Wisconsin Campaign Finance Glossary
Posted: November 24, 2003
Updated: November 1, 2013
Aggregate contribution limit
Limit on total amount of money a political committee can receive from a variety of contribution sources within a given time period. For example, no candidate committee can receive more than 65% of its allowable budget for an election cycle from PACs and political parties combined.
Arizona law meant to diminish the corruption that comes from contributions-for-favors in campaign finance provided public funds to candidates that were outspent by their privately funded counterparts. Under this law, publicly funded candidates could receive as much as two times their base amount in matching funds from the government when outspent by privately funded candidates and independent groups. In addition to reducing corruption, the law was intended to encourage more people to run for office by making financing a campaign more feasible for a greater number of individuals. However, opponents of the law argued that it created a chilling effect on privately funded candidates and their donors by seemingly inhibiting their ability to exercise free speech rights through campaign spending. Since under the Arizona law an increase in private donations to a particular candidate could increase the amount of public funding a rival candidate receives, critics argued that the law created a disincentive for potential donors to contribute money to political campaigns.
In June 2011, a key portion of the the law was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 the Court struck down a part of the law that triggered matching public funds to candidates outspent by wealthier opponents or outside special interest groups. The decision, which was made by the same conservative bloc of justices that were the majority in the Citizens United ruling, was consistent with the Court’s current skeptical attitude regarding campaign financing laws and restrictions. The majority opinion in the case cited concerns that the law infringed upon the free speech rights of privately funded candidates, donors, and independent groups, who may be reluctant to contribute to a campaign knowing that it could lead to increased public funding for another candidate.
It’s unlikely the high court’s ruling on the Arizona law will have an effect on public financing in Wisconsin – specifically the Impartial Justice Act which provides public financing for Supreme Court candidates. The Wisconsin law’s trigger mechanism for releasing public funds to candidates is different from the way funds are released to candidates by the Arizona program. In addition, a North Carolina law similar to Wisconsin ’s Impartial Justice Act survived an earlier appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Parties and candidates that are listed on the fall primary and general partisan election ballots are said to have ballot status.
Candidates achieve primary ballot status by filing nomination papers with the requisite number of signatures for the office sought. November or general election ballot status is dependent on the primary outcome. Candidates without primary opposition are still listed on the ballot in order to give the public a chance to nominate write-in candidates in their stead. All independent candidates who have met the nomination requirements are listed on both the primary and November ballots. In addition to determining who appears on the November ballot, the primary vote is used to determine eligibility for WECF funds.
Parties that do not already have ballot status can obtain it by filing a petition with 10,000 signatures including a minimum of 1,000 from at least three different congressional districts. Once a party has a ballot status it maintains it by having any candidate for partisan statewide office or president receive a minimum of 1% of the total vote for that office.
Elections held in the spring -- including races for judicial offices and Superintendent of Public Instruction are nonpartisan. Parties do not appear on the ballot at any time.
The account set up by a candidate to raise money for his or her campaign for public office. Candidates cannot raise or spend money until they have registered their campaign committees with the Government Accountability Board.
In practice, incumbents often amass huge "war chests" of unspent campaign funds to intimidate likely opponents, to run for another state office, or to contribute to other candidates’ campaigns, parties or legislative campaign committees. Limits on contributions by candidate committees are the same as for PACs.
Money in a candidate’s campaign committee’s bank account at the end or beginning of a reporting period. This may be campaign funds left over from a previous election and, in some cases, funds transferred from a local or federal campaign. Usually refers to money the candidate’s committee has at the beginning of the election cycle. Also referred to as "war chest." Incumbents usually hold the advantage in this area.
A national conservative non-profit organization founded in 1988 and located in Washington, D.C. It claims to be dedicated to restoring control of the U.S. government to the citizens, and it seeks to reassert the "traditional" American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization. A lawsuit by this organization resulted in a major setback to campaign finance reform.
