This is almost too pathetic to deserve reply, but here goes....

Jack Lohman

From: Frank Lasee [mailto:laseesnotes@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:35 PM
To: laseesnotes@franklasee.net
Subject: Lasee's Notes--December 4, 2007--Welfare for Politicians

Welfare for Politicians

Next week, the legislature, at the Governor's request, will go into special session (we are scheduled to meet anyway, so it's not so special) to vote on a system designed to put tax money in the pockets of politicians running for office. This is called "campaign finance reform"? The Governor has brokered no agreement nor has he attempted to, making this special session likely unproductive in this legislature, with a Republican majority in the Assembly and a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Lasee is either very poor at math or extremely disingenuous. Tax money ALREADY IS going into politician's pockets when legislators pass laws that give campaign contributors taxpayer assets. Think it through! (Well, he doesn't have to. Follow HIS money HERE )

It takes money to inform many, to sell an idea, a candidate, or a political view point. Those with money (including unions), those that buy ink by the barrel, or come into our homes every night on the news, will have an advantage in any system. This will not change under a welfare for politicians scheme.

What better form of welfare for politicians than the one we already have?

The two biggest spenders on politics in Wisconsin are WEAC, the state teachers union (more than a million in an election cycle) and WMC, the state's chamber of commerce (usually about half as much). They make independent expenditures, over which the candidate, by law, can have no control, or input. Special interest expenditures have outpaced expenditures by candidates in heavily contested (winnable by either side) races.

That's all the more reason for Lasee to support the "matching funds" part of the campaign

One of the Governor's "reforms" is to finance the Supreme Court race with our tax dollars. A candidate that accepts $100,000 tax money in the primary and $300,000 tax money in the general election will be required to limit other fund raising. This amount pales in comparison to the nearly $6 million spent by candidates and outside interest groups in the last heated high court race.

Hey, wait a minute. If the candidate's intension is to accept private funding, they can opt out of public funding and the $100,000/$300,000 limit has ZERO impact! Does Lasee not understand this or just failing to be completely honest? 

Candidates were outspent by special interests, by the way. So, according to our governor, somehow the candidates will be better and cleaner (he should know) because they will get tax money and spend less. Then special interests will be buying even more (than they do now) advertising in comparison to the candidates themselves.

NOT!!  There will be no incentive for special interests to break the bank on advertising if their opponent is going to get matching funds from the state, so few (if any) will do so.

Whether we like it or not, spending translates into advertising a point of view for, or against, an issue or a candidate. This is free speech.  The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. Free speech is the true fly in the ointment for all those that want to reform the financing of elections by limits or additional tax money.

OPT OUT Mr. Lasee, and you can spend your fat cat's money to your heart's content. Enjoy free speech galore! This is a voluntary system, and you should know that. Blast your opponents for taking taxpayer funds and see how far you get.

If the legislature does choose to give more money to those running for office, it will be in addition to the total spending already done. This "reform" will have the opposite effect of the stated desire: limiting special interest influence (is government money special interest money?). Special interests will grow their influence as the individual candidates run more limited campaigns. The candidate's message and ability to distribute it will be further muddied and drowned by special interests.

Yes sir, it is. The taxpayers are the special interests and it is their money. And if politicians are going to represent the taxpayers, they cannot take money from anti-taxpayer interests. And for $5 per taxpayer per year, campaign reform is quite a bargain.

Often in the capitol, it just doesn't feel like we're doing anything meaningful unless we are throwing taxpayer money at it (especially to those on the left). Somehow, welfare for politicians and candidate spending limits will get others with interest in election outcomes and the results afterward to limit their own spending and influence voluntarily.

When pigs fly.

Yes sir, again. Those pigs will continue to fly as long as there remains an incestuous relationship between legislators and lobbyists. That's how they make pork, and Lasee should need no explanation here. (Sort of makes you wonder who the pigs really are.) 

What do you think about this issue? Click on this link and send me an email with your thoughts.

Lasee's Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Wisconsin Legislature and statewide.

If you know anyone else who would like to receive Lasee's Notes, please send an email to laseesnotes@yahoo.com with the person's name and email address, and we will add them to the list.

If you would like to stop receiving Lasee's Notes, email us at laseesnotes@yahoo.com with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.