The One Wisconsin Now contortionist act

This is just classic. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson raked in over $11,000 in donations from members of a law firm with a malpractice case before the court. Abrahamson did not disclose the donations to the parties involved in the case.

Abrahamson has not disclosed the donations from members of the firm, Cannon & Dunphy, to parties in the case or recused herself. Her campaign acknowledged she went to a fundraiser with those and other supporters but said that wouldn't affect her decision.

Nor is this the only time Abrahamson had her hand in the case-pending cookie jar.

In all, lawyers with cases pending before the seven-member court have donated more than $30,000 to Abrahamson's campaign since August, according to a review by The Associated Press. The lawyers -- nearly 30 in all -- made donations ranging from $25 to $5,000.

The donations are legal, but some watchdogs say their acceptance creates the perception of favoritism. One group is pushing the court to require justices to recuse themselves in cases involving parties who donate $1,000 or more to get them elected.

Interestingly, One Wisconsin Now is pushing to have some state supreme court justices recuse themselves from a case. In that case, OWN is claiming that even expenditures on issue-ads independent of the justice's campaign are sufficient grounds for recusal.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has already made it known how it would like the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule.

And who can forget the millions of dollars WMC spent supporting corporate-friendly and ethically-challenged judges Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler?

One Wisconsin Now has even launched a petition drive to ask for Gableman's and Ziegler's recusal. However, notice that One Wisconsin Now has also indicated how it would like the court to rule but has not asked Abrahamson to recuse herself from the same case despite their activity on her behalf. Nor have they asked Abrahamson to recuse herself from the malpractice case involving Cannon & Dunphy. Nor have they asked Abrahamson from recusing herself from any case where she has received donations from those with cases pending before the state supreme court.

That's because One Wisconsin Now is not interested in defending any principle or standard of conduct. (Of course, we knew that when the ethically challenged Scot Ross was picked to lead them.) They are not even interested in the law. Their only interest is power, pushing their political philosophy by any means necessary, regardless of the moral and intellectual contortions in which they force themselves to engage.

Justice Ziegler leading on ethics

The Appletonian brings us up to speed on Justice Ziegler, her critics, and her ethical standards.

Ziegler's critics ignore that any issue she may have had was well known by the electorate before they chose her because that would mean voters judged (correctly, I think) her minor ethical infractions insignificant compared to their more substantial misgivings over the philosophy and relative inexperience of Ziegler's opponent.

Since her election, were it discovered Ziegler was curing the blind and healing the lame, her critics would wonder if she was unfit to judge any case involving BadgerCare.

A last thought before the election results come in

Who woulda thunk the Ziegler-Clifford Supreme Court race was the substantive court election?

On the whole, I wish he was in Burkina Faso

Normally an e-mail from Jack Lohman is like getting an e-mail from Usuman Sankara of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, the national bank manager who wishes to smuggle some deceased relative's fortune out of his poor country with our help. It is often of a similar fanciful nature: free health care, problem-free elections, scandal-free politicians. All we have to do is follow Lohman's instructions and then we'll have managed to suspend the laws of economics and cure the flaws of human nature. All it will require is a small down payment from the taxpayers.

The latest missive from Lohman reminds us that one of his pet causes, public financing of elections for state supreme court, is on the schedule for this Tuesday.

Lohman and the like will claim that public financing of campaigns will limit the influence of special interests on the government, causing the savings in government spending to actually be more than the cost of the financing of elections.

This of course is patently absurd.

As McCain-Feingold has proved (as have similar legislation at the state level), outside interest groups will merely funnel their money to independent expenditure campaigns and "public education" campaigns completely independent of the candidates' efforts. These outside independent expenditures, unlike the candidates themselves, are completely unaccountable in what message they choose for their efforts.

At the same time, if a candidate benefits from the outside expenditure to such an extent that it proves key to their election, how have we freed the candidate from the influence of special interest money? Is that not the argument of the political Left regarding the influence of WMC on Justice Ziegler, and the argument of the political Right regarding the influence of WEAC upon Democrats, that while the direct contribution is limited the unlimited expenditure outside the campaign causes a disproportionate amount of influence? All we've managed to do is reduce the ability of the candidates to speak for themselves while absolving them of the responsibility for anything said on their behalf.

