Will Feingold call out Senator Kennedy?

Will Senator Russ Feingold criticize fellow Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy for wanting his possible replacement to be appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people of Massachusetts?

Massachusetts law currently requires a special election to fill senate vacancies, a law pushed through in 2004 when Senator John Kerry was running for president and Republican Mitt Romney was governor. Kennedy was in favor of change in 2004, but now claims to fear Massachusetts will not have adequate representation if the state stays with the special election process. Ed Morrissey has the story. The Wall Street Journal weighs in, too:

Beacon Hill has long sported heavy Democratic majorities, so the state legislature has the votes to grant Mr. Kennedy's wish. But does it have the chutzpah? An election is the more democratic option. After witnessing recent attempts by incompetent Governors in Illinois and New York to fill Senate vacancies, Massachusetts voters may have soured on such appointments. Especially when Mr. Kennedy's motivation for changing the law is so obviously born of partisan interest, not principle.

Earlier this year Senator Feingold announced support for a constitutional amendment that would require the states to hold special elections. The amendment passed on a 5-3 vote in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Consitution and has gained the bipartisan support of Senator John McCain and Senator Dick Durbin. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner is also a supporter.

Kevin Binversie addresses the issue at his blog, Lakeshore Laments:

Kennedy is no doubt creating another scenario in which the Massachusetts Senate seat will have another "Seat-Warmer" until the Kennedy-family approved candidate -- likely Ted's own wife Victoria -- can win the seat in the 2010 or 2012 election.

The reason why I raise this question is that Feingold is notorious for not letting his pet-projects die, let alone get railroaded in the process. Is Russ Feingold -- a notorious caucus bickerer -- going to just let Ted Kennedy's own personal demands that his Senate seat become some sort of "family heirloom" only he can pick and choose should fill it?

Who knows, but this was one heck of a floor speech by Feingold in February. Hate to see it go to waste.

On January 29th of this year I wrote a column for the Waukesha Freeman in support of Feingold's amendment and explained some of the issues behind it:

Let's vote
In keeping with Democratic principles,voters should choose who fills Senate vacancies

By JAMES WIGDERSON January 29, 2009

Sen. Russ Feingold took a moment from his usual preening before the cameras to actually address a serious issue in a thoughtful way. Feingold has proposed amending the Constitution to require special elections to fill Senate vacancies.
Feingold’s proposed amendment is not without precedent. Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette led the fight for direct election of senators. Prior to 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed that but, unfortunately, left the process for filling midterm vacancies to the states.

Feingold’s amendment is in seeming response to the recent controversies over Senate appointments.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is facing impeachment for allegedly attempting to sell the Senate seat formerly held by President Obama. Had Feingold’s fellow Democrats been less desperate to hold the seat, the Illinois legislature could have passed a law to elect Obama’s replacement. Instead the Democrats received a lesson in Chicago politics when Roland Burris was appointed and swept aside any opposition in Washington, D.C.

In New York, Caroline Kennedy made a shambles of the appointment process by pursuing the seat without any qualifications other than her family money and name. Eventually Gov. David Paterson made a purely political appointment by selecting another relatively inexperienced candidate from a strategically important part of the state, Kirsten Gillibrand. In a special election it would have been very unlikely Gillibrand would have survived her party’s primary.

They are not the only unelected senators to serve in this congress. In Delaware, Ted Kaufman was appointed to fill Vice President Joe Biden’s seat for two years until Beau Biden, the vice president’s son, can run for the seat. In Colorado, the Democratic governor appointed Denver School Superintendent Michael Bennet despite never holding elective office.

The Senate may survive having four unelected members, but do we really want four senators the voters would never have chosen in the first place?

The Senate has had interesting appointments before. In Missouri in 2000, Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash during a campaign against incumbent John Ashcroft. When his name could not be taken off the ballot, the Democratic governor played on the public grief and promised to appoint Carnahan’s wife Jean. Ashcroft lost, and then Jean Carnahan lost in a special election two years later.

Alaskan politics were dramatic before Sarah Palin became governor. When Frank Murkowski left the Senate to become Alaska’s governor in 2002, he appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to replace him. While she earned re-election two years later, her father lost in the Republican primary to Palin. This is not to say the voters are incapable of making mistakes. Right now in Minnesota, unfunny comedian Al Franken is slightly ahead over incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount battle. No governor would ever have appointed someone like Franken.

But letting voters choose replacement senators in a special election rather than letting the governors decide is consistent with our principles and our experience.

With special elections we need not fear whether someone has paid a price to obtain a seat in the Senate. Whether that price is gold or political support or even political cover, the real cost is the public’s confidence.

