Keep Senator Feingold

US Senator Russell D Feingold has served the people of Wisconsin since 1983: first in the State Senate for ten years, then as US Senator since 1993. He has been a thoughtful and independent voice in both legislative bodies, and has earned re-election next week.

I do not agree with every position or vote he has taken, maybe no one does. For example, the Senator opposed the Clinton-era free-trade agreements,such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I think were basically good. But he has been right more than wrong:

USAPATRIOT Act: Feingold voted against this major intrusion of Big Government into the lives of Americans, and it was passed over his objections. Later many members of Congress recognized its faults.

Iraq: Feingold was always against this war, and today we know that it was sold to the nation on false pretenses (remember Sadam's WMD?). With American troops on the way out, the new Iraqi government is turning to Iran for guidance and political support. How many American lives was that worth?

Campaign Finance: Feingold joined with Republican Senator John McCain to draft a bill limiting and regulating spending in federal elections, which was signed into law by President George W Bush. Some provisions have been ruled unconstitutional, but I contend it was a worthy bi-partisan effort to deal with the problem of buying political influence, which is as serious as ever now.

Congressional Ethics: Feingold sponsored the toughest restrictions ever on the acceptance of gifts (even free meals) by members of Congress.

Wasteful Spending: He is now working with Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) to craft a presidential line-item veto. (1)

Healthcare Reform: Feingold voted for this bill that regulated, but did not take-over, the health-insurance business. He is proud of his vote, and so am I.

The Republican nominee, Ron Johnson, is making his first try for public office, so he has no record of public service to evaluate. His campaign statements indicate that he is highly partisan (2) and has only superficial knowledge of the workings of the federal government.(3) He has spoken of cutting "billions of dollars" from the federal budget (1), but won't say what he wants to cut. He believes that the Obama Healthcare bill was a federal takeover, but the final bill did not even include a "public option".

If Johnson were elected, it is hard to imagine him partnering with a Democratic senator to craft legislation, something he has never done at all. He should stick to plastics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24, 2010, page 3J.

(2) Johnson told a Tea Party rally that he would have gladly given President George W Bush the enhanced presidential powers in the USAPATRIOT Act, but did not want Obama to have them.

(3) Johnson claimed that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was "gone", while in reality it is guaranteed by federal bonds, the world's safest interest-bearing investment.

Let's Elect Tech Boards

Republican State Senator Alberta Darling of River Hills announced that she will re-introduce a bill calling for making memberships on the boards of directors of Wisconsin technical colleges elective offices, rather than appointed positions, as they are now. (1) She introduced similar bills in the last three sessions of the legislature, but none even made it out of committee.



Do you know how members of the board of MATC and similar institutions are chosen? ( Most people have no idea.) Each board must include two employers, two employees, a K-12 school administrator, and three other members. The boards must be balanced in terms of gender, minorities and geography. The appointments are made by representatives of the school districts in the tech-college district. Members are appointed for three years and receive no pay. (1) Moreover, prospective MATC board members are interviewed on Saturdays (there is no alternative day), so Sabbath-observers (Jews or Adventists) have no chance of being chosen.



Apparently the present method was devised so that both employers and employees would be represented. But an employer need not be a CEO of a big factory; a lawyer with a secretary qualifies. Since unions are virtually guaranteed a voice on each board, Democratic legislators have been unwilling to change the current process.



But publicity about high salaries at MATC, which have led to a major financial problem for the school, has drawn attention to the fact that the board is not directly answerable to voters. Faculty at MATC (where I taught part-time for several years in the 1980's) are paid more than at any UW campus except Madison, even though their academic credentials are far lower (2). But, unlike university professors, MATC teachers are covered by a contract with a union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).



Since most people would like to have some say in how the tech schools are run, I contend that Darling's bill would enjoy massive support, if the public even knew about the issue. This is an opportunity for the Republican Party to offer the voters a clear choice between accountability to the people through direct elections and the present cozy arrangement between management, labor and school officials.



I urge readers who attend candidate forums during the next few weeks to ask office-seekers if they support Senator Darling's bill. I do!

---------------------------------------------------------------------



(1) " Legislator calls for tech board elections " by Karen Hertzog in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 25, page 1B.