A 2010 United States Supreme Court case in which the plaintiff, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United, challenged various statutory provisions of the McCain-Feingold law, a federal limit on campaign spending by unions and corporations. The decision was 5-4, with the majority opinion in the case arguing that campaign contributions are a form of political speech, the most protected type of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so they cannot be restricted. In effect, the Court found that there can be no limit under the First Amendment on campaign spending, even if the source is a corporation or union rather than an individual citizen.
While the majority opinion argued that campaign donations are a fundamental aspect of political speech and therefore heavily protected by the First Amendment, the four dissenters on the Court argued that the majority’s opinion threatened to destroy the integrity of elected institutions everywhere in the U.S.
The ramifications of this Court decision have been widespread. One area that has been affected is disclosure regarding the source of contributions. Since large corporations and unions can donate as much money as they see fit from their personal coffers, it has become much more difficult to track the source of the money. In addition, the funding of political campaigns has become increasingly concentrated to the point that less than 1% of the population funds political campaigns. This outcome disadvantages popular democracy by minimizing the influence of average citizens.
Money contributed to a candidate without any special-interest strings attached. This money is publicly granted, as opposed to privately donated, and comes from state coffers filled by the taxpayers of Wisconsin who use the income tax check-off. See WECF.
Groups can systematically collect contributions from individuals, bundle them together and send one large check to the candidate along with the contributor list. Corporations, professional associations, political parties and other issue groups organize and run conduits. Candidates report conduit contributions as individual contributions under the names of the contributors provided by the conduits. Individual contribution limits apply to the individuals giving through the conduit but there are no limits on the amounts the conduit can deliver. (See hard money and contribution limits.)
Conduits were created to bypass limits on PAC contributions. Many of the same organizations that maintain conduits also have PACs. The only reporting required for the conduit is when a check is sent to a candidate. They are not required to report money amassed in their coffers or any of their administrative expenses.
For more on conduits see related articles, "Check-Bundling Tactic Hides Special Interest Clout" and "Race for The Capitol: Cash Sources."
Any one of the executive statewide offices listed in the state constitution. They are Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. All but the last are partisan offices contested in the fall general election. The Supreme Court is a statewide, but not a constitutional, office.
Legal limits on the amounts candidates and other political committees can receive during a given election cycle or calendar year.
There are varying limits on how much individuals can give for each elected office in an election cycle and how much they can give to all committees in a calendar year.(See hard money.) There are also single committee and aggregate committee contribution limits. (See PAC, political party and LCC.)
Only conduits have no contribution limits.
Created by the Impartial Justice Act in 2010, the Democracy Trust Fund is a public financing grant that can be issued to Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates. Once a candidate’s eligibility is certified by the Government Accountability Board, funds are delivered through a line of credit established by the State Treasurer. Participating candidates receive a grant of $100,000 for the Spring Primary Election (if one takes place), and $300,000 for the Spring Election. The DTF is funded publicly by a $3 voluntary check-off by Wisconsin taxpayers on individual state income tax returns.
Grant eligibility is largely affected by the number and dollar amounts of contributions that a candidate has received. For instance, candidates hoping to receive the grant must receive qualifying contributions ranging from $5 to $100 from a minimum of 1,000 separate contributors. During the qualifying time period, these contributions must total at least $5,000 but not exceed $15,000. These restrictions also apply to the use of a candidate’s personal funds.
Moreover, to be eligible for this public grant, the amount of private funds that may be legally raised by a participating candidate is limited to $20,000. Any private funds beyond this amount must be transferred to the Government Accountability Board and deposited into the Democracy Trust Fund. Also, a participating candidate cannot accept PAC funds or contributions exceeding $100, with the exception of personal funds.
The GOP controlled legislature defunded The Democracy Trust Fund with the 2011-13 budget signed by Governor Scott Walker on June 26, 2011.
A committee’s general operating expenses. It refers to all expenses incurred in campaigning or maintaining the committee -- fundraising expenses, taxes, campaign staff salaries, advertising, etc. Disbursements do not refer to contributions made to other committees See transfer.