Going unanswered, what is sufficient funding for a political campaign, even one for the state supreme court? How many radio ads? How many television ads? Where should they be placed? How many newspaper ads? How many mailings? Reimbursement of mileage for campaign trips? Paid education of campaign staff? Campaign staff salaries? It all adds up to a nice bill, and Lohman would have the taxpayers pay for this "bargain." This year's legislation may be at bargain prices, but what of next year's bill?

Will there be sufficent funding, and will it be allowable, for candidates to pay themselves a salary in their campaigns? Don't laugh. Last year Congressman Sensenbrenner's opponent Bryan Kennedy paid himself a salary out of campaign contributions. Will we publicly finance a candidate's living?

Unfortunately, legislation like this has an appeal to those who do not want any contact with politicians, are uncomfortable with any political conflict, and think there is some magic way to have everything without cost. This legislation will only make elections more contentious, not less, and accomplish nothing except more encouragement to those who would legislatively repeal our first amendment rights.

Worse, legislation like this only encourages fringe candidates to compete because of the subsidy. Their motives may be malignant or benign, but what they lack in public appeal they'll have in their pockets in public finance.

No, no, no. A thousand times no. Whatever the price we must pay for our first amendment rights, and not one cent to public financing.

The Big 7 for 2007

The Big 7 for 2007

The seven events of 2007 shaping Wisconsin

1. The State Senate Democrats overreach with Healthy Wisconsin, a plan to double state taxes to provide “universal” health care coverage. The plan fails to receive the endorsement of Democratic Governor Jim Doyle and Assembly Republicans and causes state budget negotiations to collapse. Eventually Healthy Wisconsin fails and State Senate Leader Judy Robson is overthrown. Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch emerges from Jensen/Gard shadow demonstrating ability to hold caucus together under pressure to negotiate with the Governor.
2. Stem cell researchers, including UW-Madison’s James Thomson, discover a method of programming non-embryonic stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, further vindicating the pro-life position of limiting embryonic stem cell research and beginning the end of stem cells as a political weapon.
3. Judge Annette Ziegler wins election to state Supreme Court under ethical cloud, preserving near-even division of the court. Despite Ziegler’s margin of victory and that the ethical questions were all raised prior to the election, left-wing activists still seek to overturn election.
4. State GOP leaders fail to recruit top-tier candidate to challenge State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler. This follows Republican failures to attract top candidates to challenge Senator Feingold in 2004 and Senator Kohl in 2006.
5. Tyler Peterson kills six people in Crandon, WI. Slow release of details by local authorities and State Attorney General JB Van Hollen, plus Van Hollen’s suggestion to the Crandon community to stop talking to the media, cause more questions to be asked about JB Van Hollen. The Crandon murders follow a series of opinions issued by Van Hollen that causes his political base some discomfort. Previously talked about as a candidate for governor, Van Hollen announced that he would seek re-election for SAG in 2010 and wait on running for governor.
6. Tommy Thompson for President frenzy reaches its peak, debates reveal Thompson’s shortcomings, and then Thompson’s campaign fizzles with the Ames, IA Straw Poll. Nobody noticed he endorsed Mayor Rudy Giuliani.*
7. Georgia Thompson has her conviction overturned. Van Hollen declines to pursue investigations against Governor Doyle, effectively ending scandals as issue.

* Originally and incorrectly wrote "endorsed Senator John McCain". Endorsement so inconsequential Waukesha Freeman columnist James Wigderson was quoted as saying, "Who endorsed whom?"

I bet on the Washington Generals too

Each year I make a set of predictions, some tongue in cheek, and every year I prove to only be slightly better than sportswriters predicting the outcomes of NFL games. A quick glance at this year’s scorecard will show I made better predictions than in the past. Comments in italics.

