We know now which prevailing wage concerns Scot Ross

The organization with the wonderfully fascist-sounding name, One Wisconsin Now, a self-admitted partisan organization, sent out this "urgent appeal" from Scot Ross this morning:

james:
I wasn't going to email you today, but last night during the budget debate Assembly Republicans tried to kill the state budget's prevailing wage plan -- and we need your help more than ever.

You and I know how important the stakes are. And so do our brothers and sisters who have suffered from wage rate violations. Just last year, the state found wage violations at over 35 percent of its on-site investigations. That's money out of the pockets of working men and women and out of our local economies.

Help us keep up the fight for prevailing wage, by clicking here and making a one-time, online contribution to One Wisconsin Now for $20, $45, $75, $100 -- whatever you can afford today. We've got powerful forces against us, but we can win.

I don't know why he didn't want to e-mail me today. Everyone else is e-mailing me.

But at least we know which prevailing wage Ross is fighting for - his.

OPM Fest less than festive

C'mon guys. About eighty people? Really? That's the best you can do? I bet there were more people garbage dump dining in Merton. Where were the buses? The signs?

Sixty groups sponsored today's event. You would think they could get more than just eighty people with names from the letterhead.

C'mon everyone! No government hand outs, no peace!

Talk about astroturf vs. the grass roots, today's turnout qualifies as a plastic welcome mat.

From now on they are the "partisan One Wisconsin Now"

Robert Doeckel, Netroots Director for One Wisconsin Now*, has a curious description of his tax exempt organization:

OWN does NOT claim to be non-partisan. We’re progressive and proud of it.

They don't claim to be "non-partisan?" At least they dropped the facade but I wonder what the IRS thinks.

*The organization with the fascist-sounding name.

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.

One Wisconsin Now is a silly child

Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now is a child in need of having a toy taken away, according to David Ziemer of the Wisconsin Law Journal. Ross is accusing Judge Koschnick of being in the bottom third of all circuit court judges for being overturned and even comes up with the wild exaggeration that Koschnick has been overturned in 26% of his cases.

Ross relied upon Ziemer's numbers for his wild claims, prompting this response from Ziemer:

Unfortunately, an irresponsible special interest group called One Wisconsin Now has looked at the numbers and found that Supreme Court candidate Judge Randy Koschnick is in the bottom third of circuit court judges throughout the state.

True perhaps, but, if even one of the 27 cases used to reach that had been an affirmance, rather than a reversal, Judge Koschnick would be above the median, and be in the top half.

One Wisconsin Now also claims that Judge Koschnick is reversed in one-quarter of his cases. This is of course absurd, as my numbers look only at those court of appeals opinions that result in a full opinion. The thousands of cases where trial judges reach the correct result and are not appealed are not included.

The organization also claims there is something remarkable about the cases in which Judge Koschnick is reversed, because the Court of Appeals uses language along the lines of “the circuit court judge applied an incorrect legal standard.”

Of course, we all know that in every case when an appellate court reverses, it says that the wrong legal standard was applied, or the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion, or applied the law incorrectly. Otherwise, the case would be affirmed.

Of course, the Koschnick campaign has produced their own numbers in a statement:

They relied on misleading percentages. The numbers paint a different picture. Judge Koschnick did a CCAP search, and estimates that he's handled over 40,000 cases during his time on the bench. Of those cases, he's been appealed 27 times. Out of those 27 cases, he's been reversed 7 times. So, in the nine years he's been serving the people as a judge, he's handled oer 40,000 cases, and been reversed 7 times. That strikes us as a remarkable quality (and quantity) of justice being delivered to the people.

We can expect cheap partisanship from OWN but I think they owe their donors a refund for their shoddy work.

Revisiting Oswald, Scot Ross, and Judge Koschnick

In Friday's Waukesha Freeman, Scot Ross of the organization with the Fascist-sounding name, One Wisconsin Now, attempts to take issue with my January 22nd Waukesha Freeman column, “Supremely different.” In that column I argue,

The concern should be less about Koschnick’s defense of a criminal {Ted Oswald} as a defense attorney than whether Koschnick would be a liberal jurist who would invent law as Abrahamson did in the Knapp case. It is clear that he would not, and perhaps that is why the prosecutor in the Oswald case, former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher, has endorsed Koschnick.

Ross, trudges out the old charge, hypocrisy, and summons forth a terribly incomplete and out of context quote from a blog post I wrote during the Gableman campaign.