Special elections also leave it to the public to decide whether the name of their next representative in the Senate is sufficient recommendation. Whether the name is Kennedy, Biden, Murkowski or Carnahan, surely it would be better for the public to choose whether dynastic succession is appropriate.

The federal Constitution is unlike the state constitution. As a founding document we should be loath to alter it. But this is not a substantial change and it is consistent with the previous amendment requiring the popular election of senators.

Some will cite the long process as a reason to abandon the effort, and others will cite the worst disaster scenarios. Neither are sufficient excuses to prevent this necessary reform. If we cannot trust the public to fill vacancies as they occur, why are we entrusting them with the election of senators at all?

Now if we could only get Senator Feingold as enthusiastic about the First Amendment to the Constitution as he is about the 17th.

(James Wigderson is a blogger publishing at http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com and a Waukesha resident. His column runs Thursdays in The Freeman.)

A test for the state Republican Party

A test for the Wisconsin GOP will be if they can recruit a candidate to take on Senator Russ Feingold that is better than Robert Lorge.

So far I am leaning towards running against Feingold for US Senate, but supporters urge Lt. Governor or 8th Congress in 2010. Too early yet.

Somehow I don't think Feingold supporters are afraid of a Lorge candidacy.

"Unpaid taxes may be the Lord working in mysterious ways"

It was a packed house at today's town hall meeting with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner and State Representative Bill Kramer. There were 90 people there (not including staff), three times the normal amount according to Congressman Sensenbrenner. Among the notables: former Waukesha mayoral candidate Jim Young, blogger M.E. from Stand in the Trenches, Alexander from A Little Off Main, Waukesha County Treasurer Pam Reeves, former Waukesha County Supervisor Alicia Silva. The Spring City Chronicle also reported Lynn Gaffey, owner of the Almont Gallery, was there. Token liberal Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson was there but did not speak or ask any questions.

I say "token liberal" because this was clearly a conservative crowd. The most critical questions were those wishing the Republicans would fight harder against President Obama and Governor Doyle.

Sensenbrenner replied that "elections have consequences" and that he and Kramer are "out of the legislating business." The agenda is being set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan. However, he pointed with some hope to the House Republican unity in voting against the "non-stimulus stimulus bill." In response to a question about universal health care, he also pointed out Democrats had a bigger majority when Hillarycare was shot down in the House.

When asked about alternative fuels, Sensenbrenner explained some of the problems with ethanol, noted that biomass fuel is still a ways off, and then declared his support for nuclear power to applause from the room.

To the amusement of the room, one woman asked who is it in Washington that determines they don't have to pay a fine when they don't pay taxes. "Why, the secretary of the treasury," replied Sensenbrenner. He then explained that he did not think Treasury Secretary Geithner made an innocent mistake, and he praised Feingold for voting against Geithner.

Along the same lines, in response to another question about universal health care, he pointed out that the President hoped to have an easier time pushing it through because former senator Tom Daschle is a former majority leader and something of a policy wonk on the issue. "Unpaid taxes may be the Lord working in mysterious ways."

One person asked about the federal stimulus bill, noting that the $13/week we'll be giving back next year in taxes. Sensenbrenner told her, "Your calculator works better than the one in Washington."

On the subject of global warming, Sensenbrenner called the proposed "cap and trade" carbon tax "cap and tax." He said global warming sceptics were being subject to "scientific fascism" in the way they are ridiculed and personally attacked.

"What is clear," he told the audience, "is the economic devastation of cap and tax."

But the repeated question was what could the members of the audience do to help fight the Democrats? Both Sensenbrenner and Kramer answered the best thing people could do is stay informed and tell their friends and neighbors. To one member of the audience with a brother-in-law in Wausau, Kramer and Sensenbrenner listed the Democrats representing the city and told him to tell his brother-in-law to call those Democrats. Sensenbrenner also suggested they all show up the next time Feingold had a meeting in Waukesha and express their concerns to him.

As for Senator Kohl, Sensenbrenner noted dryly that the only way any of the audience would see him is to "purchase $110 seats at a Bucks game. You might see him there."

It's too bad neither Kramer nor Sensenbrenner said, "Join the Republican Party."

Will wrong on 17th Amendment

Conservative commentator and Chicago Cubs fan* George Will wrote a column attacking Senator Russ Feingold's proposed change to the 17th Amendment to require special elections in the event of a US Senate vacancy. Instead, Will would rather we repeal the 17th Amendment entirely and allow the selection of senators by the state legislatures. (ht: Boots & Sabers)

Feingold's proposed amendment has attracted support from many quarters, including conservative Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. My own support for the idea was expressed in a column I wrote for the Waukesha Freeman.