1. Governor Doyle will get one or two Assembly Republicans to join his administration. Okay, I blew this one. Maybe now that the budget is over.
2. The QEO will be lifted. If there is one trend, I seriously underestimated the resolve of the Assembly Republicans.
3. Revenue caps on schools and local governments will be loosened, but not eliminated. And if you have any loose change left, they’ll take that, too.
4. Shared revenue will be cut further, except for counties. Depends where you are. However, not enough for me to count this as correct.
5. The ethanol mandate will pass. Ethanol less hip and trendy.
6. The State Assembly will not pass a conservative budget with tax cuts to challenge the Democrats. How about a tax freeze? Huebsch successfully isolated the State Senate and fought Doyle to a standstill. Nurse Robson sent packing. Not a bad job. Who’da thunk it?
7. Charlie Sykes will make up his mind on the Gay Marriage Ban. Charlie? Charlie?
8. Republicans will attempt to feed more misinformation to bloggers and get caught and called on it. I’ll have to check Boots and Sabers.
9. I will lose weight. I would do the Polar Bear plunge but I’m afraid of being rolled back out to sea.
10. Senator Feingold will support a Bush nominee that will get little support from the rest of the Democrats in the US Senate. I guess not. Must be someone else’s turn to be a maverick.
11. Senator Kohl will ask a coherent question at a nomination hearing. He will even read it like he wrote it rather than sound like he's just reading what a staffer puts in front of him. Always next year.
12. Milk at Senator Kohl's milk barn at the state fair will not go up in price. Lines are longer. What could Feingold give away?
13. Senator Feingold will call for the President to either be censured or impeached. Nothing will come of it. Sun rose, sun set.
14. Congressman Steve Kagen will again say something completely insulting to a minority group; it will be ignored by the media. No such luck. He just insults our intelligence.
15. Taxes will go up. Yup.
16. Governor Tommy Thompson will drop out of the race for president. If Huckabee wins the nomination, I’m going to take back anything I ever said bad about Tommy Thompson. Well, not everything.
17. WISN's Mark Belling will give credit to a blogger by name - once. What’s a blahg? I think he did a couple of times, more than that if you count Victor Davis Hanson.
18. A serious scandal will involve the Doyle Administration, but no link will be found to Doyle directly. It’s been a quiet year in the state contracts department, but Dennis Troha fits the bill.
19. Former Waukesha District Attorney Paul Bucher will appear on at least one local Sunday morning talk show. Close, Sunday evening with Jessica McBride.
20. The Wigderson Library & Pub will serve free drinks one evening for no reason. Look, if you missed it, it ain’t our fault.
21. The New Berlin School Board will remain in the hands of conservatives. I’m still waiting for MacArthur military academy.
22. County Executive Dan Vrakas will easily win re-election. Pretty much what you want in a County Executive. Quiet, efficient, low maintenance costs, possible candidate for governor (whoops!)…
23. There will be serious violence at a local festival in the city of Milwaukee. I plan on going to Juneteenth Day in 2008 – for breakfast.
24. There will be loud demands for Milwaukee Police Chief Nan Haggerty's resignation. Quitter.
25. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will set records for fundraising for a mayoral race. Compared to his opponents…
26. Annette Ziegler will win the race for state supreme court. And the Left has been trying to undo the election ever since.

27. The state legislature will raise the tax on cigarettes with bipartisan support. If only tobacco could be converted to fuel.

Not endorsing

A number of local bloggers will be posting the above link in the near future endorsing a candidate in the state supreme court race. I toyed with the idea, but decided against it. I haven't endorsed a candidate since Chris Lufter ran against Bill Kramer in the 97th assembly primary last year, and that endorsement was because I was personally involved.*

Not formally endorsing candidates has left me free to criticize candidates and campaigns without people questioning my motives (although in the case of JB Van Hollen the party faithful have anyway). Besides, I'm uncomfortable with endorsing a candidate I may end up writing about in my newspaper column, especially in a newspaper that has a policy against making editorial endorsements even if there are really no restrictions placed on me. (I have no role with the Waukesha Freeman. I'm a freelance writer and they're free to reject my stuff at any time.)

Finally, as we saw in the last state supreme court race, we can never know everything about a candidate. I'd have looked awfully silly with a "blogs for Ziegler" button even as I was agreeing with some of her critics that there was some real problems with her candidacy.

A counter-argument can be made that my views towards particular candidates are often easily discernable. I concede the point. But by not formally endorsing a candidate I at least avoid being institutionally committed to the candidate.

Besides, I forget who pointed it out locally during the last election cycle, but there really is something silly about a blog endorsing a candidate.

Nick Schweitzer recently claimed that someone really can't be a Conservative without being a Republican. Yes, they can, if they have a different role other than as an activist. They can be a critic.

*(As good as Bill has been, and he has been, just think what Chris would've been like. Maybe Bill can move to a different district, but then I gotta talk Chris into running again, and I don't think she's forgiven me yet for the last time...)

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Ziegler settles Ethics Board case

This seems to me about right.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Annette Ziegler reached a settlement with state officials that will bring to an end a conflict-of-interest complaint filed against her, according to the legal counsel for the State Ethics Board.

