http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116287026089615243.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks (subscription may be required)
From today's Wall Street Journal:
Too bad that this piece wasn't run earlier, and in a forum that would reach more Wisconsinites.
I sure hope Green takes it in Wisconsin.
From today's Wall Street Journal:
Wisconsin's Cheesy Reformers
November 7, 2006; Page A12
Watching television this election cycle, you may have noticed that "campaign finance reform" hasn't made political ads any cleaner. You may also have surmised that money counts as much as ever; its sources and middlemen have merely been reshuffled. What "reform" has done, however, is make it easier for incumbents to keep power, and a case study is the Wisconsin Governor's race.
The challenger is GOP Congressman Mark Green, who has criticized Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle over his vetoes against tax relief, and has also kicked off a debate on education and tort reform. Or at least those were the issues until Mr. Doyle's allies used the campaign-finance laws to change the subject and create a phony scandal.
That story dates back to January 2005 when Mr. Green transferred some $1.3 million from his federal Congressional campaign account into his state campaign account. Legally this was no big deal since the Wisconsin Elections Board has allowed such transfers for some 30 years. Only a few years ago, the board unanimously agreed to such a transfer for then-Congressman Tom Barrett, a Democrat.
But the elections board has long been a political animal, and it lived up to that reputation by holding a meeting the day after Mr. Green's transfer. The Democratic majority adopted an "emergency" rule requiring that money spent in gubernatorial races be collected from political action committees registered in the state. In a stroke, this barred Mr. Green from using much of his money.
Viewing this as a naked political attack, the Republican state legislature jumped into the fray by suspending the rule. The elections board counter-attacked, saying the suspension didn't apply when the legislature was out of session. The majority in August ordered Mr. Green to divest himself of $468,000 worth of transferred funds. And it took this outrageous step over the advice of its own staff attorney.
It's now clear why. A few weeks after the August decision, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel uncovered emails that a paid Doyle lawyer, Michael Maistelman, sent to three Democratic members of the elections board. In one email, Mr. Maistelman informs the Democrats: "We need to accomplish the following . . ." and then lays out Mr. Doyle's preferred modes of punishment for Mr. Green.
He also explains to the commissioners: "Even if this ends up in Court it is a PR victory for us since it makes Green spend money and have to defend the use of his [federal] money." He assures them that "the Gov's Campaign and the Dem party will give you cover on this in the media."
They complied. Governor Doyle has since had a field day. His campaign assailed Mr. Green, accusing him of "breaking the law" and accepting "illegal contributions." It called on the Republican to return his "dirty money." And so it came to pass that the Governor was able to turn attention away from other, more substantive issues by using election-money laws to create an aura of corruption around his opponent. It of course helped that any GOP candidate must lug the ball and chain of the party's baggage in the earmarking and Abramoff scandals.
Even the exposure of the stage-managed emails haven't put things right. Many voters have tuned out what has become a complex story about impenetrable campaign-finance regulations. And because the elections board hasn't brought suit against Mr. Green, the Republican hasn't had a chance to clear himself in a court case he'd surely win, insofar as any "crime" here was wholly manufactured by this politicized board.
We wonder what Senator Russ Feingold thinks of all this. He's the Wisconsin native son who, along with Republican John McCain, famously spearheaded the federal campaign-finance legislation of 2002, promising healthier politics. It hasn't worked out that way.
Instead, voters have been treated to the muzzling of political activists, the policing of the Internet by federal bureaucrats, partisan attempts to shut down opposition groups and spectacles like this in Wisconsin. This is reform?
Too bad that this piece wasn't run earlier, and in a forum that would reach more Wisconsinites.
I sure hope Green takes it in Wisconsin.