at. The other 75 were ignored, even though they accounted for most of the money raised. According to the WDC, my one supposed error represented a 20 percent error rate on the "large" contributions.

Excuse me? A single claimed discrepancy, not a rule violation, on 1/80th of the entries, shows that my entire report rates a failing grade? This methodology seriously misleads the public and is typical of the information being fed to the public about the nature of politics in general. Since it is impossible for those putting out such information not to know it is misleading, it is apparently a deliberate lie. Somebody wants you to be misled.

Think about this. If I were one of those candidates who gets most of my money from large contributions, such as corporate executives and other special interests, my one alleged error would have been insignificant. But, since I am doing what everyone wants an elected official to do, relying overwhelmingly on small local contributions, I am discriminated against and portrayed in the media as though I am either incompetent or dishonest.

In other words, this methodology accuses the innocent of misconduct and protects the guilty. The same methodology is used to claim what percentage of a candidate's contributions comes from outside of the district, or from a particular special interest. Only the "large" contributions "count," so those who rely on large contributions inevitably look "cleaner" than those who rely on small ones.

Note from Commentary: The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's Response to Rep. Sherman's piece can be found here.

Return to Commentary