Jensen's Case for Selective Prosecution

State Representative Scott Jensen has been charged with three Class E felonies and 1 unclassified misdemeanor.

During the same John Doe investigation, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard obtained extensive testimony from Assembly Democratic Caucus staff members indicating that Assembly Democratic Leader Shirley Krug and her colleagues engaged in similar, and in some cases more egregious political activity than the activity alleged in the criminal complaint against Jensen.

Last week Blanchard filed a motion to prohibit Jensen from making arguments or presenting evidence regarding uncharged conduct by others. Blanchard believes that Jensen may use the evidence to show that he is being selectively prosecuted. Blanchard states that such a claim is a matter for a pre-trial hearing.

Blanchard repeatedly denied requests to release the John Doe testimony when the investigation was still underway. In April 2004, Blanchard wrote the court, “There is no compelling reason to risk potentially diminishing reputational interests of persons referred to in the John Doe transcripts that have not been charged with any crime."

In March of 2005, Blanchard said the investigation was closed and that he did not anticipate any further charges.

A comparison of excerpts from John Doe testimony given by Assembly Democratic Caucus staff begs the question: Now that Scott Jensen is the last man standing, whose reputation is Blanchard trying to protect, his own?

Read the the John Doe Testimony and summary of political activities below:

John Doe testimony

Summary of political activities

Compare Jensen Charges & ADC Activity

COUNT ONE (JENSEN, FOTI: MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE)

THE ABOVE NAMED COMPLAINING WITNESS, BEING DULY SWORN, SAYS THAT DEFENDANTS SCOTT JENSEN AND STEVEN FOTI, AS PARTIES TO THE CRIME, IN THE COUNTY OF DANE, STATE OF WISCONSIN, between on or about January 27, 1998, and on or about October 8, 2001, at the City of Madison, in their capacities as public officers, did by acts of omission and commission, exercise their discretionary powers in manners inconsistent with the duties of their offices, with the intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for others, by hiring, retaining, and supervising a State employee, namely Sherry Schultz, to solicit, account for, distribute and publicly report money for political campaigns, and assist others in these same tasks, during times when Schultz was compensated as a State employee or using State resources or both; contrary to Sections 939.05 and 946.12(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class E felony; and upon conviction may be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than five (5) years or both.

• Meeting with Democrat Legislative Campaign Committee occurs in Krug office. 11/08/01 Bjork page 11
  
  
• Bjork stated that there would be meetings involving how to raise more money, and they would occur in Krug’s office. 11/08/01 Bjork page 14
  
• Bjork stated that it was the job of Jeff Plale, Gregory Huber, Antonio Riley, Mark Pocan and Krug to carry the brunt of the fundraising responsibilities. Bjork relayed that there would have been meetings about that in Krug’s office. 11/27/02 Bjork page 3.
  
• Bjork stated that Raghu was introduced to the non-leadership Assembly members during a closed caucus meeting at the capital. During that time members were asked to sign up to help with a fundraising event that was coming up…Bjork relayed that during that closed meeting, she believed that Pocan and Plale were “plants” within the meeting, stating “I’ll sign up” with the intent that others would see them and volunteer and also sign up to make calls. This meeting occurred on state property. 11/08/01 Bjork page 14

• Team meetings centering around a fundraising vent were called for and held in Krug’s office. Krug wanted to have these meetings…In January 2000, fundraiser meetings were usually held in Krug’s office; Krug rarely came to the ADC office. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 9
  
• Turning to ADCC meetings, R.D. said that he, Bjork and Judge would meet with Plale and Pocan usually in Plale’s office in the Capitol every few weeks during an afternoon…During these meetings the group talked about candidate recruitment They would go through each race. Fundraising was also discussed…One focus of the ADCC meetings in Plale’s office was how and when to do events to raise money. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 10

• Bigger ADCC meetings attended by Krug and Riley were held in the ADC conference room and others at the Democratic Party Headquarters. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 12.

• In 1999, Judge attended two ADCC Meetings that were held in Plale’s Capitol office. Pocan and Devaguptapu were also there. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss fundraising for members including topics such as how to mobilize campaign workers, how to be the most effective, how to raise money for the ADCC and how to put together call lists. 10/16/01 Judge page 2.

• Judge attended “closed caucus meetings” that were held in the Capitol caucus rooms…leadership such as Krug and Pocan would request Bjork and Judge to attend these meetings and to do things such as handing out biographies for candidates and giving fundraising updates. 10/16/01 Judge page 6.

• Throughout Judge and Bjork’s time together at ADC they would report at “closed caucuses,” closed meetings of the Assembly Democrats, the state of where they were in terms of campaign activity. This occurred four to six times over the course of two years. Judge and Bjork attended the caucuses together each time. Bjork would give status reports on how the quest to get targeted by DLCC was proceeding and about ADCC fundraising. Judge’s area was more the particulars about campaigns in various districts and the lay of the state politically…Judge answered campaign related questions in the closed caucus and gave a report on the election. 12/11/01 page 5.
  
  

COUNT TWO (SCHULTZ: MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE) AS A SECOND AND SEPARATE OFFENSE: THAT DEFENDANT SHERRY SCHULTZ, AS PARTY TO THE CRIME, IN THE COUNTY OF DANE, STATE OF WISCONSIN, between on or about January 27, 1998, and on or about October 8, 2001, at the City of Madison, in her capacity as a public employee, did by acts of omission and commission, exercise her discretionary powers in manners inconsistent with the duties of her employment, with the intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for others, by soliciting, accounting for, distributing, and publicly reporting money for political campaigns, and assist others in these same tasks, during times when Schultz was compensated as a State employee or using State resources or both; contrary to Sections 939.05 and 946.12(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class E felony; and upon conviction may be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than five (5) years or both.

• (In her interviews on 11/08/01 and 2/04/02, Bjork explains at great length how she and Krug set up an independent campaign effort by creating the organization, finding the treasurer, filling out the paperwork, raising the funds, recommending the districts for advertising and editing the television and radio ads. Indeed, Bjork even wrote out some of the checks from the supposedly independent Wisconsin Voter Education Fund.)
  
• In the email, Bjork asked Legro to send her some blank checks. Bjork explained that she probably needed the checks to send a payment to different places, for instance Dixon Media Group as she explained earlier. Bjork stated that Legro did send some signed blank checks for Bjork to use. 2/04/02 Bjork page 4.

