The Walker Reform Plan

Give credit to the Walker team for timing. Capitalizing on the media frenzy surrounding the trial of State Representative Scott Jensen, gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker released another comprehensive reform package today.

The plan, highlighted below, contains several planks upon which Walker has campaigned before. There are a few new wrinkles as well. Here's the plan, and my quick takes in red.

Scott Walker's Ethics Reform Plan

• All appointed employees will be prohibited from contributing to Scott Walker's campaign committee. (100 Day Agenda and Walker's current policy in county government) Good. Consistent.

• All appointed employees will be prohibited from organizing or participating in fundraising for Scott Walker's campaign committee. (100 Day Agenda and Walker's current policy in county government) Good. Consistent.

• Scott Walker will not accept any campaign contributions (from any source) from the time he takes office (January 3, 2007) until the state budget is signed into law.(100 Day Agenda) Erases any chance of being accused of pay for play, at least immediate pay for play. Good. Not sure if this is his current policy.

• Scott Walker will call on Legislative leaders to enact a similar policy for all elected tate officials. (100 Day Agenda) He vows to lead by example. Good.

• Scott Walker will push legislation that prohibits contributions to his campaign from firms that are seeking to do business with the state while the contracts are being bid and awarded. (Walker's current policy in county government) Excellent. Consistent.

• Scott Walker will require every member of his administration to attend ethics training every two years to ensure that all executive staff members are aware of ethics standards and laws Can't hurt.

• Scott Walker proposes a five year ban on paid lobbying of the agency they worked in for all members of the administration, Legislature and legislative staff. Pointless as discussed in post below.

• Scott Walker will push legislation to combine the State Elections Board and the State Ethics Board I'm ambivalent on this one. No harm that I can see, though.

• Scott Walker will call for legislation to prohibit state candidates from accepting political contributions from the owners, operators or managers of casinos and racetracks. (Walker proposed similar legislation in 1997 and 1999) Works for me. Consistent.

• Scott Walker will propose legislation to prohibit closed caucus meetings and to require that all votes in Legislative committees take place in public. First part is a bad, impractical idea. Second part is a great idea.

• Scott Walker will push for term limits on all state offices of no more than 12 years (3 terms for Governor, other constitutional officers and State Senate and 6 for State Assembly). Term limits empower staffers who are not accountable to the electorate. Not a fan.

• Scott Walker will push for a return to a part-time Legislature. Pointless. Scott was a full time legislator. He served as an honest, hard working, ethical representative.

• Scott Walker will propose legislation to prohibit the transfer of funds from federal campaign accounts to state campaign accounts. Didn't this already pass? funny hit, though.

Overall, the new items in the plan are clearly designed to grab the attention and adoration of the goo goos and the media. In that end, it should be a big hit. The campaign is clearly attempting to emphasize Walker's well-earned reform credentials, first born in the Legislature and then further cultivated at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

As I mentioned, while I like a lot of his reform ideas, I think several of the proposals are impractical and some are outright bad. The campaign also appears to be trying to drum up a "throw all the bums out" chorus, which is neither wise nor merited.

Finally, while the timing of the release of the plan is sure to maximize its impact, as a Republican and former legislative staffer, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Some in the Walker camp may just say that's because of my perspective. As a former lobbyist and a former staffer, that I am bitter and was part of the problem...that I don't hear what the people are clamoring for. They are entitled to their take, of course.

I like Scott. He's my neighbor and a former client. I've been a major donor to his campaigns. I may yet vote for him.

Personally, I believe the people are clamoring for (and deserve) consistent, principled, ethical leadership and well-thought-out policy.

But what do I know, I haven't seen the focus groups...