The battle for campaign finance reform at the state level started anew in the 2003-04 legislative session as State Senators Michael Ellis (R-Neenah) and Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) introduced their comprehensive campaign finance reform bill - Senate Bill 12 or Ellis-Erpenbach - on January 28, 2003.

Ellis-Erpenbach has bipartisan support with 23 co-sponsors in the Senate and Assembly. Representative Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), co-chairman of the legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee, is a key supporter in the Republican-controlled Assembly. The bill, however, is currently stalled in committee.

Ellis-Erpenbach closely resembles last session's Senate Bill 104, which was largely based on the "Voters First" proposal developed by a coalition of reform groups led by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Major features of Ellis-Erpenbach include:

• Campaign spending limits that sharply reduce campaign spending in the most competitive races.
• Disclosure of special interest "issue ads."
• Public financing equal to 45% of the spending limits for candidates who agree to limit their spending.
• Supplemental grants to publicly financed candidates to match campaigns run against them by special interest groups or opponents who refuse to limit their spending.
• A ban on campaign fundraising during the state budget process.
• Elimination of leadership-controlled legislative campaign committees (LCCs).
• A ban on pooling special interest political action committee money to create so-called "SuperPACs."
• Limits on contributions from special interest conduit, which currently are unlimited.

During the 2001-02 legislative session, a campaign reform plan containing many similar elements was enacted into law. But before it could take effect, the package had to survive a constitutional challenge. WDC warned that a "poison pill" planted in the new law unnecessarily exposed the plan to being overturned in court. Indeed, on December 11, 2002, federal judge Barbara Crabb struck down the new campaign finance reform law.

The Ellis-Erpenbach bill does not contain the "poison pill" that led last session's law to be ruled unconstitutional.

For more details on the bill, see WDC's February 2003 testimony on Senate Bill 12 or analysis of key features.

Addendum, March 3, 2004

SB 12 was essentially gutted by changes negotiated between Senator Ellis and legislative leaders in February 2004. These changes resulted in Senator Erpenbach pulling his sponsorship of the now ineffective piece of legislation. WDC stated on March 3, 2004 that the new version of SB 12 is no compromise and actually does little in the way of reform. The three major changes to the bill that WDC notes are:

1) Issue ads
The original SB 12 required full disclosure of all activity, including the source of funds used to pay for issue ads. Under the bill, a corporation could not make a contribution or disbursement in connection with this activity.

Under the new version, corporations could fund issue ads and the Elections Board would be unable to require full disclosure of the source of contributions through the rule-making process.

2) Funding for the bill

The original SB 12 created a sum sufficient appropriation equal to the amounts required to make full payments of grants which candidates qualify to receive.

The new version removes the sum sufficient appropriation and allows taxpayers to receive a tax credit, up to the amount of the person's state tax liability, for contributions to a Public Integrity Endowment.

3) Conduits

SB 12 originally treated conduits the same as PACs, meaning that conduit contributions -- which currently are unlimited -- would be subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.

The new version removes the conduit restriction.

The new version of SB 12 allows the behavior that has brought scandal and shame to the Capitol and resulted in criminal indictments of leading lawmakers to continue unabated.

WDC urges the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 12 as originally introduced, not this phony facsimile.

Addendum April 7, 2004

SB 12 has received no further action and is considered dead for the 2003
legislative session unless a special or extraordinary session is called.
Such action, however, is not likely to occur.