Testimony of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign on Senate Bill 11, Assembly Bill 1 / Senate Bill 22, and Senate Bill 68
Senate Education, Ethics and Elections Committee, March 26, 2003
March 27, 2003
Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony on these bills.
We first offer feedback on the Voter ID bill (SB 68) and the "Pay to Play" bill (AB 1/SB 22) because our comments are very brief.
Senate Bill 68: Requiring picture ID to vote
We oppose this legislation for a very simple reason: The problem with elections in Wisconsin is not that it is too easy to vote. It’ that too many people have reason to believe voting won’t do any good.
Assembly Bill 1 / Senate Bill 22: Explicitly prohibiting “pay to play”
We support the changes embodied in this legislation and believe they should be enacted, but preferably as part of comprehensive reform legislation. While these are much-needed changes to current state law, no one should operate under the illusion that this legislation alone will significantly alter campaign conduct in Wisconsin. Much more sweeping reforms are needed.
We also offer one other comment on how this ban on trading official action for campaign donations is drafted. Under AB 1/SB 22, the "pay-to-play" prohibition applies to any "state public official holding an elective office." We believe it should apply to any state public official or candidate for elective state office. It takes little imagination to see how the appointees of elected state officials or candidates who do not yet hold office could promise official actions in exchange for campaign contributions. This clearly should not be tolerated either.
Senate Bill 11: Reforming the State Elections Board and Ethics Board
We support a wholesale restructuring of these agencies. Ethical standards in Wisconsin politics have been badly degraded in recent years, and the failure of our watchdog agencies to effectively police political conduct is a big part of the reason why.
The Elections Board is routinely failing to enforce our state’ campaign finance laws. Its persistent inaction has contributed mightily to a culture of permissiveness that now permeates state politics. And the board is failing because its structure is fatally flawed.
The Elections Board is a classic example of the fox guarding the hen house. Members are appointed by the very people they are supposed to regulate, so it is no surprise the board is the captive of the political power brokers. It is not a jury of citizens’ peers, it is a jury of the politicians’ pals.
We have in the recent past brought to the board’ attention 19 donors who exceeded Wisconsin’s $10,000 annual limit on campaign contributions. The board learned of the violations from the Democracy Campaign because its own staff lacks the capability to track the contributions donors make to multiple campaigns.
One of the donors appeared before the board to say she was unaware of the $10,000 limit. She offered to pay a fine to resolve the matter. When informed there was some past precedent for a fine of $100 plus 10% of the excess contributions (which in her case would have yielded a fine of $200), she said that was acceptable.
But one board member objected, saying the contributor shouldn’t be fined because she was kind enough to make the long trip and appear before the board. The board member also said none of the 19 violations were serious - even though the donors exceeded the $10,000 limit by as much as $4,900 - and said the board should take no action on any of the 19, even if a formal complaint were filed in the future. His colleagues on the board agreed. Another board member noted there has been a significant increase in the number of donors exceeding the limit - the 19 represented more than a threefold increase over the previous reporting period. But instead of suggesting that perhaps enforcement of the law was in order, he said the board should write to the legislature to urge lawmakers to increase the limit.
That was just one day in the sorry history of the state Elections Board.
The board has compiled a lengthy record of inaction. The "Citizens Right to Know" law requiring electronic filing of campaign reports was enacted in 1998 and was supposed to be implemented by the Elections Board by July 1999. Four years after its enactment, the board finally took a first step toward implementing the law, but only after being threatened with a lawsuit.
The board ignored an open invitation from the state Supreme Court to craft new regulations closing a gaping loophole in Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws that special interest groups have exploited to avoid the law’ limits and disclosure requirements by running so-called "issue ads." Instead of taking the court up on its invitation, the board instead opted for a rule institutionalizing the loophole. Then the board significantly widened the loophole when it ruled that state political parties also can avoid campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements in Wisconsin law by running issue ads.
The Elections Board also dropped its investigation into allegations of illegal campaign activity by legislative employees before contacting individuals with evidence of unlawful activity. And the board dismissed a complaint alleging illegal collusion between one legislative caucus and a campaign front group known then as Project Vote Informed - before receiving answers to investigators’ questions sent in the mail by one of the central figures in the case and after two other targets of the probe refused to answer questions for fear of incriminating themselves.
We also have concerns about the Ethics Board, but they primarily have to do with how ethics investigations are funded and not the structure of the board itself. The Ethics Board has to go to the Joint Finance Committee to request a supplemental appropriation every time it contemplates an investigation. Making the board get the approval of lawmakers who could conceivably be the target of an investigation before proceeding with the probe is obviously not acceptable.
Senate Bill 11 is on the right track in reforming the elections and ethics boards. We agree that the Elections Board and Ethics Board should be merged. The work these two agencies do commonly intersects and overlaps. For example, the ethical problems in Wisconsin politics for which the Ethics Board is blamed almost always trace to campaign finance problems, which fall under the Elections Board’ enforcement jurisdiction.
However, having the members of a new Ethics and Elections Accountability and Control Board appointed by the state Supreme Court raises both constitutional and practical problems.
While a new method of appointment is needed, the overall thrust of Senate Bill 11 is sound and should be maintained. SB 11 contains four key components that need to be preserved:
1) A single enforcement agency with a coordinated approach to ethics and election law enforcement.
2) A nonpartisan citizen board overseeing the agency that is politically independent of the individuals and activities it is charged with monitoring and policing. A nonpartisan board is particularly important if the two agencies are merged. While some make a case that there is value to maintaining partisan representation on the Elections Board, members of the Ethics Board are already required to be nonpartisan and the presence of partisans on a merged board would politicize enforcement of the state ethics code and lobby law.
3) Enforcement authority, including independent investigative and prosecutorial authority.
4) Adequate staff and financial resources, including an independent source of funding for investigations (preferably a sum sufficient appropriation).
We hope you will move quickly to adopt such reforms. They are sorely needed.
Thank you once again for this opportunity to provide feedback on this legislation.
