Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - Legislative Initiatives 2009

Campaign Finance Reform Legislation

Senate Bill 221/Assembly Bill 388
Ellis/Erpenbach Bill

Senators Mike Ellis and Jon Erpenbach have reintroduced their bipartisan comprehensive campaign finance reform plan this session as Senate Bill 221 and Assembly Bill 388. The 2009 version includes both the Impartial Justice (SB40/AB65) and Electioneering Disclosure (SB43/AB63) bills as well as a public financing program for all other state races. Ellis-Erpenbach also bans fundraising during the budget process, regulates out-of-state committees the same as in-state PACs, and eliminates leadership-run Legislative Campaign Committees.

SB 221 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing on May 26, 2009. The companion bill, AB 388 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on August 18, 2009.

Senate Bill 40/Assembly Bill 65
Impartial Justice

Senate Bill 40 is known as the Impartial Justice bill and calls for the creation of a system of full public financing of state Supreme Court elections.

North Carolina and New Mexico have a system of full public financing for judicial campaigns in place. The Impartial Justice bill was introduced in previous sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature (2007 SB 171/AB 250) but did not pass.

Senate Bill 40 was introduced on February 5, 2009 and referred to the committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing in the Senate.

The State Bar of Wisconsin announced their early endorsement of SB 40 on February 6.

A companion bill, Assembly Bill 65 was introduced and referred to Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009.

A joint public hearing on Impartial Justice was held by the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform and Housing on May 27, 2009. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign delivered testimony supporting Impartial Justice.

The Assembly committee voted 4-3 (Rep. Annette Williams was absent) to approve AB 65 on June 16, 2009.

The Senate committee voted 3-2 to approve SB 40 on August 18, 2009. The bill was sent to the Joint Committee on Finance on September 8, 2009.

Joint Finance approved the bill on November 3, 2009 and both houses passed Impartial Justice on November 5 with a 19-13 vote in the Senate and 51-42 in the Assembly.

Governor Doyle signed the bill into law as Wisconsin Act 89 on December 1, 2009.

Senate Bill 43/Assembly Bill 63
Issue Ad Regulation

Senate Bill 43 is a bipartisan proposal requiring disclosure of special interest electioneering. This electioneering disclosure legislation mirrors new rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board in November 2008. The same proposal was introduced last session as SB 463, 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. SB 43 takes into account that ruling.

SB 43 was introduced February 5, 2009 and referred to the committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing in the Senate.

A companion bill, Assembly Bill 63, was introduced and referred to Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009.

A joint public hearing on these bills was held by the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform and Housing on May 27, 2009. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign delivered testimony supporting the legislation.

AB 63 was approved by the Assembly committee with one amendment on a 6-1 vote on June 16, 2009 (Rep. Stone dissenting).

SB 43 was approved by the Senate committee with one amendment on a 3-2 vote on September 15, 2009.

The Senate passed SB 43 with a strong bipartisan vote (26-7) on January 19, 2010.

Senate Bill 68/Assembly Bill 104
Extension of Reporting Requirements to Out-of-State Committees

Senate Bill 68 and Assembly Bill 104 require that out-of-state committees comply with the same campaign finance reporting requirements as resident committees. The legislation was previously enacted as 2005 Wisconsin Act 176. However, it had to be reintroduced after it was learned that the new law was not incorporated into the state statutes. It was reintroduced in 2007 but received only senate committee consideration and support. See our testimony on 2007 SB 160.

SB 68 was introduced and referred to the Senate committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing on February 18, 2009. AB 104 was introduced and referred to the Assembly committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on March 3, 2009.

The Assembly passed AB 104 and referred it to the Senate committee on February 16, 2010.

Senate Bill 540/Assembly Bill 812
Shareholder Approval of Corporate Political Spending

Senate Bill 540 and its companion Assembly Bill 812 were introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission invalidated the ban on corporate spending on elections. The legislation requires that a majority of a corporation’s shareholders approve of independent expenditures before they are made in each election cycle. Specifically, a corporation or cooperative association that makes any public communication within 60 days of an election that includes a reference to a candidate for that election, an office to be filled at that election, or a political party will be subject to registration and reporting requirements which include providing evidence of approval of election spending by a majority of shareholders or members.

SB 540 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs on February 17, 2010 and the Democracy Campaign testified in support of the bill at a March 10 public hearing. The senate committee passed a slightly amended version on March 16 that provides broader application and makes it unenforceable if found unconstitutional. AB 812 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on March 5, 2010.

Ethics Reform Legislation

Senate Bill 23/Assembly Bill 42
Ban on Campaign Fundraising During Budget Deliberations

Senate Bill 23 and its companion Assembly Bill 42 are bipartisan proposals to prohibit elected state officials and their campaign committees from fundraising during state budget deliberations. Two significant differences between the proposals are that the Assembly proposal applies the ban also to legislative campaign committees (LCCs) and extends 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. Similar proposals were introduced in previous sessions and are part of a WDC-backed comprehensive reform proposal introduced by Senators Ellis and Erpenbach, 2007 Senate Bill 12.