• Bjork stated that once the WVEF was referred to in the newspaper, and it said that $400,000 was given to Assembly candidates, everybody knew where the money had come from and what it was used for. Bjork stated that Pocan knew that DLCC money went to the WVEF, as he co-chaired the ADCC and was very involved. Bjork state that she believed Antonio Riley also knew about the money transfer as he was very involved in the fundraising aspect… 11/08/01 Bjork page 13.

• He recalls Raghu going through photocopies of contribution checks payable to ADCC while at Raghu’s desk in the ADC office. Ross believes Raghu’s only role was fundraising. 11/07/01 Ross page 5.

• After the 1998 elections, Bjork and Judge decided that they needed at “point person” to handle ADC fundraising…Later the decision was made that he (Devaguptapu) would become the “point person” for ADC fundraising. Bjork made the decision some time after the Special Election around April 13, 1999. 10/16/01 Judge page 2.

• Devagupatu did work on fundraising while he was employed by and working in the office of the ADC. Two other ADC employees, Mike White and Dan Langer who worked with computers, helped Devagupatu. Bjork also assisted Devagupatu and they worked together to compile a contributor list for ADCC fundraising. Judge said this list occupied a substantial amount of Bjork and Devagupatu’s time during the early months of Devagupatu’s employment at the ADC…Devagupatu’s role was to raise money for “vulnerables” meaning Assembly Democrats who appeared to be in danger of losing elections. This was true for 1998 and 2000, although it was more focused in 2000. 10/16/01 Judge page 3.
  
• Devagupatu occasionally worked at the ADCC office to do such things as “member call time”, but he would also make fundraising calls at the ADC. 10/16/01 Judge page 4. Bjork was asked about the occasion when Devagupatu moved to a separate office within the ADC. Bjork state that Devagupatu’s office moved so that he could have more space and because of the nature of his activities. 11/08/01 Bjork page 14.

• The ADC fundraiser’s salaries were paid by the ADC, not by the ADCC. 10/16/01 Judge page 4.
  
  
  
  AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE OFFENSE: THAT DEFENDANT SCOTT JENSEN, AS A PARTY TO THE CRIME, IN THE COUNTY OF DANE, STATE OF WISCONSIN, beginning no later than in or about November 1997, and continuing to in or about May, 2001, at the City of Madison in his capacity as a public officer, did by acts of omission and commission, exercise a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of his office, with the intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for others by intentionally hiring, or retaining and supervising, Ray Carey and Jason Kratochwill, State employees, to recruit and otherwise directly assist candidates for political office as candidates, and cause others to do the same, during times when Carey and Kratochwill were compensated as State employees or using State resources or both; contrary to Sections 939.05 and 946.12(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class E felony; and upon conviction may be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than five (5) years or both.
  
• Judge said that he was interviewed by a panel, which included several representatives. Judge recalled that Spencer Black, Antonio Riley, Shirley Krug, Mark Pocan, Peter Bock, Greg Huber, and Jon Richards were on the interview panel. During his interview, Judge recalled Black asked Judge what he was going to do to “help political campaigns in big city suburbs.” Judge said that most of the questions he was asked were campaign related and included topics such as candidate recruitment and questions as to why candidates lost elections regarding some of the campaigns Judge had been involved in. 10/16/01 Judge pages 1 and 2.

• Rich Judge assigned ADC staffers to work on political campaigns. Judge assigned him to work with Lewis Rosser, a Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican John Townsend in Fond du Lac. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 6.

• R.D. was also assigned to watch incumbents Mark Miller and Tom Hebl as candidates. R.D. set up a meeting, which was to be held in Hebl’s legislative office, with Andy Wiesner. The meeting was held at Hebl’s legislative office. He attended the meeting along with Judge, Hebl and Wiesner. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 7.

• …he did the bulk of his campaign related work at the ADC office. 12/03/01 Devaguptapu page 8.

• Judge named the following individuals as ADC staff who spent substantial amounts of time working on campaigns out in the field: Jake Whitwar, who is currently a law school student; Michelle McGrorty; Scot Ross; Scott Adrian; Brad Koch; Matt Pagel; Jamie Kuhn; and John Milke… Other than Milke and Adrian, Judge said that he did not believe any of the other employees he listed who worked in the field had enough vacation time to cover the amount of time that they were actually out in the field working. 10/16/01 Judge page 5.

• Judge was asked whether he had knowledge about conversations, which took place between Jensen and Krug regarding ADC employees working out in the field. Judge said that he had heard rumors about such conversation in that supposedly Jensen was upset with the ADC because the Republicans were placing their employees on leave time in order to work on campaigns, whereas the Democrats were not. 10/16/01 Judge page 5.
  
• Ross basically managed VanAkkeren’s campaign, writing a fundraising plan and letters for the campaign. None of this work was done in Sheboygan. Most of the work he did for VanAkkeren was done at the ADC office. Some work was done at Ross’s home. Ross made the decisions on who to target for fundraising and was supported by Bjork and Judge regarding his campaign approach for VanAkkeren. 11/07/01 Ross page 4.

• During the last two and a half months of the race Ross was on the road a significant amount of time, pretty much out of the office entirely during August, September, and October 2000. Ross was involved in both the VanAkkeren and Swoboda races at the same time. 11/07/01 Ross page 5.
  
• From June 2000 to November 7, 2000 Ross worked on campaign matters every day. During this period of time he worked very minimally on legitimate Legislative work. Ross cannot recall specifically any legitimate work that he might have done during this time; nothing comes to mind; it was campaign season…He received no salary from a private organization for this period of time. 11/07/01 Ross page 5.

• Monday morning meetings at the ADC continued to be held during the campaign time period. Bjork discussed campaign issues at the meetings. All ADC staffers reported about campaigns during these meetings … 11/07/01 Ross page 5.

• Twigg stated that he was involved in the Sarah Wakau special election in the 35th District. Twigg stated his role was to help write press releases for the campaign and with questions for pollsters to ask. Twigg stated he also worked with judge, who was running the race and with the ADC graphic designers (Lindner and Williams) on literature and mailers. 11/08/01 Twigg page 5.
  
