Campaign finance bill derailed-Campaign Finance Reform Thread

MADISON, Wis. — The main author of legislation to overhaul the state's campaign finance laws said Thursday the reforms were dead for this session and accused Republican leaders and the Democratic governor of doing everything they could to derail the bill.

Sen. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, withdrew the bill from consideration by the Legislature, saying he had lost bipartisan support and therefore expected it to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle if it reached his desk.

Rather than do that, he said he would wait until lawmakers reconvene for the next two-year session in January to try again.

"The leadership of my party and the governor did not want campaign finance reform, period," Ellis said.

Doyle and legislative leaders, meanwhile, said they wanted a reform package to pass. But Republicans and Democrats pointed fingers over who was truly to blame for the bill languishing, each saying the other does not want to overhaul the state's campaign finance laws for the first time since the 1970s.

Ellis has introduced his reform package each session since 1999 to no avail. Supporters believed the reforms could finally have the needed backing to pass this session after five lawmakers were charged in 2002 with illegal campaigning under state law. A sixth lawmaker was charged with federal felony counts last year on separate allegations.

A key point of the package includes public financing for state elections. Originally the legislation would have allocated taxpayer dollars for those grants, but Ellis amended it because of the state's financial problems.

The alternative funding mechanism would utilize an endowment funded by donations. Those giving money to the endowment would get a tax break from the state.

Ellis said it was the only option because the state just fixed a $3.2 billion shortfall last year and faces more fiscal uncertainty in the future. He said he was forced to make the change because legislative leaders and the governor asked him to delay the package of reforms for so long and now there is no money to fund the grants.

The legislation would also increase the spending limits for candidates who accept public money to run for state offices and ban campaign fund-raising while the state budget is being considered.

Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, said he was not prepared to give up on the reforms. Lawmakers adjourn next week and any legislation not passed before then will have to wait for the next session, which begins in January. Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer, R-West Bend, said lawmakers also may return to the Capitol in extraordinary session to take up the reforms if they're not passed by the time they adjourn the regular session.

Senate Minority Leader Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, dropped his support for the package earlier this week, believing the endowment would never generate enough revenue to fund the grants, making them meaningless.

"Public financing is a philosophical issue, either you support it or you don't," Erpenbach said. "I'm one who believes if you have public financing, the system becomes more pure."

He also wants stricter reporting requirements for so-called issue ads run by special interest groups before he'll support the measure.

Issue ads typically name candidates and show their likenesses but don't explicitly say "vote for" or "vote against" them. Instead, they may conclude with a message such as: "Call Senator Smith and tell him to stop raising our taxes."

The bill would not change that requirement for groups running the ads, though it would require them to report how much they spent on the ads.

Candidates targeted by the ads would then receive a matching grant from an endowment to rebut the attack.

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.

Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)

Cordially,

John / Billybob

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

The hallmarks of hard-wired "reformers" are three. 1. The have the delusion that the one "reform" they are touting will solve eveything but housemaid's knee. 2. They have boundless energy in pushing their preferred panacea. 3. The only thing that equals their boundless enthudiam, is their boundless ignorance of the inintended bad consequences of their reforms.

Just from this brief report, I can tell one aspect of the legislator's plan that is grossly unconstitutional. If the public financing is restricted to (mostly) the Republican and Democrat Parties, it will be slapped down easily by the first judge who sees it, for disfavoring candidates who are independents or members of third parties. (One should keep in mind, as I successfully reminded the Supreme Court in a critical 1983 case, that both the Republicans and Democrats were, at one time, third parties struggling to make their way in politics against larger, established, "major" parties.)

It never ceases to amaze me when state legislators or Congresscritters come up with proposals that violate the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

They won't restrict financing to Republican and Democratic parties. Rather, they will simply provide government money only to parties receiving in excess of X percent of the vote in the last election - some number around 20%. That will exclude all the minor parties. If necessary, they can include a clause allowing a minor party to collect money after the election if they win the required percent in the election. That should meet the constitutional requirements.

Right now, there are several states, and the federal government, that at provide for at least some government money to pay for party or candidate campaigns. Not one of these systems isn't heavily biased in favor of the two major parties.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.