The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Madison in need of clean elections

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Andy Granias:

Masculinity ideal in need of review (December 6, 2007)
Legal prostitution: Logically sound, ultimately amoral (December 4, 2007)
Merry 'Santa-mas' to you (November 29, 2007)
Discovery highlights moral, scientific boundaries (November 27, 2007)
Does race matter in sports world? (November 12, 2007)

by Andy Granias

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Something's been a little different in Madison of late, and I'm not just talking about the mid-April, sideways-blowing flurries that blanketed the city yesterday morning. Nope, I'm talking about the flurry of discussion regarding campaign-finance reform that has blanketed the Capitol this week, and the seemingly preposterous reality that someone has decided to address this issue in the state of Wisconsin.

On Monday, Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison and Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison introduced a "Clean Elections bill" that would make nearly all state-level campaigns 100-percent financed by the public — an idea so mind-bogglingly simple that it might actually serve to provide equity when equity is most essential: during elections.

The proposed legislation, along with a hoard of other campaign finance reform proposals, has come directly on the heels of the most expensive Supreme Court race in Wisconsin's history. According to the government watchdog the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, nearly $6 million were spent between candidates Annette Ziegler and Linda Clifford.

According to the proposed bill, publicly funded campaign grants would be contingent on a quota of $5 campaign donations from public citizens — 450 needed for a Supreme Court race — that, if met, would give the candidate access to larger grants for primary and general elections ($150,000 and $300,000 respectively for Supreme Court races), and would in this way also prevent public grants from being awarded to non-serious and non-viable candidates.

Candidates of course would not be legally required to accept the public funds. So if a candidate ran a traditionally funded campaign, the publicly funded candidate would be provided funding to match his traditionally funded opponent dollar-for-dollar for anything that goes beyond his public grant amount. The result: less time spent raising money, and more time spent raising public awareness about exactly what it is the candidate intends to do if elected.

In other words, the proposed bill is brilliant in its simplicity. It removes the exponentially growing special interest sector away from the most sacred aspect of democracy, and it puts elections back into the hands of voters.

As quoted by The Associated Press, Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit, said, "No one should be able to buy an election in Wisconsin … We are way overdue for change."

The bill is modeled after highly successful programs in Maine and Arizona and will provide a better sense of electoral justice in judicial elections. Not to mention the fact that the bill comes at a time when the federal Department of Justice, among others, has all but given up on the principle of justice over political posture (just Google "Alberto Gonzales" if you don't believe me).

Likewise, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has jumped on the bandwagon of support for the bill as well, citing reasons of support for judicial neutrality, especially in light of the costly state Supreme Court race. During a Senate committee hearing Tuesday, Ms. Abrahamson said, "The public's awareness of the problems of funding judicial campaigns and the public's perception of possible influence by campaign contributors tends to increase with the amount of money raised and spent."

In attempting to build support for the legislation, Mr. Risser was right on when he said, "Campaigns have become more about big money rather than big ideas. It's time for Wisconsin to promote campaign reform and restore its progressive tradition. We need to create an election environment where candidates can spend their time expressing their ideas in the political process instead of having to spend the major part of their campaigns raising money."

With a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Democratic governor, the state of Wisconsin has the governmental power to make progress on campaign finance reform, and indeed a huge step was taken on Monday with the proposed "Clean Elections bill." And of course there will be those who cry foul in the face of reform and those who propose legislation that does little to re-empower the democratic rights that were intended for the people.

But for now, the different idea of clean elections should feel pretty good to the city of Madison, and with any luck, it won't feel very different much longer.

Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 12, 2007 @ 10:18am):

Incumbent politicians already have huge advantages, and they would just turn public funding into another advantage. It's almost impossible to defeat an incumbent now.

I'd rather see a return to non-professional politicians at all levels of government.

Anonymous (April 12, 2007 @ 12:30pm):

If you love Risser for his reform and progress, why don't you contact him and ask him to take up the Frankenstein Veto and end the corruption there, along with Campaign Finance?

Anonymous (April 12, 2007 @ 4:11pm):

Hey 12:30pm, do you work for the Wisconsin State Journal, or did you just decide to use their editorial material from Tuesday to comment on a parallel that doesn't make any sense in the first place?

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.