The settlement resolves a complaint by the board that claimed Ziegler violated conflict-of-interest laws when she presided over five cases as a Washington County judge involving a bank where her husband was a paid director.

Ziegler admitted on Wednesday afternoon to a violation of the law, paid a $5,000 forfeiture and will pay the board costs for the prosecution, which will likely total about $12,000, attorney Jonathan Becker said in a news release.

Meanwhile, the judicial investigation continues.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Ziegler complaint filed by Ethics Board

One final detail left over from the state supreme court race. The State Ethics Board, not normally known for its aggresiveness, has filed a complaint against Justice Ziegler. According to the Associated Press,

The state Ethics Board on Wednesday filed a complaint alleging that newly elected Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler violated the state’s ethics code by participating in a lawsuit affecting a bank in which her husband is a director.

The board’s complaint is scheduled for a hearing on May 17 at the Dane County Courthouse before retired Court of Appeals Judge David Deininger. The Ethics Board is asking the judge to find Ziegler guilty of five violations, each punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.

I think she might have that in her "mad money."

Ethics Board chairman Jim Morgan said its investigation didn’t find any instance of Ziegler’s actions benefiting her or her family.

‘‘But a question about a judge’s favoritism toward a business with which a judge is associated should never arise,’’ Morgan said. ‘‘A government official shouldn’t be acting on a matter that affects a business of which the official or official’s spouse is an officer or director.’’

Fair enough, I think, and we'll soon be past this whole issue. Okay, I can't resist.

Our long cheesehead nightmare will soon be over.

The hits just keep on coming

I let my inner Silvio Dante do the talking in this week's column. I don't think Democratic activist Ruth Page Jones and Project ABC are going to like my giving away the plot. And I reminince about how the hit on Annette Ziegler backfired and it was Linda Clifford that got whacked.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Predictions and last minute observations

I don't claim to have inside information; I'm only making these predictions from observation. But if you were going to bet on the State Supreme Court race (and we all know that would be wrong), then I'm guessing the negative ads worked and we're looking at Clifford the Big Red Dog winning 52% to 48% over Annette "Gut Check" Ziegler.

Owen Robinson has some contrary poll numbers from the Wisconsin Realtors showing Ziegler up by 17%.

Just a couple of observations about the race. Fred of Real Debate forwarded and Owen at Boots and Sabers posted a phone call made by Clifford supporters without the required disclaimers. I wonder who paid for those?

Speaking of Owen Robinson, some interesting developments in the complaint filed with the state elections board. Representing Monica Sitter who filed the complaint is attorney Bruce Davey of the law firm Lawton & Cates. Also practicing at Lawton & Cates is former State Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (they must have great parties). Lautenschlager recently endorsed Linda Clifford. It's a small world after all. (The attorney for Ms. Sitter has not responded to my questions about whether they intend to widen the complaint to include liberal blogs endorsing Clifford.)

Finally, I find myself in agreement with Mike Mathias on the subject of Clifford's campaign using the endorsement from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. If the editors didn't want Clifford to use the endorsement, don't make the endorsement. Gee, why should the "public" be confused about whether the newspaper is supporting Clifford after the newspaper declares that it is supporting Clifford?

Heck, I've used the Journal Sentinel's endorsement in campaigns even when they endorsed my candidate's opponent.

Update! 7:13pm
Proof that you can get a good education at UW-Milwaukee:
Mike Mathias, Tim Rock, Jessica McBride and I all agree - The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel should stop their whining and do some real reporting. Now if we could only agree what that is!


Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Philosophically unqualified

The verdict is in. I have weighed the evidence, listened to the charges and counter-charges, and while I agree Judge Ziegler did violate the rules, I find her opponent Linda Clifford guilty of being philosophically unfit to serve on the state supreme court.

In the case of Ziegler v. Clifford, the choice is between Ziegler’s conflicts of interest and Clifford’s competence to serve. While nobody can point to a case where Ziegler benefited from her decisions, it’s pretty clear that her opponent is confused about the nature of the office she is seeking. Clifford envisions the state Supreme Court as a super Legislature, achieving legislative ends by judicial fiat. The office she is seeking calls for someone to interpret the law rather than write new law.

Clifford’s philosophy renders her more fit to serve in the Assembly than on the state’s highest court. On Tuesday we’ll see if the voters agree.