Will, however, believes the selection of senators by the state legislatures would be more in keeping in line with the Founders' ideas of federalism. He also attacks the idea as an assault on the constitution akin to Feingold's "campaign finance reform" attacks on the first amendment.

Will's proposed solution would actually hurt federalism, not aid it. Will fears the senators have become bound to the special interest groups in Washington D.C. But Will misses that the states themselves have now become special interests no longer interested in federalism. Across the country state governments are begging for handouts from Washington D.C. It would only get worse if the senators were to lose some semblance of independence from the states they represent. "Bridges to nowhere" and "state bailouts" would be less of a scandal and more of everyday occurrence if the senators were forced to answer to the legislatures rather than the people.

To call Feingold's proposed constitutional amendment an attack on the constitution itself, and then to equate it to Feingold's war on our rights to free political speech, is just attacking by association without substantiation. Clearly the amendment process is built within the constitution and is no more of an attack than Will's own proposed repeal of the 17th amendment. In addition, Feingold's proposed amendment is actually supportive of more democracy in the process of selecting representation, not less like his legislative attempts to repeal the first amendment. Ironic, yes, but so is Will's attempt to tie the two together.

As for the progressive tradition and the poor senators selected by the voters of Wisconsin, yes we have elected Senators Feingold and McCarthy. We also elected Gaylord Nelson, Robert LaFollette, Herb Kohl, and William Proxmire, for whom neither Will nor I would ever have voted.

However, to point to these senators and blame the 17th amendment, Will needs to demonstrate that had the legislature been in charge of selecting senators that we would have done better than these men. A look at our current legislature would certainly disabuse such illusions, and had it been left in the hands of the legislature in 1980 we would never have had Senator Robert Kasten for two terms.

But then, such a qualitative analysis of the senate under the current vacancy-filling method is what has impelled Wisconsin's junior senator to present his proposed amendment.


* I mention it, but we should not take his support of the Cubs as an indicator of the soundness of his judgement. Right?

Sensenbrenner endores democracy for the senate

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner joined Wisconsin's junior senator Russ Feingold in supporting a constitutional amendment to require elections to fill senate vacancies. (I previously wrote about the issue for the Waukesha Freeman.) Sensenbrenner said in a statement:

"Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that has never had a U.S. Senator appointed," Congressman Sensenbrenner said. "We have always filled our vacated seats with a special election, allowing the people to choose who they would like to represent them. Given the recent fiascos and horse-trading we've seen regarding some of the Senate appointments in Illinois, New York, Delaware, New Hampshire and Colorado, the time has come to close the appointment window. That is nothing to denigrate the people who have graciously agreed to serve in those positions, however, the people did not elect them, one person selected them."

If only we could get Feingold as interested in the first amendment as he is in the seventeenth

In this week's column for the Waukesha Freeman, I suggest Senator Feingold may actually have hit upon a good idea:

But letting voters choose replacement senators in a special election rather than letting the governors decide is consistent with our principles and our experience.

With special elections we need not fear whether someone has paid a price to obtain a seat in the Senate. Whether that price is gold or political support or even political cover, the real cost is the public’s confidence.

Special elections also leave it to the public to decide whether the name of their next representative in the Senate is sufficient recommendation. Whether the name is Kennedy, Biden, Murkowski or Carnahan, surely it would be better for the public to choose whether dynastic succession is appropriate.

The federal Constitution is unlike the state constitution. As a founding document we should be loath to alter it. But this is not a substantial change and it is consistent with the previous amendment requiring the popular election of senators.

Some will cite the long process as a reason to abandon the effort, and others will cite the worst disaster scenarios. Neither are sufficient excuses to prevent this necessary reform. If we cannot trust the public to fill vacancies as they occur, why are we entrusting them with the election of senators at all?

Can we please have the blind leading the blind?

Mass e-mailer Jack Lohman is following legislation proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) that would require all members of congress to put their investments in blind trusts, eliminating potential conflicts of interest.

Of course, it would have the obvious but unintended benefit of removing the Milwaukee Bucks from Herb Kohl's management.

Maybe Senator Feingold would actually make money before his senate career comes to an end if someone else was handling the investments.

While I think Lohman's examples are hardly as terrible as he imagines (both Pelosi and Sensenbrenner would probably continue to vote the same way) , I have a hard time coming up with any criticisms of the plan other than I think it impractical to include the state legislature.