On the subject of public defenders running for judge, the full quote:

I think it's fair to remind the voters that Butler was a public defender. Here's an ugly little secret. People don't like defense lawyers unless they need one. Then they're thanking whatever deity is at hand. Now, I like defense lawyers. I like all lawyers unless they're sitting on committees trying to control an election or, even worse, sitting on an election board. But I'm the exception. Most people root for the prosecution. Why do you think Law and Order is so popular? Do you think it would still be so popular if the public defenders ran circles around Arthur Branch?

If being a public defender was popular with the public, there would be more of them on the public payroll and they would be paid more.

I even think it's fair to run an ad that reminds the voters what kind of people the public defender defended as part of his career path. Heck, if I were Darrin Schmitz (Gableman's campaign manager), I'd pull out the whole portfolio and ask at what point did Butler no longer want to be a public defender. After this murderer? After this rapist?

If you don't like it, don't choose becoming a public defender as a career path.

Ironically, the quote comes from a post criticizing Butler’s opponent. Clearly I don’t have a philosophical objection to public defenders becoming a judge, or even a Supreme Court Justice. The comment was an understanding and explanation of the campaign tactic.

It also does not contradict what I wrote in the column, where I discuss the Oswald case at length.

When Koschnick was still a public defender, he was assigned Waukesha’s most notorious murderer, Ted Oswald. Oswald, along with his father, was convicted of killing Waukesha police Capt. James Lutz as he fled a bank robbery in 1994.

Writing in The Freeman, Belling accused Koschnick of trying to help Oswald "get away with murdering a cop" by claiming Oswald was controlled by his father. Left-wing blogs and One Wisconsin Now agree the case should hurt Koschnick, arguing it’s hypocritical for the judge to run a "tough on crime" campaign.

It’s a little more complicated than either would make the issue.

Koschnick was assigned the case, and his defense was designed to get his client convicted of a lesser charge, second-degree murder. The penalty would have been 60 years instead of life in prison. A far cry from arguing Oswald should "get away with murdering a cop."

Sorry to disappoint Ross, but since I did not “go apoplectic” over Butler, I can hardly be expected to “go apoplectic” over Koschnick, especially when it was clear from my column that Koschnick was assigned the case and the prosecutor in the case has endorsed him.

Why the unwarranted hypocrisy charge? Because it’s a way of saying, “Ignore this person. He’s a hypocrite.” Hypocrisy is the ultimate crime enhancer, and the punishment is ostracizing. Sleeping with a teenage girl is criminal. The rock star that sings about sleeping with hundreds of women continues to sell more song downloads. The televangelist is driven from the public stage in shame. Ross is hoping to silence conservative critics of his favored candidate, Justice Abrahamson.

It’s the only tack Ross has. Ross cannot defend Abrahamson from the charge of judicial activism. In discussing the Knapp case, Ross would rather focus on the “bloody shoes” than on how it took two tries to resolve the “bloody shirt” evidence. How Abrahamson was overturned by the US Supreme Court, only to invent another way of suppressing the evidence, one not mentioned in her earlier ruling. How Abrahamson was just throwing reasons up to justify her previously staked-out position, the very definition of judicial activism. If Ross tried to explain it, the public would turn against his candidate.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and in this case Ross finds himself in bed with Mark Belling. (I hope Belling doesn’t catch an unexplainable rash.) Belling’s position on the Oswald case and Koschnick’s past as a public defender is understandable, even if I don’t agree. But surely Ross and his allies are not suddenly critical of the idea that a public defender could ever graduate to the bench, or perhaps become a Supreme Court Justice? Then why bring the Oswald case up repeatedly? To what end is Ross pursuing, except to force the connection in the minds of the voters?

But then, that would be hypocritical of Ross, no?

WIL takes on the minimum mark-up law

The Wisconsin Institute for Leadership issued the following press release today:

Wisconsin Lawmakers Could Move to Lower Gas Prices by Next Week
Wisconsin Institute for Leadership Urges Doyle to Call Special Session to Repeal Minimum Mark Up Law
[Madison, Wisc.] Gasoline prices in Wisconsin could be dramatically reduced if the state's arcane Minimum Mark Up Law was repealed. The Wisconsin Institute for Leadership (WIL) is urging Governor Doyle to call a Special Session of the state legislature next week to reduce gas prices here.

"This is a dumb law that hurts families in Wisconsin," said WIL Executive Director Brian Fraley. "With gas at more than four bucks a gallon, now more than ever, our elected officials should move to repeal this law or explain why they support this constraint on the free market."

