NEWS
Candidate expecting funding examination
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Keegan Kyle:
- Nothing to complain about? (December 12, 2007)
- Recruiting isn't easy on campus (December 7, 2007)
- Doyle set to sign off on ethics (February 2, 2007)
- Volunteerism on the road (October 19, 2007)
- Down and dirty on campus sanitation (October 11, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Review of justice decisions coming (April 23, 2007)
- Ziegler waits for response (May 1, 2007)
- Commission calls for Ziegler to be reprimanded (September 7, 2007)
- Ziegler, Clifford spend record amount on campaigns (March 27, 2007)
- State justice's hearing commences (November 20, 2007)
by Keegan Kyle
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
A nonpartisan government watchdog group officially asked the Wisconsin Judicial Commission Monday to investigate whether state Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler violated judicial code of conduct by hearing in which she had a potential conflict of interest.
According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's request, Ziegler — a Washington County circuit court judge — heard nine cases involving banks and businesses in which she owned $50,000 worth of stock and seven cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where Ziegler's husband is on its board of directors.
"Judge Ziegler repeatedly broke clear-cut judicial ethics rules on conflicts of interest and continues to this day to act as though they don't apply to her," said Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, in a statement. "She needs to be held accountable for that."
According to an analysis by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, electronic court records show Ziegler did not withdraw from the disputed cases or inform related parties about her financial ties. Most of the cases involved small claims and money judgments ranging from $532 to nearly $47,000.
Marci VanAdestine, a Ziegler spokesperson, said the campaign welcomes the judicial commission's review.
"It will show that she's never had any bias," VanAdestine said. "[Ziegler and her husband] received no financial benefits from the cases."
According to current judicial code of conduct, a financial interest recusal may be required if a judge's spouse "is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director or trustee of a party." The test applies if a judge — as a taxpayer or ratepayer — could be substantially affected by the outcome.
Linda Clifford, a Madison lawyer and Ziegler's opponent for the Supreme Court seat, said she has been disappointed by Ziegler's reluctance to explain her actions.
"I think she should have asked on her own behalf weeks ago what her conduct was all about," Clifford said. "The Wisconsin voters — at least the ones I have talked to — have been very concerned with her explanations."
In its request to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign urged a quick opinion from the nine-member board before the April 3 election.
Legislators introduce bill to reform state Supreme Court campaign finance
Two Assembly Democrats plan to introduce legislation this session that would give candidates for the state Supreme Court access to public financing.
The proposed bill would create a "democracy trust fund" through general-purpose revenue to finance campaigns. Candidates would be limited to accessing $100,000 in the primary election and $300,000 in the spring election.
"When a nonpartisan race for a position requiring impartiality is heavily influenced by big money, the public trust is eroded," state Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, said in a statement. "The best way to restore trust is to take money out of the equation. Enacting a public financing system for Supreme Court races will accomplish that goal."
The bill, also sponsored by state Rep. Steven Hilgenberg, D-Dodgeville, proposes reducing the maximum amount of money a person or committee could donate to a Supreme Court candidate.
Individuals and committees would be allowed to contribute no more than $1,000. Currently, individuals may give up to $10,000 and committees up to $8,625.
Anonymous (March 20, 2007 @ 7:29pm):
I personally am a Democrat...but I find it somewhat annoying that this comes just weeks before the election. I highly doubt that these cases were just brought to light so why weren't they investigated earlier? Sometimes politics gets on my nerves....
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