I gotta admit, if the balance of the court wasn't in question, I might've been more supportive of the idea of putting the philosophically troubling Clifford on the court. But because she would complete a tilt to the Left on the state's highest court in judicial philosophy, and because that philosophy is damning in itself in rendering someone unfit to serve, we'll go for the candidate who must've been sleeping through the lecture on, "Kick those conflicts of interest down the road."

It's the vote for the least amount of harm. Doesn't mean you have to like it.


Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Good thing there will be a lawyer at the blog summit

There's been an election complaint filed against the blog Boots and Sabers because the "Blogs for Ziegler" ad/button does not have a disclaimer. Owen's one word reaction, "Fun!"

I'm curious if anything develops from the case, as there are protections on the federal level, I'm not sure what kind of protections exist on the state and local level.

Of course, if this starts to go anywhere there will be some liberal blogs dragged into it as well.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

This will be funny to about twelve people

With the state supreme court election less than a month away, I decided to do my public service by giving you this do-it-yourself get-out-the-vote postcard for you to mail out the Friday before election day. Remember, it doesn't matter whom you remind to vote as long as don't tell them to vote for a particular candidate. I suggest sending this to those possible voters that live in the suburbs in traditionally Republican voting areas, as nobody ever reminds those people to vote. When was the last time you saw Jesse Jackson registering white suburbanites to vote? So do your part and help remind them to vote, too. Use the postcard below (I suggest printing it before trying to cut it out) and make sure your Republican or pro-life friends remember to vote on April 3rd.



Download thousands of audiobooks on iTunes.

Ziegler update

I wanted to give an update on the pro-life issue with Judge Annette Ziegler's campaign for state supreme court. Campaign manager Mark Graul returned my call last week after the primary and I asked him about the Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund PAC endorsement which Ziegler did not receive. Graul said that the questionnaire was very similar to the questionnairre sent to legislative candidates, and because of the rules governing a candidate running for a judicial office Ziegler felt she could not answer the questions.

I asked Graul about his history with Congressman Mark Green's campaign for governor and Green's failure to get the endorsement of the Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund PAC. He said he asked Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin to waive the requirement that the candidate support a ban on abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Pro-Life Wisconsin refused, and Green could not agree with the organization's position.

Some other notes on the primary:

Graul predicted that because of the size of the margin of victory, Linda Clifford's campaign and it's allies would probably attack earlier than originally planned.

I think it interesting that the pro-life vote in the primary (Ziegler plus Sommers) totalled 73% of the vote.

Download thousands of audiobooks on iTunes.

Ziegler, Clifford advance

Hardly earth-shattering news, but Annette Ziegler and Linda Clifford advance to round two of the race for state supreme court. My prediction at the beginning of the year of a Ziegler victory in April looks better than ever, with Ziegler's impressive vote total on Tuesday ("57 percent, according to unofficial returns with 70 percent of precincts counted").


Buy Wisconsin Stuff Now!

Check the endorsement

An interesting question before tomorrow's primary is why the Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund (PLWVF) PAC endorsed attorney Joe Sommers over Annette Ziegler. Despite the ravings of one blogger, the answer is really quite simple, and was easily found out with a phone call to Pro-Life Wisconsin's Legislative Affairs Director Matt Sande. The simple answer is that Annette Ziegler apparently did not seek PLWVF's endorsement, and did not respond when the PLWVF attempted to ask the candidate about her views. Joe Sommers, on the other hand, was a known quantity to Pro-Life Wisconsin, is outspokenly pro-life, was responsive to the PLWVF's board, and lives by a pro-life philosophy.

Ziegler's campaign manager Mark Graul did speak with Matt Sande last week, and Sande said he was assured Ziegler is a strict constructionist. However, Sande pointed out the Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund would be unable to continue the process to determine if they should endorse Ziegler without being able to question the candidate. Sande said, "the door is always open."

A couple of other tidbits.

This is the second statewide race in a row for Republican campaign manager Mark Graul where the candidate did not seek the Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund endorsement. Last election cycle it was former Congressman Mark Green's campaign for governor. (Mark Graul did not return my call.)

The Pro-Life Wisconsin Victory Fund did receive a response from Linda Clifford, who declined to state her views on abortion saying it would be "inappropriate." No word why the other interest groups would be more appropriate.

Update! I forgot I wanted to add WVCY's interviews with the three candidates can be found at their website.

Buy Wisconsin Stuff Now!