Zac Schultz:

The following program is part of our “Here and Now” 2016 Wisconsin Vote election coverage.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided in part by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

Tonight, “Here and Now”, from the banks of the Mississippi River in the city of La Crosse where voters are looking to candidates to address their top concerns.

Man:

The economy and middle class jobs.

Young Man:

I speak with my grandmother a lot about this so she says sometimes the jobs. They talk about the jobs, healthcare, stuff like that.

Man:

I believe that healthcare is one of them, mainly people either going without healthcare or maybe possibly being fined for not having the proper healthcare.

Woman:

I think healthcare is a big issue and I also think jobs, what people are talking about the most.

Freyberg:

Rolling on the river toward Election Day in La Crosse. Tonight, a “Here and Now” Wisconsin vote special coming to you live from the Pearl Street Brewery. Friday night, Wisconsin, a craft beer, and politics. Welcome to the Pearl Street Brewery, a buzzing La Crosse destination and our home for tonight’s program. A program that includes an appearance by La Crosse area state senate candidates and a report on Wisconsinites making small dollar donations to presidential campaigns.

First tonight, the race for the Wisconsin state senate in District 32. It’s a re-match, pitting the current senate minority leader, Jennifer Shilling against the man she beat in a recall election in the wake of Act 10. A former Republican state senator, Dan Kapanke. And thanks to both of you for being here tonight.

Jennifer Shilling:

Good evening, welcome to La Crosse.

Freyberg:

Thank you, well, of course we are here to talk about your senate race, but the presidential election really hangs over a lot of down ballot races. Donald Trump won in this area. Both Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, obviously have had their controversies including just today, the FBI opening a probe involving some emails. So, first to you, Senator Shilling, how much does that election trickle down to this election?

Schilling:

Well, we certainly do because I’m traveling the district and talking to people. The top of the ticket and presidential tone and tenor is something that people do talk about and today, Secretary Clinton already acknowledged the investigation, saying that people deserve to know the full facts involved with this. So I think she has been open today, already acknowledging this investigation. But I think a lot of people are ready for the election to be done with, honestly. That happiness will be November in the rear view mirror. This has been an election season unlike any other. And so I think people, as I go door to door, people’s minds are made up and they’re looking forward to November 8th.

Freyberg:

Dan Kapanke, same question. How much does the top of the ticket election weigh on yours?

Dan Kapanke:

Well, from the beginning, I said that I had to blaze my own campaign trail and not worry about who was going to be the candidate at the top of the ticket. But now that we have Donald Trump, I’ve been out every day and I’ve seen, even today, my stops a lot of people are really behind Donald Trump in this part of the state. And so, I’m encouraged by that because I think a good top of the ticket will help all of us down below.

Freyberg:

I want to move along and get into some of the issues in your race. Staying with you, Senator Kapanke: Jennifer Shilling won the recall election 55% to your 44%, a double digit margin. Why will this rematch be different?

Kapanke:

Well, because we’ve had five years and I’ve been out five years, I’ve been running my two businesses and we’ve seen some of the effects of Act 10 which really took me out. And they’ve been positive. We’ve had a five billion-dollar saving for taxpayers. ACT scores in schools have been good. Property taxes for the average homeowner have been down. Income taxes for the average medium income family of four have been down. So we’ve had good results for the last five years from Act 10.

Freyberg:

So, Senator Shilling, do you feel like Act 10 is kind of in the rear view and it’s been positive?

Schilling:

Well, I think that I know my opponent likes to point to that and it really it may have been a success for one year. It was a solution for one year and are we really better off five years down the road? That we have seen deep cuts to our university system. We have seen deep cuts to our public education system. Our transportation system is in need of repair and a long term financial fix. So I really challenge the idea that we are better off five years later, that it doesn’t feel like that and voters don’t feel like that.

Freyberg:

I want to stay with you, Senator Shilling, we spoke with people on the street in La Crosse and many of them spoke about jobs and the economy of course. So do you feel as though the state has more to tackle in terms of jobs? Not withstanding the fact that apparently our unemployment rate is at its lowest since 2001.

Schilling:

I feel that there still is economic angst in this state, as I talk to people throughout Wisconsin. We have had 18 straight quarters of below average job growth in this state. So the things that the Governor Walker is doing really are not working.

Freyberg:

Dan Kapanke, what about you on jobs and the economy? What more?

