Profile Page

Jim Doyle (D)

Governor

Doyle must go, but Green was not the guy to replace him. If Doyle is ultimately toppled
by Travelgate or another investigation (and this writer thinks he will be), he will be forced
to step down and Barb Lawton will replace him. She is excellent on reform issues.

* Also see Mark Green's Personal Finances to see where potential conflicts of interest may occur with his voting on issues. Did he own stock in the health care or pharmaceutical industry while voting on the Medicare Drug program, which benefited the industry to the tune of $750 billion in public expenditures over the next decade? Does he have his finances in a blind trust to eliminate such conflicts? 

Anecdote: Scott Walker moved from the state legislature, where he refused to push for public funding of campaigns, to Milwaukee County Executive. When he decided to run for governor, his earlier refusal to level the playing field with a Clean Money system came back to bite him, and BIG! He couldn't raise enough cash to be competitive, and he had to drop out of the race. Under a clean money system, enough public funds would have been provided and he'd not only still be in the race, he'd be leading it. Any second thoughts on reform, Scott?  

What upsets this writer is that Scott was the better man, but special interest money called the play. I reiterate. The cost to the public for funding the campaigns is just $5 per taxpayer per year. Our "privatized" politicians cost us $1300 per taxpayer per year because they choose to reward their contributors with taxpayer-paid state contracts. Not a good deal; $5 would be a bargain at 200 times the price.

Question: Who would you rather provide the $5 for the elections; the taxpayers or the special interests?

That said, even if Doyle and Green belatedly hop on the reform train, don't you believe their promises. It is all show. They were both on before and hopped off, so they are well-trained to do it again.

For a list of all candidates for state office go the State Elections Board and click on "All Candidates Registered."

_________________________________________________

Who won the Fall 2006 Government Ethics Voter Guide Questionnaire distributed by League of Women Voters, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Common Cause? See all survey questions at the WDC web site. (I) = Incumbent

(Many of those who did not reply simply do not want to go on record as supporting reforms they know they will vote against, and do not want to be held to their word. Others will say Yes and not mean it, or will vote as dictated by their party. It is up to constituents to hold their representatives to their word.)

Candidates for Governor	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4	Question 5	Question 6
Jim Doyle (Democrat) (I)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mark Green (Republican)	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply	No Reply
Nelson Eisman (Wisconsin Green)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Why didn't Doyle get a winning nod. Because everything Doyle has done (or failed to do) so far, in the area or ethics reform and campaign reform, has been against the best interests of the voters. What he says he will do doesn't count, what he has done does count. And that hasn't been good. Barbara Lawton you can count on; Doyle you can't.

Eisman:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Nelson Eisman is the only one representing honest government, as well as peace, environmental and energy reform, economic fairness, and social justice. Nelson Eisman has been a public employee for over thirty years and wants to return to the people of Wisconsin the pride and confidence that their state will once again lead the nation in progressive ideas and a clean government of the people. Eisman worked for the Center for Public Representation and trained paralegals and community organizers. Eisman has been a union activist in the Wisconsin Professional Employees Council, serving on the executive council and as chief steward; he has defended the rights of working people. […]

Doyle:

1. Yes - In my 2006 State of the State address and in other appearances across the state, I called on the Legislature to pass legislation to merge the Ethics and Elections Boards which would ensure that ethics complaints and election violations are thoroughly investigated and addressed.
2. Yes - I have called for passage of the Ellis/Erpenbach legislation, and I called for legislation to ban fundraising during the budget process by incumbents and challengers alike. I do not believe that the citizens of the state should have concern that the state’s budget is being used to raise funds for the campaign accounts of elected officials.
3. Yes - I strongly believe that all contributors to “independent” issue ad organizations should be reported to the public. Our citizens deserve to know who is funding these efforts and consider that information along with the content of the ad when making their decisions about which candidates, or issues, to support.
4. Yes- I strongly believe that we need to have a more independent process of drawing legislative districts. I’ve recommended that that process be done by a non-partisan agency that would give no consideration to legislator’s addresses or to previous election results. 5. Yes - I proposed having the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau conduct redistricting, but any non-partisan body or commission would be an improvement over the current system.
6. Yes - I called for legislation to prohibit former legislators and governors, as well as their staffs and appointees, from lobbying their respective bodies of government for one-year. Our process of self-government should include the opportunity for all citizens to have their voices heard, not just those of former insiders.
7. When I came into office, I was handed the largest budget deficit in the history of the state - $3.2 billion dollars. We balanced that budget by making tough, smart choices without raising taxes and at the same time protecting our great schools. It’s working - our economy is growing and we’ve created more than 140,000 new jobs. But there’s more work to be done. I will continue to work to make life more affordable in Wisconsin for middle class and working families - from making health care more affordable, to investing more in renewable energy, to making college more affordable.