  
  COUNT FOUR (JENSEN: MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE) AS A FOURTH AND SEPARATE OFFENSE: THAT DEFENDANT SCOTT JENSEN, AS A PARTY TO THE CRIME, IN THE COUNTY OF DANE, STATE OF WISCONSIN, between in or about 1997 and in or about November 2000, at the City of Madison, in his capacity as a public officer, did by acts of omission and commission, exercise a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of his office, with the intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for Taxpayers for Jensen, by intentionally retaining and supervising State employees to work on Taxpayers for Jensen during times when the employees were compensated as State employees or using State resources or both; contrary to Sections 939.05 and 946.12(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class E felony; and upon conviction may be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than five (5) years or both.

• (In her interviews on 11/08/01 and 2/04/02, Bjork explains at great length how she and Krug set up an independent campaign effort by creating the organization, finding the treasurer, filling out the paperwork, raising the funds, recommending the districts for advertising and editing the television and radio ads. Indeed, Bjork even wrote out some of the checks from the supposedly independent Wisconsin Voter Education Fund.)
  
  

Assembly Democratic Caucus --- The Players

Tanya Bjork--- Bjork served as Assembly Democratic Caucus (ADC) Director under Representative Shirley Krug (D) Milwaukee in 2000. Bjork gave detailed testimony regarding the political activity of ADC staff which included; compiling voter and contributor lists, fundraising, recruiting candidates, training candidates, assisting political pollsters, developing campaign finance software, and editing campaign television and radio scripts.

Bjork named several legislators including Krug who used their State Capital offices, staff and equipment to conduct political fundraising and track contribution for individual legislative candidates and the Assembly Democratic Caucus Committee. Bjork said she helped Krug set up and administer a conduit called Badger 2000 as well as Political Action Committee (PAC) called the Wisconsin Voter Education Fund (WVEF). WVEF registered as an independent expenditure group and spent $311,500 in support of Democratic Assembly candidates in the 34th, 70th, 86th and 88th Assembly Districts in 2000.

During her testimony Bjork discussed extensive contact with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee in Washtington D.C.

Bjork left the ADC to work for former State Senator Brian Burke. She was charged with 2 misdemeanors in 2002 in connection to Burke. She later entered a plea of no contest and was ordered to pay a $250 fine and complete 50 hours of community service.

Barbara Candy --- Candy is a Milwaukee-based fundraiser with strong ties to Governor Jim Doyle’s campaign. Candy’s husband, Charles Pruitt was appointed by Doyle to serve on the UW Board of Regents.

ADC Finance Director, Devaguptapu said he called Candy from his state office to discuss fundraising. Candy was also cited in testimony regarding Brian Burke’s fundraising activity.

Raghu Devaguptapu --- Devaguptapu’s testimony states that Shirley Krug and Tanya Bjork instructed him to work exclusively on campaign fundraising. He specifically recallled organizing fundraisers for candidates, Lary Swoboda, Terry Van Akkeren, Laurent Soucie, Sondy Pope-Roberts, Steven Peggs and Sandi Cihlar.

Devaguptapu later worked for former State Senator Brian Burke and pleaded no contest to non-criminal charges in connection with Burke.

Rich Judge --- Judge served as Assembly Democratic Caucus Director under Representative Shirley Krug. Judge told investigators that he and the other ADC staff participated in a variety of political activities on state time including fundraising, compiling voter lists, preparing candidates for debate, managing campaigns and creating materials for campaign schools. Judge said his interview for the state paid position was conducted by a panel of Democratic legislators and the bulk of the panel’s questions centered around “campaign related issues and topics.”

Judge currently serves as Campaign Manager for Governor Jim Doyle’s re-election committee.

Ron Legro --- Legro was designated by Krug to serve as Treasurer of the Wisconsin Voter Education Fund, a PAC committee that spent $316,000 on independent expenditures on behalf of Democrat legislative candidates in 2000. Tanya Bjork sent Legro an email asking him to send her blank checks so she could pay vendors like the Dixon Media Group.

Legro was given immunity from prosecution in 2001 in exchange for his testimony and currently serves as a Community Relations Officer with the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA).

Michelle McGrorty ---McGrorty worked for ADC during the same time as Rich Judge. Judge testified that McGrorty was one of several ADC staffers who spent significant time working on campaigns out in the field. Bjork testified that she hired McGrorty who also did fundraising for ADC.

McGrorty later worked for the Senate Democratic Caucus and was given immunity from prosecution in the case against former State Senator Chuck Chvala.

McGrorty is currently the Executive Director of the Greater Wisconsin Committee.

Ted Osthelder --- Osthelder was an assistant to former State Representative Wally Kunicki in 1997. Tanya Bjork testified that she believed Osthelder worked as a fundraiser for ADC. Osthelder currently serves as Director of External Operations for Governor Jim Doyle.

Antonio Riley ---Riley was the Democratic State Representative from the 18 Assembly District from 1992 – 2002. Bjrok testified that Riley was one of several legislators who knew caucus staff was compiling voter lists at the ADC offices and that Riley also knew that money was transferred from the DLCC to the WVEF as he was very involved in fundraising.. Judge testified that Riley was on the panel that conducted the interview for his position as Director of ADC.

Riley was appointed to serve as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority by Governor Doyle in 2003

State Representative Spencer Black --- Black has represented the 77th Assembly District in Madison since 1984. Judge said Black was part of the panel that conducted the interview for his position as ADC Director. Judge specifically recalled Black asking him what he was going to do to “help political campaigns in big city suburbs.”

Judge further testified that Black wanted to know how Wisconsin Democrats could get money back to Wisconsin from the DLCC, and that State Senator Chuck Chvala went to D.C. to attend a meeting with Black. Judge referred to it as “the Sorcerer’s Apprentice Trip.”

Shirley Krug --- Krug served as the Democratic Assembly Leader during the 2000 election cycle. Tanya Bjork, and others testified that Krug was fully aware of the political activities of the ADC. Bjrok also said that Krug not only used her State Capitol office to raise money for herself, but she also raised money for targeted candidates, the Assembly Democratic Caucus Committee, and Badger 2000, a separate conduit committee.

Bjrok further stated that she and Krug set up the Wisconsin Voter Education Fund an independent expenditure group. Bjork said Krug told her to recruit Ron Legro to serve as Treasurer.

