Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition

Joe Lieberman

This is a note from an activist in Connecticut, and for you Lieberman followers I thought I'd print it. His assessment is better grounded than mine.

Jack, this is my take on the Connecticut situation.

As we speak, the Republican candidate for US Senate appears too weak to make a credible run on his own. He is having real trouble raising money since disclosures of his gambling past. GOP leaders are avoiding him like the plague. Press coverage of his activities is almost nonexistent. A new poll just out shows Lieberman with a slight lead over Lamont, which comes as no surprise to me now that the Dem primary is over.

I heard several stories of registered Republicans switching their registrations to vote for Joe (probably only temporarily), who was coming on strong the last week of the campaign. The primary vote for Lamont was not so much a pro Lamont vote as a protest against Joe’s war position. Joe’s actual voting record is not too far afield from most liberal Senators—except on defense issues. Joe had the backing of the Dem establishment here until the primary voters had spoken. Now the party organization is largely behind Lamont. The highest-ranking Dem to announce support for Joe is the Speaker of the House, Jim Amman.  

Most of the pundits here seem to think that Joe stands the best chance of winning by putting together the votes of some Republicans, some loyal Dems, and independents. Ever since Joe’s presidential aspirations were clear, he has been moving to the middle and emphasizing moderation and bipartisanship. The Bush kiss was fun for the press to play up but wasn’t taken seriously in any way by insiders. If Joe can put that GOP/Dem/Independent coalition together, I don’t see how he can be beaten in November. Joe has an enormous war chest remaining. Whether Lamont has trouble raising outside money (beyond his own fortune) remains to be seen. Lamont has never held public office and has only a few political friends. If the GOP candidate was stronger, the split Dem vote might be enough to push him through.

At this stage, it looks like a fairly tight race between Joe and Lamont with the Republican finishing a weak third. But, as you know, in politics most anything can happen—and usually does!   If you have continuing interest in this story, I suggest monitoring the Hartford Courant (especially on Sunday) at www.courant.com. Also, if you want to check in with me from time to time, please feel free.

BTW, just love the “Six Questions” chart. What a great way to call attention to the Pols who are weak on reforms.  

Best,

Dewey Dow
CITIZENS for ELECTION REFORM

On my right wing brethren

Conservatives Should Think About Being More Conservative

By Jack Lohman

The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

In the recent post of Corey Davison’s review of the nation’s fiscal problems, I agree with 100 percent of his concerns. However, it was what was not said that bothered me the most.

Davison, of the conservative Concord Coalition, is absolutely correct when he nails the problem to expenditures rising faster than revenues. Most of us recognize that yearly deficits accumulate to long-term debt, and increases in revenues (taxes) or cuts in services (like Medicare and Social Security) are the solutions most often suggested by conservative think tanks.

But what wasn’t discussed is the root cause of these admittedly poor fiscal policies, and that is our moneyed political system. Not discussed, perhaps, because it requires another small taxpayer expenditure to fix correctly.

Spending policies don’t just occur out of nowhere; they are bought and paid for by the special interests that benefit from those policies. Roads and bridges to nowhere are not conceived over a beer; they result from proposals by interested industries and are slipped into spending bills by conflicted politicians. We aren’t spending $780 billion on the Medicare drug program over the next decade because some light bulb went off in a congressman’s head; it was pushed through Congress with roughly $50 million in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

As well, estate and capital gains tax cuts are not thought up out of the blue; they are bought and paid for by wealthy contributors who abhor our progressive tax system. If improvements in the economy were really the impetus, these tax cuts would have instead gone to low wage earners who would have bought more consumer products for their families and thus stimulated the U.S. economy at ten times the rate claimed by the Bush Administration.

Yes, Congress and the president must implement pay-as-you-go rules. But not the ones we have today that pay only the special interests that go to the fundraisers. Neither state nor federal budgets will ever become balanced until we remove the moneyed interests from the campaign funding process, and neither political party is interested in this approach because it would level the playing field for challengers. Look at what Wisconsin’s Republicans have done to quash campaign and ethics reform; it’s not a pretty sight.

There are only two types of campaign dollars, public and private. And though a small group of citizens reject spending public money on political campaigns, we already have public funding of campaigns through the back-door taxing system described above. Over $1,300 per taxpayer per year at the state level and over $4,000 at the federal level can be chalked up to taxpayer giveaways to special interests that fund elections. Add to that the billions of dollars that transfer from lower-wage-earners to higher-wage-earners in the form of government policy changes (like NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the WTO) and we’re starting to talk about some real money.

But all of this need not be. For $5 per taxpayer per year we could break the link between the fat cats and politicians with full public funding of campaigns. And another $10 would cover federal elections.

In Arizona’s Clean Election system that $5 doesn’t even come from the taxpayers; it comes from a surcharge on traffic and criminal fines. If you don’t want to contribute to the political system, don’t speed. And if a politician wants to opt out and continue taking private cash, he can; thus the system passes constitutional muster. And to qualify for the public grant a candidate must show public support with signatures, so frivolous candidates are avoided.

What’s not to like about a system like that? For the very reasons the public wants public funding of campaigns (fairness), the politicians don’t. It’s the same reason our Republican assembly killed ethics reform and our Democratic governor refused to force a floor vote on it. They like things just as they are, thank you.

-- Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and founder of www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org. He can be reached at jelohman@gmail.com.

Source: http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=4944

Public Polls Tilting Democracy

OUTRAGED!!! This is an excellent example of why public interest groups and all independents and third party followers must demand that Nelson Eisman be included in all polls and all debates and all interviews! This poll and another by WISC-TV in Madison gave only two choices for governor, Doyle and Green. If you said Eisman you were counted as "Undecided." Given three choices the results would have clearly been different. Many people, myself included, don't like either of the two choices provided.

