OPINION & EDITORIAL
Muddy waters
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Green, College Republicans distort Doyle's record (September 7, 2006)
- Doyle policies harmful to students (October 10, 2006)
- Green unable to make his point (October 25, 2006)
- Feingold-McCain 'Incumbent Protection Plan' fails (November 13, 2003)
- Scandals distract politicians (October 9, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, September 11, 2006
The State Elections Board dealt Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green a blow two weeks ago when it ruled he could not transfer $467,844 in campaign contributions from his federal campaign fund into his state fund.
The funds were transferred just one day before the Elections Board enacted a rule prohibiting donations from unregistered out-of-state political action committees, but the rule was applied retroactively to deem the transaction invalid.
Seeking to capitalize on the controversial decision, Democratic incumbent Gov. Jim Doyle has since launched a television advertisement accusing Mr. Green of "breaking the law" in moving the cash to his state account.
We recognize that negative advertisements have long been a staple of political campaigns, and they can be expected to be plentiful in a tight contest like the current gubernatorial race.
But Mr. Doyle's recent offering sets the bar low, and the ad does little to display a commitment to ethical campaigning.
To say that Mr. Green flagrantly and intentionally disregarded state law in transferring the money, as Mr. Doyle's ad does, is disingenuous at best.
The circumstances of the transfer are questionable, but so is the Elections Board's decision to apply the new rule retroactively. An accusation based so purely in the semantics of applying a new rule surely doesn't carry much weight — but, then again, neither does any accusation in an advertisement utilizing cheap attacks to sway voters.
Ultimately, voters will decide how much mudslinging is appropriate, and this board hopes candidates will take that into consideration when planning the remainder of their campaigns.
Editorial board opinions are crafted independently of news coverage.
Anonymous (September 11, 2006 @ 10:40am):
Doyle sees nothing wrong with bribes from the gambling mob but violating RETROACTIVE rules is wrong?
Anonymous (September 11, 2006 @ 4:38pm):
The Herald ed board gets it right here. And calls for civility, though increasingly cliche when offered from the pens of newspaper pundits, should always be welcome in politics.
But does the Herald have no stance on the issue itself? Mr. Doyle is embracing an ex post facto approach to American law. Shouldn't we expect more from a man who graduated from Harvard Law and whose sister is a professor of the law?
-Victor Blake Marx