State Representative Marc Pocan ---Pocan was elected to represent the 78th Assembly in 1998. Judge testified that Pocan was on the panel that interviewed him for the position as ADC Director. Devaguptapu testified that he and Bjork would meet with Pocan and then State Representative Jeff Plale in Plale’s Capital Office every few weeks to discuss candidate recruitment and fundraising.


Wisconsin Voter Education Fund ---- WVEF is a PAC fund that was started by Representative Shirley Krug and ADC Director Tanya Bjork . The group registered to do independent expenditures in support of nine Democratic candidates for the state Assembly in October of 2000. WVEF got all of its money from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee of Washington, DC.

WVEF spent $311, 500 in support of Democratic candidates in the 34th, 70th, 86th and 88th Assembly Districts and was the third highest independent spender in 2000.

Stop Me Before I Kill Again II

Today Jim Doyle announced that he is canceling the state’s contract with Adelman Travel and it only took a federal indictment and several days of relentless pounding by the media.

Doyle is also issuing new rules which prohibit political appointees from serving on procurement panels in the future. It’s probably a good move, but since Georgia Thompson is not a political appointee, it wouldn’t have done anything to change the perception of a quid pro quo. Thompson reports directly to a political appointee and she received a generous increase in compensation shortly before the contract went into affect.

Earlier this year after Doyle was criticized for raising obscene amounts of money from special interest groups who have business with the state, he proposed banning incumbents and challengers from accepting campaign contributions during the state budget process.

This process of reform by scandal kind of reminds me of trying to safety proof the house from a toddler. Just when you think you’ve got everything up on the high shelf, something else gets broken.

Legislative Democrats Save Yourselves

If Jim Doyle was plummeting last week, this week he’s playing handball against the curb.

Not only did the Travelgate scandal dominate print, radio and television for the second week in a row, but revelations came to light regarding a no bid state contract between the state and CTE Engineers who together with their partners on the Marquette Interchange gave $20,000 to Doyle’s campaign.

Meanwhile school choice advocates who weighed in with paid television and radio advertising were joined by the NRA who launched their own advertising blitz to advocate the over ride of Doyle’s veto of conceal and carry legislation.

Thursday the State Senate did over ride Doyle’s veto. Now Doyle has to convince at least one Democratic legislator to flip their vote when the Assembly attempts to over ride on Tuesday.

The Democratic legislators who are thinking about changing their vote should consider this: How much good can really come from trading your vote for the promise of political favors from the embattled Governor?

Missing Mayor Resurfaces --- Looking for a Hand Out

Mayor Tom Barrett tells reporters why every other school district in the state should sacrifice more funds to bail out Milwaukee Public Schools. Barrett said, “If I don’t see more state aid for MPS, we will have only six more months of school choice.”

With the Governor in Baghdad attempting to giddy busy minds with foreign quarrels, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett came out of hiding to hit state taxpayers up for more money.

For more than a week, Milwaukee parental school choice families and the Milwaukee business community have run an aggressive campaign to persuade Governor Doyle to lift the cap on the school choice program. The program allows low income families in Milwaukee to send their children to a private school where they are twice as likely to graduate. Advocates of the program say up to 4000 students could be forced out of their schools and several schools forced to close if the cap is not lifted.

Unlike his predecessor, John Norquist who championed the right of low income families to opt of Milwaukee’s failing public schools, Barrett has shown a complete lack of leadership when it comes to education . When he does enter the debate, it’s at the eleventh hour to say, “Show me the money.”

The fact is Barrett doesn’t give a rip what happens to the low income families in Milwaukee. He can afford to send his own kids to private school. No, all Barrett cares about is making sure he doesn’t take the heat for high property taxes, or any other problem facing his constituents.

Barrett is concerned because Milwaukee property taxes fund $2,800 of the $6,000 it costs for every child enrolled in the Milwaukee school choice program. Conversely, city property taxpayers pick up only $1,800 of the $13,000 per child enrolled in MPS. State and federal taxpayers pay the rest.

Now Barrett wants the rest of the state to pony up another $1000 for students in the school choice program. Well Mayor, Milwaukee wouldn’t need a school choice program if MPS were doing its job. Holding Milwaukee taxpayers harmless for children who opt out of MPS will remove a financial incentive for MPS to improve. And I wonder if city auditors can tell us how much it costs local taxpayers every time a kid drops out of school or joins a gang.

If the Mayor insists on sticking it to the rest of us, I d like to propose the addition of a statewide member to the Milwaukee Board of Education to be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. If it takes a state to raise a city, we ought to at least have a seat at the table.

Travel Contract Was off the Radar but on the Schedule

The Republican Party of Wisconsin took issue with Mark Marrotta’s statement in today’s Wisconsin State Journal asserting that the state contract with Adelman travel was such small potatoes that nobody high up in his agency would have had anything to do with it.

Marotta said the contract was "very, very small" and never registered on the radar of anyone in upper management. Nobody at that level would have ever thought about it," Marotta said.

If the contract was so puny, why did the former DOA Secretary meet with Georgia Thompson and several of her higher ups to discuss that very topic?

Plausible deniability is a beautiful thing.

Wineke Reveals 2006 Strategy

Either Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Joe Wineke has extremely bad timing or really bad judgment.

Ok, it’s both.

But what I really want to know is this: Did Wineke pen this pathetic column suggesting Republicans are categorically corrupt because of a scum bag Washington lobbyist named Jack Abramoff and pending charges against two GOP state legislators --- before or after Georgia Thompson was indicted by the U.S. Attorney for rigging a state bidding process to favor major donors to Doyle’s campaign?

Knowing Wineke he’ll probably come back with a snappy reply like, “Georgia Thompson is innocent until proven guilty.” To which I’d say, “Good Joe, now that we’ve got that straight, why don’t’ we tally the political corruption convictions in Wisconsin by party?”

Yeah, I think Joe’s really onto something with the corruption theme, especially considering the ongoing federal grand jury investigation into Jim Doyle’s campaign fundraising. The trick will be to increase Jack Abramoff’s name recognition to surpass Jim Doyle’s, and then convince voters that a Congressional Aide legally accepting a pair of tickets to a Milwaukee Bucks game from an Abramoff associate is worse than Governor Doyle taking tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in exchange for taxpayer funded contracts.

I don’t know how Wisconsin Democrats feel, but I for one am really glad their party is in Joe Wineke’s capable hands.