SB 23 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations on February 2, 2009. AB 42 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009.

Assembly Bill 62
Politician Double Standard Bill

Assembly Bill 62 eliminates a double standard in state law that has been called a “home-court advantage” for state lawmakers when it comes to where they are prosecuted if charged with a crime. Current state law in Wisconsin prosecutes citizens who are accused of crimes in the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred. But a change in the law enacted in early 2007 allows civil and criminal cases involving certain state officials including legislators to be handled in their home counties rather than where alleged crimes are said to have been committed. The Government Accountability Board is in favor of revising the law to bolster the Board's ability to investigate possible violations of the ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws.

AB 62 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on February 17, 2009. WDC testified in support of the bill at an April 21, 2009 public hearing. The committee approved it on a 6-4 vote on June 2, 2009.

Assembly Bill 245
Revolving Door Ban

Aimed at addressing the “revolving door” between lawmaking and lobbying, Assembly Bill 245 prohibits legislators from serving as lobbyists for a year after they leave office. AB 245 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on April 30, 2009. WDC testified at a public hearing on June 2, 2009. The bill was passed out of committee with eight in favor and two absent on June 30, 2009.

Assembly Bill 304
Ban on Lobbying by Convicted Felons

Assembly Bill 304 bans convicted felons from lobbying in Wisconsin. In recent years, two state legislators convicted of felony misconduct in public office started lobbying shortly after being driven out of office. Democratic Senator Brian Burke of Milwaukee was representing special interest clients while in home confinement while Republican Assembly Majority Leader Steve Foti of Oconomowoc was lobbying in the halls of the Capitol under terms of his sentence allowing work release privileges.

AB 304 was introduced and referred to the committee on Judiciary and Ethics on June 4, 2009. The committee held a public hearing on June 30. The bill passed out of committee with an 8-2 vote on September 9, 2009.

Assembly Bill 322
Improving Access to Officials' Financial Statements

Assembly Bill 322 aims to make records showing the financial holdings of state lawmakers and other public officials more accessible to the public. The bill does it in two ways. First, it clears the way for all of the statements of economic interest filed by state officials to be posted on the Internet. And it gets rid of a requirement in current state law that officials be notified of the name and address of any citizen who wishes to examine the records.

AB 322 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on June 16, 2009. The committee held a public hearing on June 30.

AB 322 was amended twice and passed out of committee with a 6-4 vote on September 9, 2009.


