Campaign Finance Reform Legislation

December 2007 Special Session Senate Bill 1

On November 30, 2007 Governor Doyle called a special session on campaign finance reform, to begin on December 11. A comprehensive reform plan was formally introduced on January 22, 2008 at the governor's request as December 2007 Special Session Senate Bill 1.

The bill combines the Ellis-Erpenbach bill (Senate Bill 12) and the Impartial Justice bill (Senate Bill 171). The package provides public financing of all state races and full public financing of state Supreme Court elections. It bans fundraising during the state budget process and eliminates leadership-controlled campaign fundraising committees. The bill requires full disclosure of special interest electioneering done under the guise of so-called "issue advocacy," and places restrictions on the source of funds used for this campaign advertising. But it updates the SB 12 provision regulating special interest campaign ads to take into account the June 2007 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wisconsin Right to Life case challenging the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law.

Special session SB 1 was introduced and referred to the committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology on January 22, 2008. The committee held a public hearing on the bill February 12, 2008 (WDC's testimony). The committee approved it on a 3-1 vote on February 28, 2008.

2007 Senate Bill 12

After disagreements over key elements of reform legislation led to a falling out between them, Senators Mike Ellis and Jon Erpenbach have worked out their differences and reunited around a bipartisan comprehensive campaign finance reform plan introduced as 2007 Senate Bill 12. The bill number is the same as the 2003 proposal authored by Ellis that was supported by the Democracy Campaign and other reform groups. By once again requiring full disclosure of special interest campaign ads, reestablishing the state's prohibition on corporate campaign contributions and creating a guaranteed funding source for the public grants candidates would be eligible to receive if they agree to limit their campaign spending, SB 12 returns to the original intent of the 2003 reform bill. It addresses the primary concerns WDC had with last session's 2005 Senate Bill 46 (see WDC testimony on 2005 SB 46).

SB 12 is based on step two of the Democracy Campaign's "Power to the Voter" agenda. It is also a reform priority of the People's Legislature.

SB 12 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology on January 24, 2007. The committee held a public hearing on the bill February 12, 2008 (WDC's testimony). The committee amended SB 12 to parallel Special Session Senate Bill 1 and approved it on a 3-1 vote on February 28, 2008.

Senate Bill 25/Assembly Bill 61

Senate Bill 25 and its companion bill Assembly Bill 61 are bipartisan proposals to prohibit elected state officials and their campaign committees from fundraising during state budget deliberations. Similar proposals were introduced in previous sessions and are part of a WDC-backed comprehensive reform proposal, Senate Bill 12 . Last session’s assembly proposal (2005 AB 66) was amended in committee to extend the fund-raising restriction for the governor and lieutenant governor to include the period immediately after the general election when they are involved in drafting the governor’s proposed budget and to apply the ban to all registered campaign committees, challengers and incumbent office holders. The full Assembly failed to take up that amended proposal.

SB 25 was introduced and referred to committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology in the Senate on February 2, 2007. The committee held a public hearing on the bill February 12, 2008 (WDC's testimony). The committee approved it unanimously on February 28, 2008.

AB 61 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Constitutional Law on February 13, 2007. The committee held a hearing on the bill on January 10, 2008 (WDC testimony). An attempt to pull the bill out of the committee and bring it to a vote in the full Assembly was defeated on a 50-47 vote on February 28, 2008. The committee then voted to reject AB 61 on a party-line 5-3 vote on March 6, 2008. Among the Republican committee members to vote against the bill was committee chairwoman Sheryl Albers, who is a co-sponsor of AB 61.

Senate Bill 77/Assembly Bill 272

Senate Bill 77 is bipartisan truth-in-campaigning legislation requiring full disclosure of sham issue ads – advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy that plainly support the election or defeat of a candidate. SB 77 would ensure everyone involved in electioneering activity plays by the same rules and uses legal sources of funds to pay for campaign messages.

This bill is based on Step 1 in the Democracy Campaign's "Power to the Voter" agenda – truth in campaigning. SB 77 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology on February 28, 2007. The committee held a public hearing on SB 77 on May 1 and voted to approve the bill on May 8. On May 9 the full Senate passed SB77 on a 26-7 vote.

Legislation almost identical to SB 77 was introduced in the Assembly on April 23, 2007 as Assembly Bill 272 and referred to the Assembly Elections and Constitutional Law Committee. An attempt to pull AB 272 out of the committee and bring it up for a vote in the full Assembly was rejected on a 51-46 vote on February 27, 2008.

SB 77 and AB 272 were written before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2007 in a case brought by Wisconsin Right to Life challenging disclosure provisions in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold law. Legislation revising SB 77/AB 272 to take into account the Court's decision was introduced in February 2008 as Senate Bill 463.

Senate Bill 160

Senate Bill 160 requires that out-of-state committees comply with the same campaign finance reporting requirements as resident committees. The legislation was passed and enacted last session as 2005 Wisconsin Act 176. However, it had to be reintroduced in 2007 after it was learned that the new law was not incorporated into the state statutes.

SB 160 was introduced and referred to Senate committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology on April 19, 2007. The committee held a public hearing on SB 160 and Senate Bill 182 on January 29, 2008 (WDC testimony). The committee approved SB 160 unanimously on February 28, 2008.

Senate Bill 463

Senate Bill 463 is a bipartisan proposal requiring disclosure of special interest electioneering that is a rewrite of Senate Bill 77, which was passed in the Senate in May 2007 before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in a case challenging disclosure provisions of the federal McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. The revisions to SB 77 embodied in SB 463 take into account that ruling.

SB 463 was introduced February 7, 2008 and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology. The committee held a public hearing on the bill February 12, 2008 (WDC testimony). The committee approved the bill on February 28, 2008 and it was passed unanimously by the full Senate on March 6, 2008.