The election cycle varies by office and even by candidate. It usually coincides in length with the term of office. The election cycle for the state Senate and constitutional offices is never more than four years, beginning on January 1 following the previous fall election and ending on December 31 after the current election. The cycle is no more than two years for the Assembly, ten for the State Supreme Court.
The election cycle may vary for candidates based on when they last ran for office. For example, because Representative Scott Newcomer of the 33rd Assembly District was first elected to that office in a special election held in January 2006, his election cycle for the 2006 campaign only started with the special election cycle’s end in February 2006. The same is true of candidates for federal and local offices. Because gubernatorial candidate Mark Green was reelected to the U.S. Congress in November 2004, his 2006 gubernatorial campaign’s election cycle for governor only started on January 1, 2005. By the same token, Kathleen Falk was reelected Dane County Executive in April 2005, so the election cycle for her 2006 attorney general campaign began on July 1, 2005.
For most Senate candidates in 2006, the election cycle began on January 1, 2003. In the case of most 2006 Assembly candidates, the cycle began on January 1, 2005.
Political committees that agree not to spend or raise more than $1,000 or to accept more than $100 from a single source in a calendar year are not required to file campaign finance reports with the Government Accountability Board and are said to be exempt. These committees must still register with the board however.
Tax-exempt political nonprofit groups that are named after the U.S. Internal Revenue Service code that governs them. These organizations, which include the more commonly known America Coming Together, GOPAC, MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, can accept and spend unlimited amounts of unregulated contributions on electioneering activities. Those activities include direct mail campaigns, negative issue advertising and voter registration drives. (See the WDC report "Tax-Code Two-Step" to learn more about 527 groups in Wisconsin.)
The Government Accountability Board is a six-member non-partisan panel of retired circuit court judges created by legislation in early 2007 to enforce the state’s ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws. The new board replaced the State Elections Board and State Ethics Board in early 2008 and took over their regulatory activities. Unlike its predecessors, the new board and its enforcement agency have the authority and the financial means to independently investigate violations of campaign finance and election laws.
Hard money Any campaign contributions that are regulated, disclosed, and subject to limits. In Wisconsin, individuals are limited to contributing $500 to Assembly candidates, $1,000 to Senate candidates and $10,000 to candidates for statewide office within each office’s particular election cycle. Individuals can contribute no more than $10,000 annually to all state and local candidates and all parties and other political committees. Limits are also placed on PACs, political parties and LCCs.
Passed in 2009 in this act reformed the way Supreme Court races are financed by creating the Democracy Trust Fund (DTF), which issues public financing grants to Supreme Court Justice candidates. This act also reduced the limit for individual contributions to nonparticipating Supreme Court candidates from $10,000 to $1,000. Nonparticipating candidates are not limited in the total amount of contributions or expenditures that may be accepted or made, but they are restricted in the amount of contributions that may be accepted from political committees.
The Republican controlled legislature effectively reversed the Impartial Justice Act by defunding the Democracy Trust Fund with the 2011-13 budget signed by Governor Scott Walker on June 26, 2011.
Spending in support of or opposition to a candidate without consultation, coordination or cooperation with the supported candidate. The organization doing the independent spending must file an oath swearing no coordination with the candidate and report any spending within 24 hours after it takes place.
The most common independent expenditures are for radio and TV ads, newspaper ads, direct mail and phone calls. They urge the voter to support or oppose a candidate and must show the name of the organization paying for it. Most of these expenditures are concentrated during the period of the most intensive activity -- two weeks before the election.
There is no limit on what a group can spend independently to support or oppose a candidate. However, they are required to report how much is spent and where the money comes from.
Some PACs prefer making independent expenditures over direct contributions to candidates. Other PACs like to use independent expenditures as a way of giving additional support to candidates beyond that permitted by contribution limits.
For more on independent expenditures go here.