(2) Nearly all tenured university faculty must have PhD, JD or MD. while tenured faculty at tech colleges need only a bachelor's degree or trade certification.

Game Changers

During this political year, in which Americans will elect the House of Representatives, one third of the Senate and many state officials, several important changes have been urged in our election process:

1. Switch to non-partisan primaries
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urged on September 15 that Wisconsin join California in making primaries for state offices and congress essentially non-partisan.
Under the present system, adopted in 1905 , each voter in the September primary selects a party and then votes for one candidate for each office seeking that party's nomination. (1) The nominees for each office then appear on the November ballot with their party designations; voters have the option of casting a single "straight ticket" vote for all nominees of a chosen party.
The trouble with this system is that is places partisanship above support for a particular candidate. For example, suppose that two Democrats (we'll call them Smith and Jones) and one Republican (Richards) seek a legislative seat in a heavily Democratic district. In the primary Smith gets 5,000 votes, Jones gets 4,890 and Richards gets 2,000. Even though Jones has much more support than Richards, Jones is eliminated and voters in November get to chose between Smith and Richards.
There is no way for moderate candidates to appeal to voters of both parties (or independents) at the primary stage; in the November general election the straight vote option makes the election of an independent or minor party candidate virtually impossible. Since district lines are drawn so as to minimize inter-party competition (by legislative leaders of both major parties), the winners tend to be stalwarts of their parties. This remains true even as polls indicate that most Americans are independents and hold both parties in low repute.
Instead, we should have the top two candidates in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. Candidates should have the option of including a message of up to five words under their name, which could be a party label or other identifying message (e.g. "Cut taxes" or "Not the White Man's Slavegirl"). This change would also mean eliminating the straight vote option, so that voters would actually have to consider the candidates in each contest rather than blindly backing one party.
Since the Wisconsin Constitution does not specify the primary format, this change could be made by law.

2. Let state legislatures select US Senators
The original US Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state chosen by the legislature thereof..." (2) But the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in
1913, changed the latter clause to "elected by the people thereof..." Now leaders of the Tea Party movement have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would restore the right to select senators to the state legislatures. US Rep. Louis Gohmert (R, Texas) has introduced a bill in the House to do just that. In Idaho Tea Party candidate Raoul Labrador won a Republican congressional primary mainly on this issue. (3)
The Tea Party, founded less than two years ago (April 15, 2009), has had enormous impact on many Republican nominations. Republican Senators Bennett (Utah) and Murkowski (Alaska) have been ousted by Tea Party favorites; GOP officials have fallen to Tea Party challengers for senate nominations in Kentucky, Delaware and other states.
But most American voters do not find repeal of the 17th "their cup of tea." Popular election of senators was one of the major victories of the Progressive Movement of the early twentieth century, and most of us want the right to pick our senators ourselves rather than leave it to state legislators. Moreover, legislators and other political insiders would have a big advantage in winning senate seats for themselves.
Another problem is that a party that won legislative contests four and two years ago would control the selection of the next senator, even if the party had lost support. For example, if the Wisconsin legislature had the right to pick the next senator, the winner would certainly be a Democrat, since the party controls both houses of the state legislature. Even if the state were now overwhelmingly Republican, a Democrat would still hold the seat for the next six years.

Since the repeal of the 17th Amendment would require a Constitutional Amendment, that is not going to happen. The change in the Wisconsin Fall Primary, although only requiring a simple change in one statute, will not happen either, if only because legislators chosen through the present system are not likely to want to try their luck with a more competitive alternative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Before 1905 party nominees were selected at conventions.

(2)Article I, Section 3, paragraph 1.

(3) The Revisionaries by Bradford Plumer, in the New Republic, Sept. 23, 2010, page 18.

Voting for Judge

"(Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day) O'Connor said states need to develop merit selection systems in which judges are appointed after a panel screens their credentials."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 7, 2010, page 1B

"Should we cancel Summerfest because there is too much loud obnoxious music?"
"Art Kumbalek" in the Shepherd Express

Although the last couple of Wisconsin Supreme Court races have included the "loud obnoxious music" of distortions and character-assassinations, I am not persuaded that we should cancel our 150+ year tradition of electing judges in this state.