Supreme Court Decision is Victory for Free Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued an opinion in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) in WRTL v FEC on the question of applied challenges to the McCain/Feingold ban on issue advertising 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days prior to a general election.

The Court remanded the case to the District Court to consider the merits of WRTL's applied challenge to the law.

The Underground Stock Report

I always look forward to the WisPolitics weekly stock report. Since the good folks at WisPolitics took last week off, I decided to offer my own version.

Plummeting

Governor Jim Doyle --- It was a very bad week for Wisconsin’s Chief Executive. The Wall Street Journal Editorial page took him to task for his policies on school choice and product liability reform. Policies that clash with the business community he’s worked so hard to court.

To add insult to injury, on the morning of his State of the State address, CEO’s from 24 of Milwaukee’s largest businesses signed a full page ad telling the Governor to lift the cap on the school choice program.

Tuesday’s State of the State address --- “the affordability agenda”--- was a total non-starter. With a state budget deficit of over $2 billion, Doyle’s new spending initiatives hardly excite the masses. Pundits regarded it as a “base building” speech and that means the incumbent Governor is in big trouble.

Finally, the Sunday state editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal ran front page coverage of the grand jury investigation into the Adelman Travel contract.

Standing Tall

The Milwaukee Business Community --- The Wisconsin business community is often synonymous with the incumbent party. But this week, Milwaukee business leaders demonstrated a much greater concern for the future of the Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program than the potential for retaliation by Governor Jim Doyle.

Through a series of radio and newspaper ads, Milwaukee business leaders and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce (MMAC) took bold action to defend the right of Milwaukee’s low income families to opt out of Milwaukee’s failing public schools.

Telling it on the Mountain

Milwaukee talk show host Charlie Sykes, Mikel Holt, Editor and Associate Publisher of the Milwaukee Community Journal, and the students from Messmer High School --- The somewhat unusual bedfellows collaborated to create and produce an award winning radio spot which appropriately portrays access to Milwaukee’s school choice program as matter of civil rights. The student population in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) is 82% minority, and the graduation rate is just 36%.

Orbiting Pluto

State Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz --- The Senator’s proposal to allow University of Wisconsin professors to unionize has everyone I talked to completely baffled and elicited responses from Capital insiders like, “You gotta be kidding me!” and “What was up with that?”

Leaving Skid Marks

Jury in the Milwaukee Tire Slashing Case --- The jury acquitted one defendant and deadlocked on the remaining four, leading to a plea of no contest and a slap on the wrist.

The message: Next time the RPW should hire armed guards to protect vehicles intended to take voters to the polls on election-day.

Hoisted on their own Petard

The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) --- For three years, WEAC bosses have kept Governor Doyle from supporting efforts to avoid a crisis in the Milwaukee School Choice program. Citing internal polling, they convinced the first term Governor that opposing school choice would not hurt him politically.

Now that the crisis is both immediate and real, Doyle will either have to lift the cap or face continued pressure in the form of television, radio and newspaper advertising. Increased publicity about the school choice crisis will raise statewide awareness of the program’s cost effectiveness in contrast to the deplorable job that MPS does at a cost of over $12,000 per student.

It won’t take long for districts outside Milwaukee to understand that increased aid to MPS means less money for them. Remember the old saying, “millions for Milwaukee, and pennies for Polk?”

Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Wisconsin Trial Lawyers ---The failed attempt by Assembly Republicans to override the Governor's veto of medical liability reform legislation should keep these shysters fat and happy for awhile.

This Story Bears Repeating

Newly elected State Rep. Scott Newcomer didn’t celebrate election night with his wife Julie. She was in Africa performing three surgeries a day.

Dr. Julie Newcomer is one those American heroes who gives their time and talent to help improve the lives of others.

Thanks Julie!

Give that Provost a Cigar!

There are days I have to read my clips two or three times before the news really sinks in. Today was one of those days.

The proposal by State Senator Dale Schultz to allow UW Professors to unionize is just too bizarre to fathom.

UW Interim Provost Virginia Sapiro says she has "profound concerns" about the plan.

She's not alone.

Dresang Declares End to State Budget Deficit

It must be nice for Governor Doyle to have such highly paid shills out spinning his side of the story. Tuesday morning Joshua Wescott of WIBA radio previewed Doyle's State of the State address with UW Political Science Professor Dennis Dresang.

The MSM just loves talking to Academic types. Is that because they're so well educated, or because they sound like credible, unbiased sources but usually have a liberal agenda?

Actually Dresang’s agenda isn't all that well hidden. He contributed money to Doyle's campaign committee at least three times in the past.

So Tuesday morning in lieu of money, the good professor contributed to the myth that Jim Doyle has solved all of Wisconsin's budget woes. Laying the groundwork for Governor Doyle's unaffordable Affordability Agenda, Dresang told WIBA that Doyle could claim credit for taking care of the state's budget deficit, and would therefore have plenty of money to propose all kinds of new spending - like the expansion of family care programs he touted in his speech.

The fact is the Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Report released in December shows Wisconsin running a budget deficit in excess of $2 billion dollars.

But hey, what's little white lie every now and then if it helps a friend?

WRTL v. FEC

Tuesday I had the privilege to observe the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. FEC. Following is my summary and observations about the case.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the federal government to prohibit organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life from airing issue advocacy ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. Congress determined that the majority of these ads were “sham” issue ads, intended to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, rather than to encourage government officials to act on legislation. The Court said while many of the issue ads were “sham” ads, it also recognized that some ads were genuine grassroots lobbying tools. The question now is whether the prior ruling allows for “as applied” challenges to the ban on issue ads.

In WRTL v. FEC, Attorney James Bopp, Jr, maintained that the ads run by WRTL in the summer of 2004, urging people to call Senators Kohl and Feingold to oppose Senate filibusters of judicial nominees, fell into the category of genuine issue ads.

Solicitor General Paul Clement said it was too difficult for the FEC to develop criteria that distinguishes “sham” ads from legitimate ones, and therefore it is necessary to ban all ads referencing candidates by name.

Justice Scalia countered, saying we can not shut down all issue ads simply because they are hard to judge. He said the right to petition government is an important constitutional guarantee and ads that do not mention lawmakers by name are not effective in applying the kind of pressure necessary to make them take action.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy determined the standard used by the FEC to prohibit ads was too vague, and agreed that it was inappropriate to close down all applied challenges on a case involving free speech.