Senate Bill 171/Assembly Bill 250

Senate Bill 171 and Assembly Bill 250 are known as the Impartial Justice bill and call for the creation of a system of full public financing of state Supreme Court elections.

North Carolina has a system of full public financing for judicial campaigns in place and New Mexico recently adopted such a program. The Impartial Justice bill was introduced in previous sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature but did not pass.

Senate Bill 171 was introduced on April 27, 2007 and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology. A public hearing was held on SB 171 on May 1 and the committee approved the bill on May 8. It was referred to Joint Committee on Finance on October 29, 2007, withdrawn without committee recommendation on February 11, 2008. It was passed by the Senate on February 19 by a 23-10 vote.

AB 250 was introduced and referred to the Assembly committee on Elections and Constitutional Law on April 10, 2007. An attempt to pull the bill out of committee and bring it to a vote in the full Assembly was rejected on a 51-46 vote on February 27, 2008.

Senate Bill 182/Assembly Bill 355

Senate Bill 182 is the Risser-Pocan Clean Elections bill modeled after the highly successful campaign finance systems already in operation in Arizona and Maine and recently enacted in Connecticut. The legislation calls for full public financing of all state races.

SB 182 is based on step two in the Democracy Campaign's "Power to the Voter" agenda - voter-owned elections. SB 182 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology on May 14, 2007. A companion bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Constitutional Law as Assembly Bill 355 on May 23.

A public hearing was held on SB 182 and Senate Bill 160 on January 29, 2008 (WDC testimony). The committee approved SB 182 on a 3-1 vote on February 28, 2008.

Independent Ethics and Campaign Finance Law Enforcement

January 2007 Special Session Assembly Bill 1
January 2007 Special Senate Bill 1

Special Session Assembly Bill 1 (JR7AB1) and Special Session Senate Bill 1 aim to promote more vigorous enforcement of the state ethics code and Wisconsin's lobbying and campaign finance laws by abolishing the state Elections Board and Ethics Board and replacing them with a more politically independent Government Accountability Board (GAB) with expanded enforcement authority. The GAB is given the authority to investigate possible wrongdoing and, most importantly, it is given the financial means to independently conduct investigations.

Both bills were introduced on January 11, 2007 by the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization at the request of Governor Doyle. JR7AB1 was referred to the committee on Judiciary and Ethics, where it received a public hearing on January 16, 2007. JR7SB1 was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations where it received a public hearing on January 18, 2007. Read WDC's testimony.

On January 22, 2007, the assembly committee approved a substitute amendment making 14 revisions to the bill on an 8-1 vote. The next morning, the Senate committee approved the same substitute amendment on a 4-1 vote. They unanimously approved four additional amendments that improve the bill by removing the nonseverability provision, improving public access to information, and eliminating the gag rule to which WDC and media organizations objected. The bill passed out of committee as amended on a 4-1 vote.

On January 30, 2007 the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee approved the bill 16-0. Later that day the Senate unanimously passed the legislation, and the Assembly approved the bill on a 97-2 vote a few hours later. The governor signed it into law on February 2, 2007.

2007 Senate Bill 2

Regular session Senate Bill 2 promote more vigorous enforcement of the state ethics code and Wisconsin's campaign finance laws by abolishing the state Elections Board and Ethics Board and replacing them with a more politically independent Government Accountability Board (GAB) with expanded enforcement authority. SB2 was introduced by Senators Ellis and Erpenbach and is very similar to their proposal last session, 2005 Senate Bill 1. This bill is based on Step 3 in the Democracy Campaign's "Power to the Voter" agenda. It is also a reform priority of the People's Legislature. The primary differences between SB2 and JR7SB1 are that SB2 provides the GAB with enforcement authority on criminal actions, and there is no nonseverability provision.

SB2 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations on January 8, 2007. The enactment of Special Session Senate Bill 1 has rendered this bill moot.

Legislative Redistricting Reform Legislation

Assembly Joint Resolution 63

Assembly Joint Resolution 63 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution to reform redistricting of state legislative districts to create more competitive districts. It establishes a state redistricting board, defines demographic and political standards for the drawing of legislative districts, and establishes a legislative technology services bureau to create reapportionment plans for the new redistricting board.

AJR 63 was introduced on August 28, 2007 and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Constitutional Law.

Other Reform Proposals

Senate Bill 23/Assembly Bill 74/Senate Bill 22

These proposals seek to address the “revolving door” between government and special interest groups. Senate Bill 23 and its companion bill Assembly Bill 74 prohibit legislators from serving as lobbyists for a year following the date on which the individual leaves office. SB 23 was introduced and referred to their committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations on February 1, 2007, and AB 74 was introduced and referred to the Assembly committee on Judiciary and Ethics on February 20. The Senate committee held a public hearing on SB 23 on April 10, 2007. On May 9 the Senate passed SB 23 on a 30-3 vote.

Senate Bill 22 prohibits Public Service Commission (PSC) commissioners and certain staff from serving as lobbyists for a year following the date they leave their PSC posts. The PSC regulates public utilities and, to varying degrees, nonutilities that provide certain telecommunications services. Current law prohibits a commissioner from having a financial interest in a public utility. SB 22 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities and Rail on February 1, 2007.

Senate Bill 170

A reform proposal dubbed the "Judicial Right to Know" bill was introduced as Senate Bill 170 on April 27, 2007 and referred to the Senate Committee on Campaign Finance Reform, Rural Issues and Information Technology. SB 170 aims to make sure that all parties involved in court cases are notified of judges' economic interests as well as rules regarding conflicts of interest and judicial recusal.

A public hearing on SB 170 was held on May 1, 2007 and the Senate committee approved the legislation on May 8. It went to the full Senate on May 9 where it passed on a 19-14 vote.