News

Legality of campaign finance reform bill probed

Group argues public funds could violate ruling by high court

A campaign finance reform bill expected to be signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle has recently come under fire from a group claiming the legislation is unconstitutional.

In a letter to Doyle sent Wednesday, Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the he expects Doyle to veto the Impartial Justice Act for constitutional reasons.

Parnell said the bill violates a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the “Millionaires’ Amendment” of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, which Parnell says provides additional funding to candidates participating in public financing if they are outspent by non-participating candidates or independent groups.

He said the Wisconsin bill includes a provision similar to the Millionaires’ Amendment.

“While promoted as a way to reduce ‘special interests’ in campaigns, [the bill] does nothing to limit or reduce the ability of organized interest groups to independently spend money supporting or opposing candidates,” Parnell told Doyle in the letter. “Past experience with similar programs in other states has shown them to be ineffective … [the bill] would be struck down as unconstitutional.”

In a response to the CCP’s call for Doyle’s veto, Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said bills in other states have proven to be successful and constitutional, and he urged Doyle to sign the bill.

“The Impartial Justice bill easily represents the most significant campaign reform in Wisconsin since 1977, and it addresses very real and growing concerns about the independence of our state Supreme Court,” McCabe said in a letter to Doyle.

McCabe said the CCP is confusing a provision in Wisconsin’s legislation with a completely different provision in the McCain-Feingold legislation. He said the two laws are not comparable because of the difference between federal and state government.

McCabe said almost identical legislation in North Carolina has been successful on both a state and judicial level. He said federal courts across the nation have upheld laws similar to the Impartial Justice Act.

“I think the Center for Competitive Politics is really mixing apples and oranges here to try to create the illusion that this law may be unconstitutional,” McCabe said. “There’s nothing in the impartial justice bill that is remotely like the Millionaire’s Amendment.”

McCabe added the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hear a case that would have rendered the Wisconsin and North Carolina laws unconstitutional but instead decided not to hear the case.

He said he is confident Doyle will sign the bill and the programs included in the bill will work.

Senate President Fred Risser, D-Madison, said he still supports the legislation and believes it is constitutional. He said he still respects the judicial process but does not expect it to be found unconstitutional on a federal level.

“I think the bill is constitutional,” Risser said. “But our Supreme Court is very unpredictable; should this come before the Supreme Court, there’s no guarantee of what would happen.”