An issue ad, in its true form, is defined by its focus on an issue and does not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. They generally air when the issue is before the legislature. They ask citizens to contact their legislators and urge them to vote for or against a specific bill. Corporate money can be used for these ads and no reporting is required.
However, in 1996 advertisements purporting to be "issue ads" were first used to influence elections. The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the Sierra Club and Americans for Term Limits ran ads right before the elections harshly attacking several candidates. Since these ads did not use the magic words "vote for" or "vote against," these groups claimed that they were not required to report this activity or the sources of the money used for them as they would for independent expenditures. A subsequent court decision upheld this position.
For more on "issue ads" in go here.
Money contributed indirectly so as to hide its origins. At its most innocuous, this can happen when a political party, LCC or candidate committee uses money it collects from special interests to make contributions to candidates. At its most pernicious it happens when contributions illegal in Wisconsin are made to organizations outside Wisconsin, such as a political party’s national campaign committee, and then returned to Wisconsin’s political committees under the guise of otherwise legal contributions. Also see soft money.
The legislative leadership for each party in each house of the legislature operate a special committee that collects contributions, mainly from PACs, and gives money to candidates. Because of legal restrictions on when lobbyists can make contributions to candidates (see lobbyist), lobbyists are among the most common individual contributors to LCCs. These committees allow legislative leaders to take over many of the functions of a political party.
The LCCs are the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee (ADCC), Republican Assembly Campaign Committee (RACC), the State Senate Democratic Committee (SSDC) and the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate (CERS).
The same contribution limits that applies to political parties apply to LCCs.
An individual employed to influence legislation and the administration of laws. In the process of doing so lobbyists may make contributions to elected officials, candidates, parties, and LCCs, but limits are placed on the time in which they can give contributions. Under Wisconsin law lobbyists are only allowed to make campaign contributions after June 1 of the election year and before the general election in November. Where legislative candidates are concerned, the legislature must also be out of session. Lobbyists, however, may administer conduits which can give contributions at any time. The contribution limits that apply to individuals also apply to lobbyists. See hard money.
Enacted in 2002, this federal law restricts campaign spending by unions and corporations. One primary purpose of the act was to curb the increasing role of soft money in campaign financing by banning political parties at the national level from spending and receiving federally unregulated money. Another purpose was to reduce the opportunity for unregulated funds to influence elections through issue ads. Since issue ads ostensibly focus on issues over candidates, the usual restrictions on direct corporate and union campaign spending did not apply. In practice, however, many issue ads were, and continue to be, barely concealed campaign ads.
Many provisions of the law were struck down in 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. In particular, the Court held that areas of the law limiting the activity of corporations in campaign contribution infringed upon freedom of political speech, which is heavily protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Court held that since corporations should be treated as individuals, and campaign contributions can be equated with political speech, a limit on such activities would be unconstitutional.
Legislative district in which no incumbent is running. These are the seats most attractive to new candidates for the legislature as they do not have to raise and spend large sums to overcome the large campaign war chests most incumbents accumulate between elections.
Contributions are divided into three categories: contributions and loans from individuals (including those through conduits); committee transfers (from political parties, PACs, candidate committees, or legislative campaign committees); and other income. Other income is a residual category that includes interest income received on the candidate’s war chest, reimbursements, commercial loans and contributions returned by other committees, and any other form of income that is not considered an individual or committee contribution.
Contributions from one PAC to another. Often these simply involve a state PAC transferring money to its federal counterpart or vice-versa. There are no limits on the amounts one PAC can transfer to another.
See candidate committee.
Corporations, labor unions, and organizations can collect voluntary contributions from interested individuals to help elect and defeat candidates. Because corporations and labor unions have been banned from directly contributing their treasury money to candidates since 1907 and 1947 respectively, they create PACs to give contributions to candidates and to make independent expenditures.
All PACs must register with the Government Accountability Board and disclose how much they spend and where the money comes from.