Justice Kennedy wondered if the overly vague standard could also be applied to websites and chat rooms which often serve the dual purpose of petitioning government and affecting elections.

Mr. Bopp argued, “The effect of issue ads on elections is speculative, but these people are engaging in law making now. The most important thing they do is to make laws and they can not immunize themselves with an election.”

Sadly Justice O’Connor did not seem persuaded and suggested that groups like WRTL could simply use political action committee (PAC) funds to finance their grassroots lobbying during the black out period. Clearly Justice O’Connor has not tried to raise political money in Wisconsin lately, or faced the wrath of an incumbent politician with whom she disagreed.

Mr. Bopp did an outstanding job representing WRTL and received praise from attorneys representing the many diverse organizations who filed amicus briefs in the case.

Single-party amicus curiae briefs were filed by the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, and the Alliance for Justice, which is, as it describes itself, "a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's children's, and consumer advocacy organizations" -- most of its members are nonprofits under IRC § 501(c)(3).

The multi-party brief of the "Coalition of Public Charities" was filed on behalf of thirty-five § 501(c)(3) nonprofits. OMB Watch lead the formation of the Coalition, which included (in addition to OMB Watch) Independent Sector; Independence Institute; Alliance for Justice; American Conservative Union Foundation; Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest; NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation (along with some NARAL state-level organizations); National Counsel of Jewish Women; National Legal and Policy Center; National Council of Nonprofit Associations (along with some state- and city-level nonprofit associations); National Low Income Housing Coalition; Violence Policy Center; Association of American Physicians & Surgeons Educational Foundation; Eden Housing, Inc.; Clients Council of the Legal Aid Society; Massachusetts Council of Human Service Providers; Michigan League for Human Services; Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund; Bronx AIDS Services, Inc.; The Urban League of Greater Cleveland; Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania; New Morning; and Liberty Legal Institute.

Another multi-party brief was filed by The Center for Competitive Politics, The Cato Institute, The Goldwater Institute, The Institute for Justice, The Reason Foundation, and the Claremont Institute.

Free Market Conservatives Beware

Lately free market conservatives have been quite vocal in their opposition to the proposed ethanol mandate which may pass the legislature and be signed into law.

I don’t like the ethanol mandate. But in the wake of recent ethics scandals, I am far more concerned that the legislature will impose restrictions on the free marketplace of ideas ---- in the name of campaign finance reform.

Sunday’s Wisconsin State Journal featured opinion columns by Senators Mike Ellis and John Erpenbach. Both Senators are proponents of reform that would place restrictions on political speech in Wisconsin, much in the way McCain –Feingold has done at the federal level.

Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. FEC. The case addresses the right of groups like WRTL to engage in grassroots lobbying by running issue ads specifically naming candidates for federal office within 30 days of the primary and 60 days of the general election.

This kind of restriction on the free marketplace of ideas makes the ethanol mandate smell like warm chocolate chip cookies.

I will be present in the Supreme Court to observe the arguments Tuesday and will discuss this issue more when I return. In the meantime, I am reprinting an opinion column by WRTL’s Counsel in the case, Jim Bopp, Jr. which was recently featured in the Wall Street Journal.

By James Bopp, Jr.

Like a virus, the campaign finance “reform” passed by Congress in McCain-Feingold and approved by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC is mutating and spreading in the states. The law raised contribution limits to federal candidates but imposed substantial restrictions on political parties and citizens’ groups. State politicians are taking McCain-Feingold and McConnell as a license to enact much broader restrictions on core political speech. This term the Court has a chance to decide whether these restrictions are justified, and what remains of the First Amendment in regard to democratic elections.

This sorry tale began with post-Watergate amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. Congress passed limits on large contributions and mandatory expenditure limits on all political actors, prohibiting citizens’ groups, including corporations and labor unions, from speaking out about public officials and candidates, if what they said would “influence a federal election.”
In 1976, in Buckley v.Valeo, the Supreme Court recognized that speech about public issues is at the core of the Amendment’s protections; it struck down mandatory expenditure limits on candidates and strictly limited the scope of regulation of the political speech of citizens’ groups. So long as groups eschewed express advocacy of the election or defeat of a candidate, they were free to speak out about issues, the actions of public officials, and the positions of candidates. Alas, Buckley did uphold the limits on contributions to candidates, because at least the limits precluded only “large” contributions that pose a threat of corruption.

The contribution-limit virus has spread to the states and mutated. While Buckley approved a large federal contribution limit of $1,000 per election, some states thought much lower limits were constitutional. And when the 2000 Supreme Court approved Missouri’s $1,075-per-election limit for statewide officers in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, using very permissive language, the states and federal courts deemed that all constitutional restraints were off. Furthermore, since very low contribution limits help incumbents against challengers, the interests of campaign finance “reformers” and incumbent politicians coincided. So some states have enacted draconian contribution limits: $500 per year in Alaska and Massachusetts; $700 to $270 per year in Arizona, $500 per election in Florida; $500 to $250 per election in Maine; and $400 to $100 for the general election in Montana. Vermont’s is the lowest at $400 to $200 per election cycle.

In McConnell in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold—in particular, the “electioneering communication” provision that prohibits the running of broadcast ads, within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election, that mention the name of a federal candidate in his district or state. The provision was enacted because of complaints by members of Congress that groups run negative attack ads that candidates themselves disapproved of—ads that “do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue” (to quote Sen. John McCain) In effect, the Court in McConnell abandoned free speech in favor of the interests of incumbent politicians.

But if it’s a good idea to ban broadcast ads before elections, then state legislators seem to think it is an even better idea to expand the ban’s reach to all communications for longer periods of time. Laws now in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia restrict any communication that refers to a candidate. Arizona’s is the longest period: 16 weeks before a general election. More remarkable is a Second Circuit decision, Randall v. Sorrell that read McConnell and Shrink to mean that even Vermont’s mandatory expenditure limits on candidates could now be upheld.
Incumbents are displeased when the press criticizes them, too, and have used the law to stifle the print media. Alabama prohibited editorials endorsing candidates on election-day and Florida’s required newspapers to run a response when the paper attacked a public official. The Supreme Court, mercifully, struck down these efforts. Now, however, broad campaign finance laws are being used to the same effect. In Washington, a judge used the state campaign finance law against two radio talk-show hosts whose speech—championing an anti-gas tax initiative—was viewed as an “in-kind” contribution to the political committee supporting the initiative. The initiative committee was required to report the talk show hosts’ speech as a “contribution.”
Consider what is down this road: If there were contribution limits to the political committee or candidate involved, as there are in many states, then the talk show hosts would have had to shut up when the value of their speech reached the limit. Vermont enacted such a broad “related expenditure” provision, originally without a press exemption, to capture and limit just such speech.

