Wisconsin’s reputation of clean government, dating back to the turn of the 20th century, may be a thing of the past due to recent accusations of illegal activity within the state government.
In past months, top legislative leaders have been accused of allowing the line between state business and campaigning to blur by illegally employing state resources for private campaigns. Dubbed “the caucus scandal” by local media, the stir created by state party caucuses is now infamous.
BACKGROUND
When American voters go to the polls, they cast votes for individual candidates. Although candidates typically have a party affiliation, the affiliation has more significance than the voter thinks, said state Rep. Gary Sherman, D-Port Wing. He said the party apparatus (the caucus) actually governs, especially in legislative bodies.
“The majority caucus in each house organizes the house,” Sherman said. “It elects leadership and enacts the rules of procedure. The majority leadership appoints every committee chair. The majority holds the majority of seats on every committee. No bill gets a hearing, is voted on in committee, or reaches the floor for a vote unless the leadership of the majority wants it to.”
A vast majority of members of the House may be in favor of a piece of legislation, but if the leadership chooses to keep it off the table no action can be taken on it.
Recognizing the overwhelming role party politics had in the way businesses are conducted, state legislators agreed to staff each party’s caucus with four full-time employees to assist in policy research and dispersing public information.
Each partisan caucus was granted office space and supplies and was salaried with public funds. Separate caucus offices were established for the Assembly and the Senate yielding a total of four offices.
“The caucuses were support groups that arose to meet the needs of professionalizing state government as it grew in scope,” said Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause of Wisconsin, a non-partisan lobbying group.
In 1979, each party established campaign committees for both houses of the legislature. The party’s legislative leader in each caucus headed these privately funded organizations, which existed solely for the purpose of expanding the party base and electing members to public office.
The campaign committees did not occupy permanent offices of their own and instead operated out of the legislative caucus offices until elections forced operations out, Heck said.
Over time, the lines that separated official state business and under-the-table campaign work became less distinct.
“In the ’60s I witnessed a clean operation,” said Mike McCabe, a former Assembly aide who now heads the non-partisan interest group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “[The caucus staff] did legitimate work. Somehow that changed over time.”
INVESTIGATION
On May 20, employees of the four partisan legislative caucuses came forward, telling the Wisconsin State Journal they had been coerced and instructed to involve themselves in campaign work from their caucus offices while being paid with public money.
In the wake of the reports, Common Cause and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed separate complaints with the State Elections Board and a formal investigation was launched June 27. Since then, Common Cause has been at the forefront of publicizing the investigation.
By October, legislative leadership negotiated an agreement with the State Ethics Board to disband the caucuses and vacate their office space.
The agreement mandated new rules of accountability for all legislative employees including weekly reports specifically documenting the amount of time spent working on state business.
Each of the four campaign committees agreed to forfeit $75,000 to be used to host classes for state employees on proper conduct. The Ethics and Elections boards agreed to halt their investigation, overlook any past transgressions and not seek punitive damages if all conditions were met.
Caucus offices were officially dissolved Jan. 1, and some staffers have been relocated to new, partisan, budget and policy research offices. These staffers now fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Chief Clerk, Donald Schneider.
“What makes me hopeful is that rules have been put in place on the new staff under the Senate clerk,” McCabe said. “Caucus employees must now report more specifically how they spend their time, both in and out of the office.”
The District Attorney’s Offices of Dane and Milwaukee counties launched a probe after the initial allegations. Both offices continue to investigate, but findings have yet to be disclosed.
“Currently, Dane and Milwaukee County district attorneys are investigating the findings of the newspapers,” McCabe said. “If this leads to indictments, that would be equivalent to a political earthquake. It would have an enormous impact on state government. Top elected officials would fall from power.”
Despite McCabe’s theory, Heck said it is too early to tell what the results of an indictment would be.
“Anyone who would speculate on what this might turn up is jumping the gun,” Heck said. “No one knows until it happens.”
Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard, charged with investigating three of the four campaign committees, remains tight-lipped on the work.
“Actions taken with respect to this issue were prompted as a matter of the public interest,” Blanchard said. “However, I refuse to comment on the specifics of any John Doe investigation.”
THE LEGAL FEES
As a result of the probe, many caucus staffers have had to testify for the District Attorney’s offices. In many cases, staffers have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their knowledge.
Over the course of the investigation, witnesses have amassed fees for legal counsel in excess of $200,000. In an apparent effort to assist in the defense of the former staffers, the legislature appropriated funds to cover legal expenses incurred by all former caucus staffers.
“This practice violates the Public Purpose Doctrine of Wisconsin, a state Supreme Court decision that dates back to the 19th century,” Heck said. “The basis of our suit is that this practice is not in the public interest; in fact it is exclusively in the private interest. I call this hush money.”
Common Cause filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court alleging such a violation of the state’s Public Purpose Doctrine as unconstitutional.
The suit states, “said actions authorize the expenditure of public funds for purposes that provide no direct benefit to the public, thereby constituting an expenditure that is abhorrent to the constitution of Wisconsin.”
The defendants in the case, Assembly Chief Clerk John Scocos and Senate Chief Clerk Donald Schneider, represent the offices that have dispersed funds to reimburse caucus staffers.
Scocos and Schneider declined to discuss the proceedings.
THE FUTURE
As an increasing amount of information is uncovered, the ramifications of such a far-reaching scandal could affect Wisconsin state government.
One likely consequence of the caucus situation will be a renewed urgency for passage of reform legislation.
“Perhaps a silver lining to all of this is that now, meaningful campaign finance reform is much more likely to occur as this scandal grows,” McCabe said. “Six months ago I would have said there wasn’t much hope of that.”
Senate Bill 104, introduced by state Sens. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, and Robert Cowles, R-Green Bay, has bipartisan support. The bill includes a measure to eliminate legislative campaign committees as well as to ban the practice of asking for campaign contributions in return for favorable treatment of legislation.
“If [SB 104] passes, it would change elections by neutralizing special interest groups, and, really, alter our world in Madison,” Cowles said.
The events of the last several months could serve as a sort of wake-up call; a means by which the tone in Madison can be altered in favor of a more open, citizen-oriented environment.
“Before we see any criminal charges filed, legislators remain very worried that this will hang like a dark cloud over their heads going into an election year,” McCabe said. “They want to appear squeaky clean to the voters.”
