Clean Sweep Pledge: Candidate Comments

Candidate commentary on various aspects of the "Clean Sweep" pledge. Clean Sweep Pledge

Candidate Comments

Posted: August 14, 2002
Updated: September 10, 2002

QuestionnaireClean Sweep ResponsesPress Release


Party: Dem = Democrat, Ind = Independent, Grn = Green, Lib = Libertarian, Rep = Republican

Status: C = Challenger, I = Incumbent, O = Open Seat, DN = Current legislator running in a newly created district

Candidate Office Party Status Comments
Baumgart, James S09 Dem I #4 -"I would require no more staff -- equal in Senate and Assembly."
Behrend, Jim S11 Rep O #1i - Prior notice of anticipated activities is a problem. Supports points 1,2 and 5 of question #6.
Bies, Garey A01 Rep I #1b,c - Does not believe in using tax dollars for campaigns. #1d - Supports mandatory spending limits.
Bollerud, Ty G Ind C Candidates should be given speaking time on public radio. Most working people don’t have a lot of money to run for public office.
Brandner, Michael A87 Rep O #6-"As long as speech rights are not infringed."
Brown, Ronald S31 Rep C #1c - Support for public financing must be volunteered by the taxpayer.
#1h - Believes in full disclosure while balancing constitutional issues relating to free speech.
- Hesitant to put burdens on independent organizations that would be ruled unconstitutional.
Buswell, Craig A50 Rep C #3 - Would block the use of public funds to pay legal fees provided that the party is found guilty.
Danielsen, Roger A97 Dem O #3 - Staff should receive legal fees if engaged in legitimate state business.
#7-Waukesha wouldn’t have a voice without reapportionment lawsuits.
Deschler, Keith A62 Lib C The best approach to campaign finance is no government funding, full disclosure of unlimited contributions by individuals, and grassroots campaigns with minimum frills and maximum personal contact.
Dickert, John A61 Dem C #5 - "I would consider this." Also stated that his reform plan can be viewed at
Doyle, Jim G Dem C #1h - "Based on court action, the timeline will need to be 30-45 days before an election."
Erpenbach, Jon S27 Dem I #1k- "Unsure. Cannot give a colleague a campaign check?" #3 - "Legislators and employees should have same rights as other state employees in this case - if found guilty pay own fees always."
Farley, Patrick S03 Dem O #1 - Challengers need to be able to raise and spend more than incumbents. Supports funding sources that don’t take away from other priorities like education and health care.
Grobschmidt, Richard S07 Dem I #7 - Supports a nonpartisan citizen commission if the legislature is unable to do reapportionment in a timely manner.
Gronemus, Barbara A91 Dem I #1a-l: Supports SB 104.
#7 - Undecided about a nonpartisan citizen commission for reapportionment. Opposes private funds to retain attorneys.
Hauser, Jon Anthony A29 Rep C #1a, b, c, d, g, k & #6 - Can’t support because of first amendment concerns.
Hermann, Tom A01 Dem C #1j - "The ADCC has been helpful to me, a new candidate. No money - but time and info."
Hilsabeck, Susan S01 Dem C Indicated that her answers may change as new information is brought to her attention.
Ingalis, Justin A89 Lib C Does not believe in public funding of campaigns. TV and radio should have to provide candidates with air time.
Johnsrud, DuWayne A96 Rep I #1 - Supports fully funding the campaign financing system only if we have money for education, seniors and the environment. #3-Employees should be reimbursed.
Krawczyk, Judy A88 Rep I #1b & c - "I do not support public financing."
#1g - "Need for full disclosure of all financing is the issue.
Landon, Patrick A99 Ind O All candidates, special interest groups and political parties should be required to limit their spending.
Larson, Earl S23 Dem C #1h - Supports a shorter time period, such as 15 days.
#3 - Should be reimbursed if found innocent.
Lassa, Julie A71 Dem I #4 - Use money from elimination of the caucus staff for the Elections Board or return to GPR.
#5 - The Ethics Board must be reformed before it gets independent funding.
#7-"I oppose the use of public funds for attorneys’ fees"; "undecided about a non-partisan citizen commission as I do not know the particulars"
Lawton, Barbara LG Dem C #1b - Supports 100% public financing.
Levandowski, Richard E Jr A59 Lib O #1c -"I'm against public funding of campaigns with tax money."
McCormick, Terri A56 Rep I #1b , c, d - Does not support public financing.
Miller, Mark A48 Dem I #3 - "Does not apply to John Doe investigations."
Moen, Rodney S31 Dem I "I haven’t responded to a questionnaire in the past 12 years. After 20 years in the Senate I think you know where I stand on the issues."
Nicol, Robert J A13 Rep C Does not respond to surveys or questionnaires.
Owens, Carol A53 Rep I She does not return any questionnaires.
Plouff, Joe A29 Dem I #4 - Undecided because there is a need for legitimate research positions, otherwise the minority is shut out. Also feels we need better disclosure for conduits.
Seefluth, Gayle A75 Rep C #2 - Citizens should be on the board but it shouldn’t be a total citizen board.
Sherman, Gary A74 Dem I Does not respond to questionnaires.
Stepp, Cathy S21 Rep C Supports full disclosure for soft money groups, restricting when officials may accept donations, and prohibiting "pay to play". Does not support using tax dollars to fully fund elections or to pay legal fees of state employees being investigated for criminal wrongdoing..
Taft, Michael A92 Dem C #4 - Needs more information.
Thompson, Ed G Lib C Term limits would guarantee competitive elections and end corruption. Wants to end career politicians’ corruption but can’t support aspects of the clean sweep pledge that would restrict free speech.
Turner, Robert A61 Dem I #1e - These fundraising bans should include challengers as well to level the playing field.
Watson, Leroy A31 Lib C #1b - Does not believe in public funding for candidates.
Woods, Scott S11 Dem O #3 - Legal fees should be prepaid, subject to repayment if found innocent.
#7 - It should not be solely a citizen commission.

QuestionnaireClean Sweep ResponsesPress Release