As state officials prepare for the upcoming November elections, critics say they expect the public to pay increased attention to the candidates' campaign spending.

Supporters of campaign ethics reform like Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, said the heightened scrutiny is evidence that the public's trust is still largely recovering from the greatest campaign ethics scandal in Wisconsin history — the 2002 Legislative Caucus Scandal.

"I think it is an issue this year," Heck said. "People are concerned about ethics and about taxpayer dollars being used when they shouldn't be."

Under current Wisconsin law, politicians traveling for private purposes are required to pay their own way, while those traveling on official business can expect taxpayers to foot the bill.

Though a seemingly straightforward rule, the distinction is not always clear as some trips taken by lawmakers consist of more than a single venue, each with varying purposes ranging from legitimate job-related functions to more questionable private campaign fundraisers.

While the resulting confusion has some ethics reform advocates calling for stricter rules separating official business from campaigning, others argue the two activities are too intertwined to ever be truly divided.

According to University of Wisconsin political science professor Kenneth Mayer, campaign ethics reformists have had difficulties establishing new rules when official business and campaigning activities oftentimes overlap and even some official events can be prompted by other political motives.

"It is difficult to determine precisely where that line is," Mayer said. "If I went on a 10-day trip and did official business for nine days and then spent one day doing campaigning — does that mean the campaign should pay for it? Probably not."

Although the line is difficult for the public, and even for politicians, to resolutely distinguish, Heck said taxpayers would not be sympathetic at the polls in November.

With the culmination of the 2002 Legislative Caucus Scandal still looming as former Rep. Scott Jensen, R-Waukesha, currently awaits sentencing, the public lens remains sharply focused on monitoring the state's campaign ethics. Jensen, who was convicted earlier this year, marks the last of five lawmakers connected with the 2002 scandal to recently be found guilty of misusing their public offices for private campaign work.

As the public and other political watchdogs continue to be on the lookout for questionable campaign spending, their fingers most recently pointed to Gov. Jim Doyle for potential wrongdoing.

Doyle gained negative attention earlier this week for not reimbursing taxpayers for his 2003 trip to Milwaukee to attend a campaign forum for then presidential candidate John Edwards.

By law Doyle is required to reimburse the state for half the costs of a trip if the travel combines both official business and private campaigning.

But according to the governor's spokesperson Matt Canter, the taxpayer-funded trip was completely legitimate, with Doyle attending only in his official capacity as governor of Wisconsin.

"The governor did not go to that event to endorse a political candidate," Canter said. "He was there to make sure that Wisconsin citizens had a place to hear from their elected officials and candidates."

While critics continue to speculate over the trip's true purpose, gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Wis., said he employs a simple rule to avoid any unintentional campaign misconduct.

"If [Green] is traveling and has both official and campaign events, then his campaign pays for everything," Green's campaign press secretary Rob Vernon said. "He doesn't think the taxpayers should fund his travel if he's doing both."

Heck, however, said Green's position cannot be compared to Doyle's, as different laws apply to varying levels of political office. Although the governor is only required to pay for the portion of a trip that is related to private campaigning, legislators' campaigns are expected to pay for the entirety of a trip with combined purposes.

"[Green's rule] is a good rule of thumb. That's how it should be," Heck added. "But it's easy for Mark Green to say that, he's not the governor. The governor is treated a little bit differently just by virtue of his office and it makes sense [because] he's actually the symbol of the executive office in Wisconsin."

As debate escalates in anticipation of the upcoming election Nov. 7, Mayer said one thing is for certain.

"There's no simple hard and fast rule that everyone can agree on," he said.