The Next Campaign Is On You!
Are you tired of having all your state tax money go for mundane costs like the University of Wisconsin, schools, highways and prisons? Well, cheer up! Thanks to Governor Jim Doyle and the majority-Democratic legislature, you will have the privilege of paying for the next campaign for Wisconsin State Supreme Court! In fact, you might be paying for several primary campaigns and both candidates' ads in the general election. If you like political commercials, you will love 2011, the first time that the new law will affect a Supreme Court race.
Here is how the public financing will work: Any lawyer who has practiced at least ten years in Wisconsin is eligible to run for the State Supreme Court. If she (1) can raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or less, she will receive a check from the State for $100,000 to spend on the primary. (Any Wisconsin lawyer who would have trouble meeting this meager threshold should not bother running. All she would have to do is hold a free dinner for all contributors to pick up 100 checks averaging $50; the cost of the dinner could be paid out of the hundred grand from the State!)
But it gets even sweeter! If at least one of the other contenders declined public financing and outspent our candidate, she could get up to $300,000 more in matching funds for the primary. For example, if five candidates filed for the job and only one declined the subsidy and outspent the rest (2), the State treasury could be on the hook for as much as $1.6 million in campaign funds ----and that is just for the primary!
If both candidates who survive the primary accept public financing, the State will provide each with a check for $300,000 for the general election. But if one of them declines the subsidy and spends more than the other, the publicly-financed candidate could garner up to $900,000 in additional State funds for the final battle.
The law also reduces the maximum amount that an individual can contribute to a Supreme Court campaign from $10,000 to only $1,000, so if you were hoping to send a couple grand to your favorite candidate in 2011, you will be disappointed. State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who will be up for re-election that year, worries that "with so little candidate spending, voters outside the major markets will get no advertising. (3)" But I (and I surmise most readers of this blog) live in the largest media market in the State, so I am not worried about missing out on a plethora of political ads in 2011. But I can only weep for the residents of towns like Rice Lake who will have to survive 2011 without any political ads at all!
If Wisconsin state coffers were overflowing with cash, I could understand the desire to spend a million or two for political advertising, since it would help the state media, especially TV, and would also boost the egos of attorneys who would enjoy seeing themselves praised in commercials at taxpayer expense. But the truth is that the State is actually short of money this year, and crucial programs such as aid to school districts have been cut back. I have contributed to political campaigns, including some for the State Supreme Court, but my money went to candidates that I liked, not divided evenly among several candidates, some of whom I probably can't stand.
I understand that public financing is intended to reduce the power of big-money special interest groups, who have virtually dominated several Supreme Court contests in recent years. I contend that the best counter-weight to spending by one group is voluntary spending by those with opposing views. I do not believe that taxpayer funds should be used to level the playing field. I suspect that many other Wisconsin taxpayers, who cannot afford to make political contributions themselves, do not want the State to make contributions with their taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) I use the feminine pronoun since four out of the seven incumbent Justices are women.
(2) Ads by independent political groups that urge voting for or against a particular candidate will be included in total spending by the candidate benefiting from such ads. Ads that merely advocate a position on an issue, but do not mention candidates, are not included.
(3) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2009, page 7A.
Here is how the public financing will work: Any lawyer who has practiced at least ten years in Wisconsin is eligible to run for the State Supreme Court. If she (1) can raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or less, she will receive a check from the State for $100,000 to spend on the primary. (Any Wisconsin lawyer who would have trouble meeting this meager threshold should not bother running. All she would have to do is hold a free dinner for all contributors to pick up 100 checks averaging $50; the cost of the dinner could be paid out of the hundred grand from the State!)
But it gets even sweeter! If at least one of the other contenders declined public financing and outspent our candidate, she could get up to $300,000 more in matching funds for the primary. For example, if five candidates filed for the job and only one declined the subsidy and outspent the rest (2), the State treasury could be on the hook for as much as $1.6 million in campaign funds ----and that is just for the primary!
If both candidates who survive the primary accept public financing, the State will provide each with a check for $300,000 for the general election. But if one of them declines the subsidy and spends more than the other, the publicly-financed candidate could garner up to $900,000 in additional State funds for the final battle.
The law also reduces the maximum amount that an individual can contribute to a Supreme Court campaign from $10,000 to only $1,000, so if you were hoping to send a couple grand to your favorite candidate in 2011, you will be disappointed. State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who will be up for re-election that year, worries that "with so little candidate spending, voters outside the major markets will get no advertising. (3)" But I (and I surmise most readers of this blog) live in the largest media market in the State, so I am not worried about missing out on a plethora of political ads in 2011. But I can only weep for the residents of towns like Rice Lake who will have to survive 2011 without any political ads at all!
If Wisconsin state coffers were overflowing with cash, I could understand the desire to spend a million or two for political advertising, since it would help the state media, especially TV, and would also boost the egos of attorneys who would enjoy seeing themselves praised in commercials at taxpayer expense. But the truth is that the State is actually short of money this year, and crucial programs such as aid to school districts have been cut back. I have contributed to political campaigns, including some for the State Supreme Court, but my money went to candidates that I liked, not divided evenly among several candidates, some of whom I probably can't stand.
I understand that public financing is intended to reduce the power of big-money special interest groups, who have virtually dominated several Supreme Court contests in recent years. I contend that the best counter-weight to spending by one group is voluntary spending by those with opposing views. I do not believe that taxpayer funds should be used to level the playing field. I suspect that many other Wisconsin taxpayers, who cannot afford to make political contributions themselves, do not want the State to make contributions with their taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) I use the feminine pronoun since four out of the seven incumbent Justices are women.
(2) Ads by independent political groups that urge voting for or against a particular candidate will be included in total spending by the candidate benefiting from such ads. Ads that merely advocate a position on an issue, but do not mention candidates, are not included.
(3) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2009, page 7A.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:20 AM
2 comments