PAC contributions are also subject to limits. Limits on giving to candidates for the legislature are the same as for individuals: $500 for an Assembly and $1,000 for a Senate campaign (See hard money.) The limits on PAC giving for constitutional offices, however, are set much higher than for individual givers: $43,128 for Governor, $12,939 for Lieutenant Governor, $21,5640 for Attorney General, $8,625 for Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Supreme Court Justice. As for political parties, PACs can give no more than $6,000 to any party in a calendar year.
There is no limit on the total amount a PAC can give to all committees in a calendar year, but recipients are limited as to the total amount of PAC contributions they can receive. Candidates cannot receive total PAC contributions, including candidate committees, exceeding 45% of spending limits for their office, whether or not the limits are applied. (See WECF). The PAC contribution limits for each office are as follows: Governor, $485,190; Lieutenant Governor, $145,564; Attorney General, $242,550; State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Supreme Court, $97,031; State Senate, $15,525; and State Assembly, $7,763. The limits apply to each office’s election cycle.
Parties cannot receive more than a total of $150,000 from all PACs in two consecutive calendar years.
Under Wisconsin law any organization composed of two or more people that makes or receives political contributions whether or not it is engaged in exclusively political activity.
More colloquially, however, it can refer to any committee that makes or receives contributions as part of political activity. Used this way it can refer to political parties, PACs, LCCs and candidate committees. It does not refer to conduits because, technically, conduits do not receive or make contributions.
Before raising, spending or transferring money all political committees -- even conduits -- must register with the Government Accountability Board .
Voluntary association organized for the purpose of contesting elections.
There are no limits on the amounts parties can transfer to their affiliates or give candidates, but there are limits on the total amount of money candidates can accept from all political committees. The total amount candidates can receive from PACs (including candidate committees) and parties (including LCCs) is capped at 65% of spending limits. (Also see WECF.) Money from PACs and candidate committees together is capped at 45% of spending limits.
The absolute limits on political committee money are: Governor, $700,830; Lieutenant Governor, $210,258; Attorney General, $350,350; State Treasurer, Secretary of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, $140,156; State Senate, $22,425; and State Assembly, $11,213.
Parties cannot receive more than $150,000 in total PAC and candidate committee contributions in two consecutive calendar years and no more than $6,000 from any single PAC in a calendar year. There are no limits, however, on the amount parties can receive from other party committees and LCCs.
By state law, any person campaigning for the defeat or passage of a state-level referendum question and spending more than $25 must register with the Government Accountability Board . Such a group must also file campaign finance reports at the appropriate time unless they qualify for exempt status.
Gives voters the opportunity to reconsider their choice of elected official by requiring the official in question to run for office again before the completion of his or her term.
Under Wisconsin law an official must be in office for at least one year before a recall can be called. Once this minimum time in office is reached, citizens can begin a recall by obtaining a number of signatures equal to at least 25% of the vote cast in the most recent election for governor held within the district of the officeholder.
Campaign financing rules are altered in these types of elections. State law removes the $1,000 limit that typically governs individual and political action committee (PAC) contributions to state Senate candidates until the required number of valid signatures is obtained and a recall election is approved. However, once approved, standard campaign contribution limits apply, and any unused portion of the contributions of more than $1,000 received before a recall is approved would be subject to the $1,000 limit. The candidate would be required to return the excess funds to the contributor, donate it to charity, or direct it to the state school fund.
It is important to note that even if a sufficient number of signatures in favor of a recall are gathered within the appropriate time period, this does not necessarily entail that the official in question is removed from office. Rather, he or she is only forced to once again run for election to remain in office.
There are specific requirements governing recalls in Wisconsin which vary greatly depending on the official and his or her corresponding district. Information regarding these requirements, as well as the number of signatures necessary to initiate a recall, is provided by the Government Accountability Board.
Time covered by a campaign finance report.
Every January and July all active political committees registered with the Government Accountability Board must file campaign finance reports recording their financial activity for the previous six months.