The bad news is that these media pundits are robbing us of our political choices, thus tilting democracy in a direction that not everybody favors. The best way to protect our corrupt duopoly is to ignore third-party options.

The good news is that "Undecided" got 14% of the votes, which tells me that Eisman is in this race and we must let the media know it.

__________________________________________________

Press Release - Today, August 22, 2006

GROUPS CALL FOR ALL 3 CANDIDATES IN GUBERNATORIAL DEBATES

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Common Cause in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign were pleased to see that We The People/Wisconsin has scheduled two gubernatorial debates.  However, the events will fall short of their goal to bring complete and unbiased information to the public if they do not include all three candidates for Governor.

The recent WISC-TV poll asked voters: “If the 2006 election for Governor were held today, would you vote for Jim Doyle, the Democrat, or Mark Green, the Republican?”  The results of the telephone survey showed the gubernatorial race to be closely contested between Gov. Jim Doyle (48%) and his challenger Rep. Mark Green (38%), with 14% of the respondents listed as “undecided”.  Given the limited choices provided in the question, voters had no opportunity to indicate support for the Green Party candidate, Nelson Eisman.  With 27% of the survey respondents identifying themselves as neither Democrats nor Republicans, the leanings of the undecided respondents are unclear.

“There are three candidates on the ballot for Governor this year.  Let all three debate the issues,” said Mike McCabe, Executive Director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin (LWVWI) has invited all three candidates to participate in a forum to be held in Green Bay. So far, only Mr. Eisman has committed to a date for the forum, which will be co-sponsored by AARP of Wisconsin. 

“The League has long believed that voters are best served when all candidates are included in a discussion of the issues. Third-party candidates play an important role in steering the debate toward issues that affect our daily lives but might otherwise not be discussed,” said Andrea Kaminski, Executive Director of LWVWI.

The three groups challenge We The People to open the debate to all three gubernatorial candidates.  They also urge voters to view candidates’ answers to questions dealing with campaign finance and ethics reform at their website www.lwvwi.org.

Contacts: 

Andrea Kaminski, 608-256-0827  League of Women Voters of Wisconsin

Jay Heck, 608-256-2686, Common Cause in Wisconsin

Mike McCabe, 608-255-4260, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

Tidbits

__________________________________________________

Who are these politicians trying to kid? Revenue is revenue, and if they reduce taxes on gas they will have to increase taxes elsewhere, and on people that don't drive. Or cut services to the poor, also people that don't drive. There is no way of controlling the petroleum cartel except through US policy changes. But had we taken private money out of the political system years ago, we would have had regulations that would have forbid the monopolizing over the last decade that has eliminated competition and permitted price-gouging. Exxon-Mobile, Conoco-Phillips, ChevronTexaco; how many more are there? For the sake of our country, mergers must be limited, but that requires a non-conflicted political system.

Incidentally, you can sign up to CTJ's weekly newsletter here. It's well worth the time you give it.

__________________________________________________

Give me a Break!

See the Real Transformer. Best to let it load and then "Watch Again"

_________________________________________________

A blonde golfer had just finished a round of golf at her local course. When she reached her car in the parking lot, she quickly dialed 911 to report that her car had been broken into.

She was hysterical as she explained her situation to the dispatcher. "They've stolen the dashboard, the steering wheel, the brake pedal, and even the accelerator!" she cried.

The 911 dispatcher said, "Stay calm. An officer is on the way. He will be there in two minutes."

Before the police got to the crime scene, however, the 911 dispatcher's telephone rang a second time, and it was the same blonde on the line again. "Never mind," giggled the blonde, "I was in the back seat!"

_________________________________________________

WOMAN'S PERFECT BREAKFAST

She's sitting at the table with her gourmet coffee.
Her son is on the cover of the Wheaties box.
Her daughter is on the cover of Business Week.
Her boyfriend is on the cover of Playgirl.
And her husband is on the back of the milk carton.

_________________________________________________

Here's an excellent disk cleanup tool suggested by a friend, but like all programs of this type you should backup your system or critical files. (click on Links and Resources and download  ‘Cleanup Utility’.) Also, check the Options before using it the first time.

Book Recommendations

See other reviews on Amazon.com

 

This book is perfect for those studying the legalities of Buckley The Twenty-First Century Left - Cognitions in the Constitution and Why Buckley is Wrong by William P. Kreml (ISBN 1-59460-251-4)  "... the most extraordinary theoretical perspective ever lent to the American Constitution."      —Professor Victor G. Rosenblum Northwestern University School of Law   Book Description The Twenty-First Century Left: Cognitions in the Constitution and Why Buckley Is Wrong applies the richest possible theoretical framework to the American Constitution. For the first time ever, a constitutional analysis focuses on the cognitive forms of the constitution's key provisions and the cognitive forms of key constitutional cases. Changes in cognitions, after all, are what herald appropriate changes in the law, changes that ensure justice by updating established legal principles. William Kreml explores the cognitive, dialectical structure of the Earl Warren Supreme Court and its similarity to the cognitive structures of the English Edward Coke period. He cognitively examines the Constitution's primary debate—over the legitimacy of public encumbrances on private contracts—and reviews the cognitive similarity between Buckley v. Valeo (the case that denied campaign finance reform) and Dred Scott (the case that upheld slavery). Further, Kreml analyzes the cognitively complementary nature of the Constitution's original seven articles and the Bill of Rights, noting the Bill of Rights' democratically aggregative purpose. Finally, he shows how Robert Bork and William Rehnquist misinterpreted Shelley v. Kraemer—the case that began America's Constitutional dialectic, and how John Hart Ely misunderstood the nature of the Warren Court. See the complete description and order at: http://www.cap-press.com/books/1576