Uppity Wisconsin

Dizzy yet from all of the spin about the campaign finance reports filed by candidates for governor?

One thing we can all agree on: They are raising a lot of money. After that, the analysis is up for grabs.

Scott Walker claims he had so many donors that his report caused the Government Accountability Board's online reporting system to crash. That caused the GAB to put out a statement saying Walker's claim wasn't true.

Bad group to get into a back and forth with, methinks. Who you gonna believe, a politician or the people who enforce the ethics laws?

Walker made much of the fact that he raised $1.75-million and has $2-million in the bank on Dec. 31. And -- imagine this -- he didn't owe anyone a single dollar on Dec.31, which let him hit the $2-million mark with $14,000 to spare. Why do I think there's a drawerful of unpaid invoices somewhere from vendors whose checks were written on Jan. 2?

But that's minor. The real story in Walker's report is the unmasking of Big Spender Scott.

For a guy who's running on proimises that he'll cut state spending, he isn't demonstrating much fiscal restraint in running his campaign.

Yes, the campaign raised $1.79-million in six months. But it spent almost $900,000 during that time.

As expected, the Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 against key provisions of campaign finance, opening the floodgates of corporate and union money just in time for the 2010 elections.  Look forward to a level of bogus flirting with the truth at a level that you've never seen before.

I'm considering throwing my TV out in the snow.

 

Update - News from The Sconz and NYT

Update - Sunlight Foundation Weighs in:

Update - Feingold Statement:

"It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process.  But this decision was a terrible mistake.  Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.  Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’  Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.  The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

Scott Walker, the candidate for governor who didn't seem to know just who those people were who had given him $172,000 in contributions, appears to be finding out it's not so hard to get that information if you bother to try.

Walker, who totally ignored the state law on reporting and failed to give proper information on about 300 donors, has filed an amended report since One Wisconsin Now told the public he was a lawbreaker.

The campaign filed corrected data for 122 records, totaling about $91,000. That leaves about $79,000 in donations from about 145 donors still outstanding. Neither of the $10,000 donors, Jonathan Kuester & Ronald H. Johnson, have had their employer data added as of yet.

Who are those guys who give Walker $10,000? He doesn't know? Doesn't he wonder?

Ironically, this disregard for the state law comes from the candidate and campaign who were oh, so upset that Gov. Jim Doyle hadn't saved every receipt from his travel -- failing to follow a rule of the bureaucracy, not a state law.

"Just show us the receipts, governor," , adding:

All Doyle and his staff need to do is keep better records.

Ahem. Was that a pot we heard, complaining about the kettle?

Dennis Troha, Kenosha businessman and would-be casino kingpin, has pleaded guilty to two federal misdemeanors Friday in connection with improper political contributions he made.

That Troha was negotiating a plea has been widely reported.

But the media will be shocked, shocked to discover that Troha's plea is not a scandal involving Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, but a bipartisan conviction.

All of the paperwork hasn't been filed, [UPDATE: Here's the agreement.] But Troha pleaded to conspiring to skirt campaign finance laws and help the campaigns of Doyle and -- surprise! -- President George W. Bush.

To my knowledge, Bush's name had never been mentioned in any of the previous news accounts about Troha's troubles. [UPDATE: The Wisconsin State Journal did write about Troha's donations to Bush in a story in March,

Jessica McBride asks:

WHERE ARE THE APOLOGIES TO MARK GREEN?

Joe Wineke, Bill Christofferson, and Jim Doyle, you should be first in line.

Wispolitics:

 Mark Green did not violate federal law when he transferred money from his congressional account to his gubernatorial fund for his 2006 bid, according to an FEC ruling. The decision was in response to a complaint the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed during the campaign, arguing Green's transfer of some $468,000 violated federal law because the transfer was not permissible under state statutes.

 But the FEC rejected that argument in its ruling, handed down April 30. It found the transfer was allowable under federal law and stated that a violation of state law did not equate a federal violation as well...

Should I be first, second or third in line? How about nowhere near the line?