Two cases before the Supreme Court will test whether the Court will stop the spread of the campaign finance “reform” virus before it becomes a pandemic. Next Tuesday, in Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. FEC, I will argue on behalf of the WRTL that the Constitution requires recognition of a grassroots lobbying exception to the federal prohibition on electioneering communications. Remarkably, the FEC argues that federal courts are prohibited after McConnell from even considering whether a law can be applied unconstitutionally to non-election-related ads—and that only the FEC has the authority to grant exemptions.
WRTL’s ads look nothing like the “sham issue ads” that the McConnell Court said were “the functional equivalent of express advocacy” and, therefore, could be banned. The ads were broadcast in the summer of 2004 and exhorted Wisconsin citizens to ask their senators to oppose the ongoing filibustering of President Bush’s judicial appointees. The ads didn’t identify any election, candidacy, party affiliation or position of the two incumbent senators on the issue, and said nothing that could be construed to support or oppose either senator. But because Sen. Russ Feingold (of McCain-Feingold) was a candidate for re-election, the ads were banned starting Aug. 15 through the general election. WRTL couldn’t mention his name.

Of course, the First Amendment protects the right of the people “to petition” governmental officials, just as it protects our right to praise or criticize them. While McConnell Has seriously limited the right during the blackout periods, it would be something else again to say that people can’t lobby their representatives about upcoming votes in Congress. Yet the “reform” community, in league with incumbent politicians, is supporting the gag effort here, too.

The second case, Randall v. Sorrell, is about Vermont’s decision to impose mandatory expenditure limits on candidates, to cut candidate contribution limits to the lowest in the U.S., and to apply a broad “related expenditure” provision to the activities of those who help candidates. Vermont caps expenditure limits for governor to $300,000 per election cycle; recent statewide candidates in Vermont have spent up to 10 times that amount. Further, the contribution limit of $400 per cycle is less than 20% that approved by the Court in Buckley and Shrink and captures more political activity because of the broad “related expenditure” provision.

All of these state provisions share an unappealing element: They benefit incumbents. The guise of “reform” offers incumbents semi-respectable cover for their assault on free elections. Unless stopped, this virus will kill the First Amendment and democratic self-government.
Mr. Bopp is general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and is Counsel in both the Wisconsin and Vermont Supreme Court Cases.

Equal Opportunity --- Not Just a Right of the Privileged

Today the nation celebrates the legacy of civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How fitting that the Alliance for Choice in Education chose today to launch a new television ad entitled “Equal Opportunity.”

The ad features several minority parents discussing how the Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program provides equal opportunity to low income families trapped in Milwaukee’s failing public schools.

The voice over says, “Equal opportunity in education, it’s every child’s right, but Governor Doyle is standing in the way.”

This ad follows one featuring children in the school choice program asking Governor Doyle to correct his mistake and lift the enrollment cap on the program. (See today’s Wall Street Journal column by John Fund.)

I sincerely hope Governor Doyle does lift the cap and give the Milwaukee’s most vulnerable kids the same opportunities he and I are fortunate enough to give our children.

You see, Governor Doyle and I have at least this much in common: we live in Dane County where the educational options ---public and private are excellent, and we were both able to afford private education for our children we when determined that was the best option for them.
Equal opportunity in education should mean Milwaukee’s low income families have options too.

Jim Doyle Always Disappoints

Governor Jim Doyle says he cares about poor children in Milwaukee’s failing schools, but rather than lifting the enrollment cap on Milwaukee’s Parental School Choice program, the “Education” Governor has slammed the door in their face, not once, but three times.

And the third time’s the charm.

Last week, parental choice advocates announced that the enrollment cap of 15% had been reached and the impact could mean as many as 4,000 students will be tossed out of their school of choice next fall. Worse yet, several schools in the choice program may be forced to close all together.

Rumor has it Jim Doyle is fit to be tied over the advertising campaign launched today by the Alliance for Choices in Education, expressing disappointment with Governor Doyle’s vetoes and encouraging him to correct his mistake.

I guess the families in the Milwaukee Parental School Choice program and the Milwaukee business community that supports it should just suck it up. How dare they tell their side of the story and make one last plea for Doyle to lift the caps!

Doyle says he’s willing to make the meaningless gesture of raising the enrollment cap by 3% in exchange for more money for MPS. That’s the only way he can sell any concessions on school choice to his friends at the state teacher’s union.

But why should Wisconsin taxpayers spend even one more dime on Milwaukee Public Schools when it costs half as much to send a kid to a choice school where they are twice as likely to graduate?

Jim Doyle has made the crass political calculation that opposing the school choice program would not hurt him politically because it affects only low income families who are less likely to make much difference in his re-election anyway. I guess only time will tell.

Still Doyle better hope his dirty little secret about Milwaukee doesn’t reach the rest of the state. You see, it costs about $13,000 to send a kid to MPS and $6,000 to send a kid to a choice school. The more kids Jim Doyle forces back into in the arms of MPS, the less money the state has available in school aids for other districts.

Straight Eye for the Scottish Guy

As I was scrolling through my morning media clips, this article regarding State Representative Sue Jeskewitz’s plan to designate a state Tartan caught my eye.

I was particularly amused by the following paragraph:

St. Andrews Society’s McWilliam described the design as "very manly and masculine. But at the same time, women would say, 'If that was done in silk, that would be a stunning ball gown.”

Personally, I’m conflicted about the plan to designate a state Tartan. On the one hand I shudder to think this is what our elected state officials are actually spending their time debating.

On the other, it’s a relief to know they’re not thinking of new ways to spend my money or infringe on my liberties.

Better to Give than to Receive?

I once heard a seasoned political strategist give this advice to a group of Public Affairs professionals: “Don’t let your clients try to understand how things work in politics. It will only frustrate them.”