Addressing the Wisconsin State Bar annual convention on May 6, former Justice O'Connor asked, "How can people have faith in the (legal) system, when such large amounts of money are used to influence elections?" She has as valid point: millions were poured into Supreme Court races in this state by special-interest groups, and the contests are becoming increasingly nasty. Raising money is not a good test of who will be a good judge. (Under a new law, state money will also be available to candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who agree to limit campaign spending, but O'Connor insisted that appointing judges would be a superior reform. )

In my view, the suspicions of bias that arise from the raising and spending boatloads of cash for judicial campaigns are still outweighed by the benefits of electing our judiciary. Judges are very powerful people: they can jail people for contempt of court, impose (or decline to impose) prison sentences on people convicted of crimes, and even declare state laws unconstitutional. Their decisions can be overturned (1), but only by judges of higher courts, who are even more powerful. It is the essence of democracy that those who exercise power should be answerable to the people periodically in elections.

Here are some important facts to consider:

1. Even with the present system, most judges have been initially appointed to the bench by the Governor, so appointments play a major role right now (although the Governor need not listen to any panel, as proposed by Mrs. O'Connor.)

2. Very few judges are ever defeated for re-election. In the 28 Supreme Court elections held in Wisconsin since 1967, only one appointed Justice (Louis Butler) was defeated. Incumbency is even more important than money in these contests, so appointed judges start every contested race with a big advantage. (2)

3. Only lawyers can be judges (above the municipal level), so all the voters can do is choose one lawyer over another. Since the Bar Association publicly rates judicial candidates, and newspaper endorsements often follow these ratings, the lawyers of the state have substantial influence over which lawyer becomes (or remains) a judge.

If former Justice O'Connor's plan were implemented, the judicial selection panels would certainly be dominated by lawyers. If so, the vast majority of citizens (who are not lawyers) would lose even the modicum of power they have now to determine who should make the decisions that are so important to both individuals and entire communities.

The people do not always choose the best candidate, so some "rotten apples" have become judges. But even so, I trust the people of this state to make better choices than any panel of lawyers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Except that if a judge excludes certain evidence in a criminal trial, and the defendant is then acquitted by the jury, the acquittal cannot be appealed because of the rule against "double jeopardy." On the other hand, convicted defendants can appeal decisions to admit evidence.

(2) For example, Christ T Seraphim was appointed a Milwaukee County judge by Governor Gaylord A Nelson in 1959. Despite a record of grandstanding, bigotry and abusive behavior on the bench, he was re-elected five times before he was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for misconduct. Only then did he lose a bid for re-election. His example shows that a bad judge can be both appointed and elected.

How the GOP Can Win in 2010

Republicans swept the races for Governor of New Jersey and Virginia, but lost both special elections for Congress (one in NY, one in California). The gubernatorial victories refute the claim that the GOP has dwindled into a narrow base of white southern evangelicals; Republican candidates won over independents by a two-to-one margin in both states, which backed Barack Obama only a year ago. New Jersey is a northern industrial state, with a very diverse population, including large numbers of Jews and other minorities.

But how can Republicans win the 2010 Congressional elections?

I contend that President Obama has made a major strategic error in his foreign policy that is ripe for exploitation by Republicans: the effort to create a Palestinian state. As noted in several previous postings, this effort is futile, because Hamas does not want a peace settlement with Israel, and Fatah is too weak to make a settlement without Hamas support. Apparently Obama, Clinton, Ross, Emanuel,and Mitchell do not know this.

Right now the dispute seems to concern expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank; the Palestinians insist that all settlement activity be halted, and Obama agrees. (Actually, all American administrations since Israel acquired the West Bank in 1967 have been opposed to the settlements, but this President has pressured Israel more vehemently than any since George H W Bush in 1991.) Moreover, Obama has visited Egypt since becoming President, but not Israel. He has moved the US from a staunchly pro-Israel position toward a more neutral stance vis-a-vis the Palestinians. (1)

Unlike many of Obama's policies in domestic affairs (such as health-care reform, economic stimulus, reduction of pollution, etc.), the shift in Middle East policy has a very small political constituency: Muslim-Americans, J Street, leftists and peace-activists. Jews and pro-Israel Christians vastly outnumber them. Democratic candidates for the House and Senate should be asked at every opportunity if they support President Obama's efforts to halt settlement activity and create a Palestinian state!