Note on Doyle (from Lohman): This all sounds nice and cushy. But look at Doyle's actual record. He refused to bring SB1 Ethics Bill back to the floor for a vote, and I suspect because he didn't want to have to comply to the ethics rules himself. He also told me directly that he does not support full public funding of campaigns. Do I trust him? Absolutely not.

MONEY!!! Click here to see who's running the state.

MARK GREEN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH

Read the complete article from this excerpt from The Capital Times

But for out-and-out lying to voters, it's hard to top Green's statement supporting Bush's veto in which Green said, incredibly: "Stem cell research holds the key to treating some of the most debilitating diseases of mankind, which is why I have strongly supported expanding research into this exciting new medical frontier." Everything Green said about the promise and excitement of stem cell research revolutionizing medicine and curing diseases was absolutely true. Everything he said about his support for such research was absolutely false. Not only did Green vote against the bill Bush vetoed that would have expanded stem cell research, but Green voted seven times previously to ban and even to criminalize stem cell research.

Doyle On the issues

Project Vote-Smart Rating	INCUMBENT REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST Doyle's Vetoes: http://www.vote-smart.org/official_veto.php?can_id=BWI76416
Ethics	Doyle claimed to support the SB1 Ethics bill but refused to call a special session to force a vote on it.
Campaign Reform	Doyle made the big promise when campaigning that if elected as Governor, he would support campaign reform. He has voiced support for the weaker Ellis bill, but would likely even find fault with that if the chips were down and he had to sign it into law. Doyle likes things just as they are, as he is expected to raise $12 million for his 2006 re-election bid and drown out all challengers.
Line Item Veto	In Wisconsin we saw Governor Doyle veto 95% of the words in a bill and the remaining words transfer funding from road construction to schools. I prefer that particular end result but am appalled by the tactic. This not only violates the separation of powers doctrine but is also a terrible abuse of power. No, the real solution is to get private money out of the public electoral system altogether, and then the legislature will do the right thing in the first place and a line item veto would not be needed.
Project Vote Smart	See Doyle's vetoes

Green on the issues

Lobbyist-paid travel	2 trips at $15,317 to Israel and Ghana See at http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/congtravel/member_report.php?member=7098 The issue is not where he went, but who paid for it. If it is truly an official trip the taxpayers should pay for it and the spouse doesn't need to go along. For every dollar the taxpayers pay for these trips we will save $100 in special-interest giveaways.
Ethics	Green Repeatedly Voted to Weaken Ethics Rules
Campaign Reform	Green has never supported campaign reform, and if elected as Governor, would likely block all reform.
US Public Interests Group gives Green 17% acceptance	See http://www.pirg.org/score2003/wisconsin.html (Note that the top screen scrolls through the issues Green was graded on)
CommonDreams.org	Children's Defense Fund Action Council gives LOW MARKS (8%) to Green for his votes on protecting children. See http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0323-01.htm
Permanent Estate Tax	Incumbent voted in favor of the Estate Tax Relief Act (i.e., eliminating the Paris Hilton tax), thus shifting taxes from the wealthy to the middle class.
Line Item Veto	Incumbent voted in favor of the line item veto (6/22/2006): Follow the dominoes and you’ll see that the campaign bribes that went to congressmen to get the pork inserted in the first place, will just be duplicated for the president so the pork is not vetoed when signed. Unless, of course, you are already a political briber of the right persuasion, then it’s a shoo-in. They say things will have to get much worse before they get better, and the line item veto will clearly make things much worse. It will give voters the false sense that things are being fixed when it is just increasing the cash flow in an already corrupt political system. It is a misconception that ‘bad’ things will get vetoed and ‘good’ things left in. It will be just the opposite. In Wisconsin we saw Governor Doyle veto 95% of the words in a bill and the remaining words transfer funding from road construction to schools. I prefer that particular end result but am appalled by the tactic. This not only violates the separation of powers doctrine but is also a terrible abuse of power. No, the real solution is to get private money out of the public electoral system altogether, and then the legislature will do the right thing in the first place and a line item veto would not be needed.
Project Vote-Smart Rating	REPRESENTATIVE MARK GREEN REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST Ratings by Interest Groups: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS021401 Votes by Category: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS021401