During an election year, all candidates in the election must file at least two additional reports eight days before the primary and general elections. Other political committees must also file reports on these dates if they make contributions to election candidates.
Also see exempt committees.
Loan or donation a candidate makes to his or her own campaign committee. There are no limits on self-contributions unless a candidate accepts the WECF grant. For candidates accepting the grant the self-contribution limits are as follows: statewide offices, $20,000; State Senate, $2,000; State Assembly, $1,000. Most candidates report large self-contributions as loans so they can pay themselves back at a later date using campaign funds. It is usually easier for winning candidates to collect enough campaign contributions to reimburse themselves for large self-contributions.
Statutory cap on the amount candidates can spend on their campaigns. Spending limits only apply when all candidates in a particular election accept the WECF grant or voluntarily file an oath to abide by them. Even when no candidate abides by them, spending limits are still used as the bench mark for applying aggregate contribution limits for all candidate campaign committees. Spending limits are based on the election cycle specific to the office sought. (Also see hard money, PACs, and political party.)
The spending limits are $1,078,200 for the Governor; $323,475 for Lieutenant Governor; $539,100 for Attorney General; $215,625 for State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Supreme Court; and Superintendent of Public Instruction; $34,500 for State Senate and $17,250 for State Assembly. Also see WECF.
Any money used for political campaigns that is unrestricted or unregulated by campaign finance laws.
“Soft money" at the federal level refers to unregulated, unlimited and undisclosed contributions by corporations or individuals to political parties. Once restricted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold law, corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals can once again donate tens of thousands of dollars to political parties as a result of the Citizens United ruling. These political parties in turn spend that money on activities that support their candidates as long as they do not explicitly advocate the election of a candidate.
In Wisconsin there have long been limits on such contributions to parties. Corporations and labor unions cannot make direct political donations to any political committee, but must form PACs in order to do so. Moreover, no PAC can contribute more than $6,000 to any given political party or LCC in a calendar year, nor can parties and LCCs receive more than $150,000 from all PACs in two consecutive calendar years. Individuals can contribute up to $10,000 to a party and LCC in a calendar year but only if they have not contributed to any other political committee or candidates (See hard money.)
Consequently, soft money enters Wisconsin politics through two loopholes.
First, the limit on PAC contributions to parties does not include transfers from party affiliates. Corporations and other organizations could make soft money contributions to the national party committees who would, in turn, transfer the now laundered money to the state party committees.
The second loophole is issue ads. With issue ads, corporations, union and individuals can make unlimited, undisclosed contributions to support or oppose a candidate’s a campaign without going through the trouble of sending the money out of state for laundering.
The State Elections Board was replaced by the Government Accountability Board in 2008.
The State Elections Board was created in July 1974 as part of the legislature’s reform of Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws. The Board was entrusted with enforcing the state’s election and campaign finance laws.
Members of the State Elections Board were appointed to two year terms that begin on May 1st in odd-numbered years. The Governor, the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader and the Assembly Minority Leader appointed one member each. Finally, the chair of any political party receiving 10% or more of the last vote for governor appointed one member. In practice only the chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties tended to have the privilege of appointing board members although the Libertarian Party did have a representative on the Board in 2003-2007.
The Government Accountability Board replaced the Ethics Board in 2008.
The State Ethics Board was created as part of the the Legislature’s 1973 reform of the state’s campaign finance laws. At first its duties were restricted to enforcing the state’s ethics code for public officials and employees. In 1989 it took over the the enforcement of the state’s lobbying laws and regulations.
The Governor appoints the six members of the Ethics Board to six year staggered terms subject to the approval of the State Senate. Members of the board cannot hold any other government position at any level and cannot be members of any partisan organization.
This is a constitutionally created four-year statewide office whose winner is determined in the non-partisan spring elections. The state school superintendent is mostly an administrative job with little power to set state education policies. The officeholder is responsible for administering state and federal education aid which must be approved by the legislature. The superintendent also develops a two-year budget for the department which is subject to approval by the governor and the legislature.