Republican candidates can appeal to pro-Zionist voters by calling for a Congressional resolution that defends the rights of Israeli settlers to build in the West Bank. Congress is always more friendly to Israel than is the Executive Branch (especially the State Department), but rarely breaks with Administration policy. Would AIPAC support such a resolution?

The obvious choice to lead this effort would be Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in all of Congress. (2) Most of the issues touted by Republican candidates, such as opposition to abortion and the right to own guns, leave Jewish voters cold, but unqualified support for Israel will get to some of them. The downside of emphasizing this issue is very minor, since most anti-Israel activists are so far left that they would not vote Republican anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) However, the US is aligned with Israel against Iran. So far, Obama has been no more effective that George W Bush was in opposing Iran's nuclear program.

(2) Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania was the last Jewish Republican in the Senate before he switched parties. There have been many others, such as Norman Coleman (of Minnesota, who lost to another Jew: Al Franken), Warren Rudman (New Hampshire) and Chic Hecht (Nevada).

Bloomberg for NY Senator

Next month Senator Hillary Clinton of New York will resign her seat to become Secretary of State, and Governor David Patterson will select her successor. Caroline Kennedy, the sole survivor of the Camelot First Family, has asked him to appoint her.

Most states authorize the governor to fill vacancies in US Senate seats; Wisconsin is among the minority that require a special election . The last time that happened in Wisconsin was 1957, when Senator Joseph R McCarthy died in office. The subsequent special election was won by William Proxmire, who held the seat until 1988.

I believe that it is better to let the people select the next senator, even though it may cost millions of dollars to hold a primary and general election for just one office. (1) Since the position of senator is at least as important as that of governor, some governors have appointed themselves senators, or resigned so that the next governor would do so. Others have appointed personal friends, relatives, or the senator's widow to fill the seat. In Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is accused of seeking bribes to appoint a successor to President-Elect Barack Obama. All of this trouble can be avoided by holding a special election.

If it were urgent that every senate vacancy be filled immediately, letting the governor pick someone would at least save a few months. But there are a hundred members of the US Senate, and even if two or three seats are vacant at the same time, the work of the body goes on. The special interests of a particular state would still be defended by the other senator. Sure, some legislation might be defeated or delayed because of one or more vacancies, but a bill can always be re-introduced after the vacancy is filled by special election.

Meanwhile, the Governor of New York will have to decide who will become the junior senator from that state. Although Caroline Kennedy is an intelligent and accomplished woman, she is more of a celebrity than a politician. She has never even sought elective office, so she has no record or experience in writing laws or securing a majority vote to enact them. Someone with her resume who was not the child of a former president would probably not be a serious candidate for this post. (2)

My choice is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has governed the nation's largest city for nearly eight years. During that period, he represented more people than live in most states. He has first-hand experience in the problems of America's big cities and in federal-urban relations. Moreover, Bloomberg is one of our time's top entrepreneurs, and made his huge fortune in the financial markets. If anyone could serve effectively on Senate committees dealing with banking, securities, and the economy, it would be Michael Bloomberg. Considering the state of America's economy, if we ever needed that kind of expertise in the Senate, we need it now.

I know that Mayor Bloomberg is committed to seeking re-election next year, but a Senate seat might be too good an opportunity to pass up. Although he was last elected as a Republican, he is now an independent, and I hope that partisanship does not stop Gov. Patterson from considering him. There are two independent senators now (3), and I would not mind a third.

I urge readers living in New York state to write their Governor with this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Since Wisconsin has judicial elections every spring, in addition to a partisan election in the fall of even-numbered years, it is often possible to combine a special election with one of these.

(2) As Massachusetts senate candidate Edward McCormack chided Ted Kennedy before the 1962 Democratic primary, "If your name were Edward Moore, your candidacy would be a joke, but it is Edward Moore Kennedy, so nobody's laughing!" (McCormack was the nephew of then Speaker of the House John W McCormack.)

(3) They are Bernard Sanders (Vermont) and Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut), both Jewish, as is Bloomberg.