Over the last several days, I’ve made the mistake of trying to understand what purpose was served by politicians giving back contributions they received legally and properly from people who were later charged with corruption.

My reasoning was sound. In most cases the money in question was spent long ago, so it’s really someone else’s money being returned. Giving it back isn’t going to magically restore our faith in the political process. Finally, I thought capitulating to Democratic attacks of guilt by association would only cloud the issues of real corruption on their part.

I still think I was right.

But sometimes in life, you have to make a choice between being right and being happy.

Today Mark Green’s happiness cost him $30,000 in campaign contributions, contributions he received legally and properly over a seven year period ending in 2003.

As a donor to Green’s campaign, I hate the idea that some of that money might be mine. On the other hand, if it buys Mark Green the distance he needs to keep shining the light on Governor Jim Doyle’s fundraising, I guess I can learn to be happy too.

Stop Me Before I Kill Again

I finally got around to reading Governor Doyle's press release highlighting his ethics reform package, and am I ever glad I did.

Not only does the Governor want state law to prohibit him from shaking down special interest groups for money during the entire state budget process, he wants to prohibit all state office incumbents and CHALLENGERS from raising money too.

If state elected officials want to voluntary opt out of raising money during the budget process because they can't trust themselves to the right thing, that's fine, but prohibiting challengers from raising money for six to eight months is shameless incumbent protection.

Waukesha County Justice is Swift

It's no surprise that the Special Prosecutor who investigated allegations of voter fraud against Republican candidate Scott Newcomer found the complaint to be without merit. The speed with which the Special Prosecutor disposed of the baseless charge is however impressive.

As a personal friend of Scott, I was especially pleased to see that Prosecutor Blum determined the existence of the backhoe on the Newcomer property, as referenced in the Democratic Party's complaint, is actually evidence of Newcomer's intention to make Delafield his permanent residence.

Scott Newcomer will most likely be celebrating a General election victory tonight, but I wouldn't put a dog through the political election process.

Scott Walker is Born Again

Tuesday Scott Walker’s rudderless campaign for Governor took a decided turn for the worse.

Armed with only a handful of Cheetos, Walker started a Republican food fight with opponent Mark Green, when he called on Green to return nearly $30,000 in campaign contributions he got from Tom Delay’s PAC from 1997 to 2003. Walker claimed that Green needed to return the money in order to purify himself so that he could appropriately wage attacks on Jim Doyle’s fundraising practices.

To his credit, Mark Green’s Campaign did not release their own arsenal of over-ripe tomatoes in response.

So I have a few questions for Scott Walker.

1. When and how did the 38 year old professional politician become pure? Was it divine intervention? A belated Christmas miracle? Or was it just more of the unprincipled posturing that is becoming all too common among alleged conservatives lately?

2. When did he decide that Wisconsinites expect purity from their politicians? I think they‘d be delighted with leaders who are simply not corrupt.

The fact is, Jim Doyle’s fundraising is under scrutiny because of the appearance of a “quid pro quo,” which is Latin for give me money if you want a lucrative state travel contract or permanent gaming compacts.

Walker has personal experience with such questions of impropriety. In 2004 the U.S. Attorney looked into the process by which a $100 million bond deal was awarded to the employer of some of Walker’s major campaign contributors. Walker didn’t return any of the $25,000 raised at a Chicago event that followed the bond deal, even after three of the donors were indicated for a bribery and kickback scheme involving government officials in Illinois.

Green on the other hand accepted money from a fellow Republican House member. This fellow House member was recently indicted by a politically motivated Democrat Prosecutor in Texas. Walker is not suggesting that Green did anything wrong in accepting these contributions over the course of time. There’s no quid pro quo here, nor is there any evidence that the money Delay gave Green was obtained illegally. Still the new “purer than you” Walker has declared the need for some higher standard when it comes to political fundraising.

Forget about principles like innocent until proven guilty and the freedom to associate with others without fear of retribution. Our leaders simply can not be trusted to do the right thing, so we must eliminate all political fundraising during the state budget process. Perhaps we should eliminate political contributions altogether and fund elections entirely with taxpayer dollars.

Walker’s new platform is starting to sound more compatible with the "People’s Legislature Party" headed by Ed Garvey and Nino Amato. Maybe Walker should consider running as “the People’s Candidate”. That way he can continue to give Doyle the ammunition he needs to inoculate himself against allegations of real corruption, in what appears to be an orchestrated effort by his administration to extort money from businesses and special interest groups who want to do business with the state.

I have known Mark Green since 1989 and I am a contributor to his campaign for Governor.

Don't Go Away Mad Jennifer, Just Go Away

This column appeared on WisPolitics.com on December 29, 2005

Whether or not you approve of the first budget Dan Vrakas signed as Waukesha County executive, it was his budget. He won the election fair and square.

If Jenifer Finley wanted to be county executive, she should have run. Instead she stayed out of the race because her friends, and probably even her husband (the former county executive, Dan Finley), didn’t think she could beat Vrakas, and they did not want to deal with a potentially nasty Republican primary.

In the end, Jenifer Finley didn’t run because she didn’t want to lose. But before she dropped out, a deal was struck that gave her a graceful way out and the promise of a new position. Perhaps Mrs. Finley believed she really was making a sacrifice. But once she accepted the job as Vrakas’ top aide, Finley agreed to support his decisions.

We all know what it’s like to be certain that our way is the best way. But since it’s the boss’ name on the line, good staffers makes their case and support the final decision. If it does hit the fan, keep a lid on “I told you so” and make yourself as useful as possible until the situation is resolved. And when you can no longer be helpful, you resign, taking your resentments with you to be shared only with your close friends, your spouse and if necessary, a good therapist.

Thoughtful people understand that sometimes things just don’t work out between two people; it doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on either one. But Jenifer Finley, who was probably reacting to the courthouse rumor mill, decided that she needed to defend her honor. In attempting to do so, she showed us that she had no honor.

We’ll never know for sure what really happened in the office of the Waukesha County executive. Maybe Jenifer Finley did try to convince Dan Vrakas to veto more spending, or maybe she didn’t understand the choices that were presented to him in the budget. Either way, we now know more about Jenifer Finley’s tenure in county government than Dan Vrakas’, and that just shouldn’t be.