Posted: February 3, 2009 Updated: March 18, 2010 2009 Legislative Initiatives Campaign Finance Reform • Ethics Reform
	Campaign Finance Reform Legislation Senate Bill 221/Assembly Bill 388 Ellis/Erpenbach Bill Senators Mike Ellis and Jon Erpenbach have reintroduced their bipartisan comprehensive campaign finance reform plan this session as Senate Bill 221 and Assembly Bill 388. The 2009 version includes both the Impartial Justice (SB40/AB65) and Electioneering Disclosure (SB43/AB63) bills as well as a public financing program for all other state races. Ellis-Erpenbach also bans fundraising during the budget process, regulates out-of-state committees the same as in-state PACs, and eliminates leadership-run Legislative Campaign Committees. SB 221 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing on May 26, 2009. The companion bill, AB 388 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on August 18, 2009. Senate Bill 40/Assembly Bill 65 Impartial Justice Senate Bill 40 is known as the Impartial Justice bill and calls for the creation of a system of full public financing of state Supreme Court elections. North Carolina and New Mexico have a system of full public financing for judicial campaigns in place. The Impartial Justice bill was introduced in previous sessions of the Wisconsin Legislature (2007 SB 171/AB 250) but did not pass. Senate Bill 40 was introduced on February 5, 2009 and referred to the committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing in the Senate. The State Bar of Wisconsin announced their early endorsement of SB 40 on February 6. A companion bill, Assembly Bill 65 was introduced and referred to Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009. A joint public hearing on Impartial Justice was held by the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform and Housing on May 27, 2009. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign delivered testimony supporting Impartial Justice. The Assembly committee voted 4-3 (Rep. Annette Williams was absent) to approve AB 65 on June 16, 2009. The Senate committee voted 3-2 to approve SB 40 on August 18, 2009. The bill was sent to the Joint Committee on Finance on September 8, 2009. Joint Finance approved the bill on November 3, 2009 and both houses passed Impartial Justice on November 5 with a 19-13 vote in the Senate and 51-42 in the Assembly. Governor Doyle signed the bill into law as Wisconsin Act 89 on December 1, 2009. Senate Bill 43/Assembly Bill 63 Issue Ad Regulation Senate Bill 43 is a bipartisan proposal requiring disclosure of special interest electioneering. This electioneering disclosure legislation mirrors new rules approved by the state Government Accountability Board in November 2008. The same proposal was introduced last session as SB 463, 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. SB 43 takes into account that ruling. SB 43 was introduced February 5, 2009 and referred to the committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing in the Senate. A companion bill, Assembly Bill 63, was introduced and referred to Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009. A joint public hearing on these bills was held by the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform and Housing on May 27, 2009. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign delivered testimony supporting the legislation. AB 63 was approved by the Assembly committee with one amendment on a 6-1 vote on June 16, 2009 (Rep. Stone dissenting). SB 43 was approved by the Senate committee with one amendment on a 3-2 vote on September 15, 2009. The Senate passed SB 43 with a strong bipartisan vote (26-7) on January 19, 2010. Senate Bill 68/Assembly Bill 104 Extension of Reporting Requirements to Out-of-State Committees Senate Bill 68 and Assembly Bill 104 require that out-of-state committees comply with the same campaign finance reporting requirements as resident committees. The legislation was previously enacted as 2005 Wisconsin Act 176. However, it had to be reintroduced after it was learned that the new law was not incorporated into the state statutes. It was reintroduced in 2007 but received only senate committee consideration and support. See our testimony on 2007 SB 160. SB 68 was introduced and referred to the Senate committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing on February 18, 2009. AB 104 was introduced and referred to the Assembly committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on March 3, 2009. The Assembly passed AB 104 and referred it to the Senate committee on February 16, 2010. Senate Bill 540/Assembly Bill 812 Shareholder Approval of Corporate Political Spending Senate Bill 540 and its companion Assembly Bill 812 were introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission invalidated the ban on corporate spending on elections. The legislation requires that a majority of a corporation’s shareholders approve of independent expenditures before they are made in each election cycle. Specifically, a corporation or cooperative association that makes any public communication within 60 days of an election that includes a reference to a candidate for that election, an office to be filled at that election, or a political party will be subject to registration and reporting requirements which include providing evidence of approval of election spending by a majority of shareholders or members. SB 540 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Labor, Elections and Urban Affairs on February 17, 2010 and the Democracy Campaign testified in support of the bill at a March 10 public hearing. The senate committee passed a slightly amended version on March 16 that provides broader application and makes it unenforceable if found unconstitutional. AB 812 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on March 5, 2010. Ethics Reform Legislation Senate Bill 23/Assembly Bill 42 Ban on Campaign Fundraising During Budget Deliberations Senate Bill 23 and its companion Assembly Bill 42 are bipartisan proposals to prohibit elected state officials and their campaign committees from fundraising during state budget deliberations. Two significant differences between the proposals are that the Assembly proposal applies the ban also to legislative campaign committees (LCCs) and extends 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. Similar proposals were introduced in previous sessions and are part of a WDC-backed comprehensive reform proposal introduced by Senators Ellis and Erpenbach, 2007 Senate Bill 12. SB 23 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations on February 2, 2009. AB 42 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform on February 17, 2009. Assembly Bill 62 Politician Double Standard Bill Assembly Bill 62 eliminates a double standard in state law that has been called a “home-court advantage” for state lawmakers when it comes to where they are prosecuted if charged with a crime. Current state law in Wisconsin prosecutes citizens who are accused of crimes in the county where the offense is alleged to have occurred. But a change in the law enacted in early 2007 allows civil and criminal cases involving certain state officials including legislators to be handled in their home counties rather than where alleged crimes are said to have been committed. The Government Accountability Board is in favor of revising the law to bolster the Board's ability to investigate possible violations of the ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws. AB 62 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on February 17, 2009. WDC testified in support of the bill at an April 21, 2009 public hearing. The committee approved it on a 6-4 vote on June 2, 2009. Assembly Bill 245 Revolving Door Ban Aimed at addressing the “revolving door” between lawmaking and lobbying, Assembly Bill 245 prohibits legislators from serving as lobbyists for a year after they leave office. AB 245 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on April 30, 2009. WDC testified at a public hearing on June 2, 2009. The bill was passed out of committee with eight in favor and two absent on June 30, 2009. Assembly Bill 304 Ban on Lobbying by Convicted Felons Assembly Bill 304 bans convicted felons from lobbying in Wisconsin. In recent years, two state legislators convicted of felony misconduct in public office started lobbying shortly after being driven out of office. Democratic Senator Brian Burke of Milwaukee was representing special interest clients while in home confinement while Republican Assembly Majority Leader Steve Foti of Oconomowoc was lobbying in the halls of the Capitol under terms of his sentence allowing work release privileges. AB 304 was introduced and referred to the committee on Judiciary and Ethics on June 4, 2009. The committee held a public hearing on June 30. The bill passed out of committee with an 8-2 vote on September 9, 2009. Assembly Bill 322 Improving Access to Officials' Financial Statements Assembly Bill 322 aims to make records showing the financial holdings of state lawmakers and other public officials more accessible to the public. The bill does it in two ways. First, it clears the way for all of the statements of economic interest filed by state officials to be posted on the Internet. And it gets rid of a requirement in current state law that officials be notified of the name and address of any citizen who wishes to examine the records. AB 322 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics on June 16, 2009. The committee held a public hearing on June 30. AB 322 was amended twice and passed out of committee with a 6-4 vote on September 9, 2009.
2007-08 Legislative Initiatives • 2005-06 Legislative Initiatives • 2003-04 Legislative Initiatives Back • Search • Subscribe •