[media-credit name=’SUNDEEP MALLADI/Herald photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]Legislators and the State of Wisconsin Investment Board discussed a bill Wednesday that would cause the board to divest from certain foreign companies that do business with the Sudanese central government. Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, a co-author of the bill, say targeted divestment is an important tool in the collective effort needed to stop genocide in Darfur. "It is not simply enough to decry the murder, mutilation, maiming and rape that are going on in Darfur," Harsdorf said. "We need to ask ourselves … what role we can play in not allowing genocide to occur on Wisconsin's dime and in Wisconsin's name." According to Harsdorf, the bill targets 20 to 25 international companies in which the state invests, often through indexed mutual funds. American companies are already prohibited by federal trade policies from doing business with the Sudanese government. Fellow co-author Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, said Wisconsin must not "sit by idly and ignore this genocide." Economic pressures, he said, are one way Wisconsin can help. "I think, around the world, people who have watched [the Darfur conflict] all understand this is genocide, and this is now another opportunity for us to speak out," Kessler said. Some members of the Senate committee expressed concerns that creating exceptions for political issues in the state's financial planning could set misleading precedents for other issues in the future. David Mills, executive director of the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, said the bill, while well-intentioned, would not be fiscally responsible for Wisconsin. Mills said about $110 million — or about 0.12 percent of Wisconsin's total assets — are invested in "international corporations that happen to have a small percent of their operations in Sudan." The estimated cost of implementing the bill could be as high as $440 million over the next several years — an amount that is "significantly more than the aggregate value of those investments." Mills said the Investment Board's concerns included tax increases, a negative effect on the overall investment program and, like some committee members, issues with precedents for the future. "The problem is that once you begin to make exceptions, … there really is no good place to draw the line," Mills said. According to Mills, the bill "is an unfortunate precedent in undesirable public and investment policy." One committee member also cautioned that economic sanctions in some cases result in a detriment to the very people they seek to help. Harsdorf responded, saying the "vast majority of the money that the Sudanese government is getting from the companies … [is] going to the military … and [is] not being used for citizens." Sarah Peck, chair of the College of Business Finance Department at Marquette University, followed Mills' testimony by questioning the Investment Board's fiscal estimates associated with implementation. Peck also disagreed with the board's purely financial view of the issue. "Socially responsible investing always creates arguments over what is socially responsible," Peck said. "That is not the case here. There is no moral ambiguity, … and economic support for entities that fund genocide is wrong."