At the beginning of this month, JoAnne Kloppenburg declared victory over Justice David Prosser when standing ahead by only 204 votes in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Even then, people were discussing how ridiculous it would be to have a recount, saying Prosser was just a sore loser and the money spent on a recount would be wasted tax dollars. Now, behind by 7,316 votes, Kloppenburg announced a recount this Wednesday. Oh, how the tables have turned.
Throughout the turn of events, the greatest takeaway has been the impressive driving force of money and media for the results of such a close election. Although the left claimed the state had swayed against Walker, the money supporting Prosser proved otherwise. Although logic and reason support the pointlessness of a recount, the media support toward Kloppenburg proved otherwise.
It was recently reported that this spring’s Supreme Court race spending totaled $5.96 million, with $4.5 million spent in the two months leading up to the general election. Of that $4.5 million, $2.7 million went to Prosser – $1.1 million of which came from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group. The remaining $1.8 million went to Kloppenburg. Almost all of those funds came from the liberal group Greater Wisconsin Committee, which put together the offensive and inaccurate TV ad about Prosser less than two weeks before the election.
There has been an incredible rise in campaign spending since the ’80s. It is now at the point where over 90 percent of House and Senate races are won by the candidate who spends the most money, with the average price tag for a seat $1 million. Although Supreme Court races claim to be more nonpartisan and less money-centered than other races, this election proves otherwise. By the trend and the released figures, it should not have been surprising to hear Prosser won by over 7,000 votes. Money talks.
Just as interesting as the role of money in this election is the media. When Brookfield had a significant drop of 26 points in voter turnout, according to the original results that favored Kloppenburg, the media failed to report the discrepancy. The additional votes that were then accounted for by the supposedly absent-minded Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus made up for the difference. Once that announcement was made, however, the media had a field day: References were made to the audit of Nickolaus last year for possible equipment faults during the September primary election.
The result of the past weeks’ reporting has been a build up of momentum from the left in favor of a recount. Because there is now a finger to point at Nickolaus and because the victory margin is within 0.5 percent, Kloppenburg gets to play out her denial of a hasty victory declaration by spending what could be as much as $1 million of this state’s money for a statewide recount.
If there is anything this election has proved, it is how little the generally educated voting public matters when money and media have their own political agendas in mind. Perhaps one of the best solutions to this recurring problem is to make the facts and figures transparent to the general public throughout the election. It is important for each voter to know who is financing each candidate and what the results are in each county as they are happening. It does not help the issue when all of the facts and figures are released only after the fact.
Victoria Yakovleva ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in chemical engineering.