Independent spending by Super-PACs creates a disclosure problem because voters cannot tell who is behind them just by reading the disclaimer that all political communications must carry. When a Super-PAC has contributors from outside Wisconsin, tracking the true sources of the money may be impossible.
Also see soft money.
Candidates or other committees registered with the GAB may "terminate" their registrations if they intend to cease all financial activity, have cash balances of zero and no outstanding debts. Candidates who have terminated their committees must re-register with the GAB if they wish to renew financial activity. Terminated committees differ from exempt committees in that candidates with terminated committees cannot run for office while exempt candidates can. While most terminated committees belong to also-rans and retired office holders, members of the State Supreme Court often terminate their committees at some point during their ten year term only to renew them as they prepare to run for re-election. State candidates running for local offices may also terminate their state committees so as to avoid state reporting requirements.
Refers to any party with ballot status other than the Democratic or Republican parties, the two major parties. Currently in Wisconsin these include the Wisconsin Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties.
Signed into law on May 25, 2011 by Republican Governor Scott Walker, this legislation requires Wisconsin voters to present a driver’s license, a state ID, a passport, a military ID, naturalization papers or a tribal identification card when casting a vote at the polls. College students can vote using a university ID only if it has the student’s signature and an expiration date within two years of the card’s issuance. This presentation of a Statutory ID to receive a ballot, the major provision of the bill, will not be required until the February 2012 spring presidential primary election.
Governor Walker cited voter fraud concerns as the motivation behind this bill, yet election fraud is actually quite rare. Critics assert it will in practice restrict the ability of vulnerable populations such as seniors, students, and low-income citizens, in particular minorities, to vote. These groups often do not drive, making them less likely to carry a valid driver’s license.
Other changes as a result of this bill include an extension of the residency requirement before an election from 10 days to 28 days and an elimination of the option for straight party voting.
Upon request, the Department of Transportation must provide adequate identification for voting purposes at no cost to the voter. Also, the Government Accountability Board is responsible for providing information and outreach to groups that may need assistance in obtaining a satisfactory ID. The GAB predicts the cost of this to be over $2,000,000. Additional costs related to this legislation will stem from the training of local election officials throughout the state regarding the ID requirements and procedures, the revision of training materials, and the DOT’s production of voter ID’s.
The legislature paid for the costs associated with this bill by raiding the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund.
Candidate spending and self-contributions can be limited only if the the candidate accepts government-funded grants for the campaign. The Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund was set up for this purpose.
To be eligible for a grant, candidates must raise a minimum threshold amount of money in individual contributions of $100 or less, win the primary with at least 6% of the total vote, have an opponent, and adhere to all campaign finance reporting requirements. Also, candidates accepting a grant must agree to restrict their campaign expenditures and contributions. Any dollar received by a candidate via a WECF grant takes the place of a dollar that can be received by that candidate from a special interest PAC. The actual amount of a grant varies depending on the WECF funds available, but a candidate can receive up to 45% of the campaign’s allowable budget (see spending limit). If candidates receive the full grant, they cannot raise any more from PACs or candidate committees.
Spending limits only apply if all candidates in the race accept the grant or voluntarily agree to abide by them. A WECF candidate facing an opponent who is not restricted by spending limits is not required to abide by them either. The spending limits for each office’s respective election cycle are as follows: $1,078,200 for Governor; $323,475 for Lieutenant Governor; $539,100 for Attorney General; $215,625 for State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Supreme Court and Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Also see self-contribution.)
These limits, capped in 1986, are viewed by many as unrealistic due to inflation and the spiraling costs of elections.
The Government Accountability Board administers the WECF.
The money for these grants comes from a $3 check-off on the state income tax, but in the 2011-13 budget the Republican legislature raided the fund to pay for the newly passed Voter ID Bill.
See also clean money.
Any candidate for office who does not have ballot status.