Under Wisconsin's Minimum Mark Up Law, which has been in place since the 1930s, fuel wholesalers are required by the state to mark up their prices by at least 3 percent and retailers are required by the state to raise prices by at least another 6 percent. This adds a whopping 36 cents a gallon to the cost of $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

"If the Governor were to bring this issue to the forefront now, I'm confident this ridiculous law would be wiped off the books forever," said Fraley. "With families and businesses feeling tremendous pain at the pump, now is the time to repeal the minimum mark up law."

The Institute is encouraging Wisconsin residents to call Governor Doyle to encourage him to announce a Special Legislative Session to rescind the Minimum Mark Up law. His office number is 608-266-1212.

The Wisconsin Institute for Leadership is a state-focused independent advocacy organization that works to educate and mobilize Wisconsin residents on policies that expand individual liberties, encourage free markets, promote high quality education and demand accountability from public officials.

Working to preserve and improve the quality of life for all Wisconsin residents, WIL encourages ethical governing which promotes private sector solutions to the economic and social challenges facing the state during the 21st Century.

Visit WIL's website: http://www.wilead.org/ and participate in the free grassroots WIL Forum at http://wilead.ning.com/.

In 2007 a federal magistrate ruled that the Minimum Mark Up Law violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution because compliance with the law was not actively monitored. Yet the law continues to be in place and in force in Wisconsin.

Unhappy with any idea that might actually benefit Wisconsin families, the very left-wing One Wisconsin Now (with their wonderfully fascist-sounding name) posted an attack on their blog accusing them of being corporate shills:

Despite the division in the conservative ranks about the law, the group has picked a side. Why? Well, consider this: The chair of Fraley’s three-person board is John Behling. Behling served as a long-time lobbyist for Capitol Consultants. Two of Capitol Consultants clients are Wal-Mart and Mc Lane Foods, both of which registered in favor of a bill this session (AB 820) calling for an end to the minimum markup law. So surprise, surprise, Fraley and his new group are making this case.

So one board member has a connection to an issue and it excuses OWN from coming up with any substantive arguments against the repeal of the minimum markup law. Instead of mudslinging, perhaps One Wisconsin Now could focus their energies on ending unconstitutional and archaic laws against competition and free enterprise.

Unless, of course, they like high gasoline prices.

Will they endorse the Pope?

One Wisconsin Now, the organization with the wonderfully fascist-sounding name, rehashes the charge that the Protestant former State Senator Tom Reynolds is *gasp* anti-Catholic. Reynolds believes Catholics are going to Hell when they die. I tend to worry less about those who think I'm going to Hell when I die than those who wish to create a Hell for me to live in, but One Wisconsin Now has apparently made their theological concerns a top priority.

One Wisconsin Now's strident defense of the Catholic Church is rather inspiring, and we anticipate working with them on so many issues such as abortion, euthanasia, protecting the rights of Catholic hospitals, and the preservation of marriage.

In the meantime we look forward with excitement to see One Wisconsin Now's press releases condemning Martin Luther for vandalising Church property and Henry VIII for bigamy.

Killing the death tax

Fred Dooley at Real Debate Wisconsin is sponsoring a petition to stop the death tax from rising from the grave. The petition is online.

One Wisconsin Now (a really fascist sounding name, isn't it?) has launched a petition effort of their own to raise this killer zombie.

"Wisconsin will not allow the legislature to slash programs for the poor, elderly and disabled to protect a massive tax break for the state's next Paris Hilton," said {Scot Ross, Executive Director of One Wisconsin Now}. "These tax breaks for the super-rich started this year and if we have a budget shortfall, they need to end now."

Ross, of course, was the poster child for the Assembly Democrats' role in the Caucus Scandal. Perhaps he's concerned that state funding of legal help for former Democratic aides might be in jeopardy.

But surely his class-warfare rhetoric, aside from being old and tired, is out of place? After all, to solve Wisconsin's long-term economic problems, we should be encouraging as many of the Paris Hilton set, not to mention the Kohls and Cudahys, to settle in Wisconsin. Wealth preservation and encouragement of wealth growth is the path to prosperity. Even as Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton is encouraging Hollywood to bring their movie-making industry to Wisconsin, surely we would want to put out the welcome sign: "Bring us your entrepeneurial, your rich, your captains of industry yearning to be free of those wanting to destroy wealth to fund short-term desires."

As for Ms. Hilton, I know a realtor who has a nice starter home in New Berlin for sale, as well as a blogger looking to sell a condo in downtown Waukesha.