Kapanke:

Well in the last six yeas, we’ve grown about 165,000 jobs and the previous six to that, we were losing jobs. And actually, right now, if you go into businesses, you will, many times, see a help-wanted sign on the door. We’re looking for a larger workforce here in Wisconsin right now. We have great opportunities for people that want to come to Wisconsin, for businesses that want to come to Wisconsin because we have job openings here.

Freyberg:

Senator Shilling, I don’t have to tell you that in the next state budget transportation funding is really gonna be tying people up in knots. What is your fix for the giant hole in transportation?

Schilling:

Well, when I became the leader two years ago for the senate Democrats, that was one issue I pointed to that we needed to have a bipartisan solution to. I like to say there’s a right lane and a left lane on our roads. We need to have the right and left of our political parties come together. And I think we need to diversify our funding sources as we go into this budget. That what the governor has put forward already is not a solution and we’re delaying projects and we just will simply limp our way to the next budget without a long-term sustainable fix.

Freyberg:

What does a diversified solution look like?

Schilling:

Well, I think everything should be on the table and that is what leaders of the assembly are talking about. That we need to take a look at everything. I think it’s going to be a mix of a lot of areas that we are looking at.

Freyberg:

Dan Kapanke, would you support an increase in the gas tax?

Kapanke:

Well, ten years ago when the caucus wanted to remove the indexing, I was the only Republican senator who voted against it because I thought we were taking away a revenue stream that we weren’t replacing. So now, ten years later, we’ve got some issues. Also, we stole over a billion dollars out of that transportation fund up until before 2010, so that put us in the situation we are. The budget that’s come out produced by Secretary Gottlieb has shown an increase of local roads by 25%, a 35% increase in bridge maintenance, and also the lowest bonding in ten years. So I think it’s a step in the right direction. I think we need to look at everything, leave everything on the table, but I’m not here to say that we need to raise more money at this point.

Freyberg:

What about the delays in the projects? Are you okay with that?

Kapanke:

I’m okay with the delays in the projects if we’re maintaining the roads that we have now. I’ve said throughout this campaign, if I had an apartment building that had a leaky roof, I’d fix that roof before I’d build a new one.

Freyberg:

Now, staying with the budget. This Election Day, 69 school districts are going to referendum for extra money for their districts. So, in your mind, is this a good thing or a bad thing and what does it say about the adequacy of state funding for K12 schools?

Kapanke:

Well, I think the referendums that are going on, many of them are passing now. I think it’s healthy that the people within the respective school districts are getting involved and seeing the needs of the school and passing them. I think that’s very healthy for the electorate to be involved in that manner.

Freyberg:

Jennifer Shilling, you spoke earlier about K12 funding. What do you think ought to happen there in the next state budget?

Schilling:

As we’ve seen referendums across this state and many of them pass, I think it demonstrates that residents in this state believe in public education. They want to support public education and where the state has really fallen behind in our commitment to public education. We are at 2010 levels of per pupil class. We need to make sure that we are investing in our schools. And I hear it as I travel throughout the district that they want to make sure that they are preparing these students of today for the workforce of tomorrow. But they have continued challenges and these cuts in Western Wisconsin, the school districts that I represent have seen a 16.8 million dollar cut. They have looked for efficiencies, but right now it’s getting really difficult.

Freyberg:

What about that, Dan Kapanke?

Kapanke:

Well, I’ve attended school board meetings in the district in this campaign and I’ve been very pleasantly surprised with what I’ve heard. I didn’t hear anything about shortages. In fact, mill rates in several of the school districts are going down because they have enough money. There was one school that saved enough money, their insurance, they have a big HVAC project and they were able to pay for it with the savings from the insurance. So, and again, our ACT scores are good. Our graduation rates in Wisconsin are in the top five in the nation. Good things are happening in our schools. That doesn’t mean we can keep cutting forever.

Freyberg:

And on UW funding, I’ve read that you said that you’re not sure that they should actually get an increase.

Kapanke:

What I said there is if at the end of the day, in our budget, we have the revenue, and they can justify the 42 million dollar increase, and we can take a look at what they’re going to use it for, and if we have the money, and it’s for a good cause, then I would take a look at that.

Freyberg:

Senator Schilling, what do you say about UW system funding?

Schilling:

Well, higher education is an economic driver in the state. And over the last five years, we have seen the Republicans have put forward a billion dollar cut in higher education. 800 million to our university system. 200 million to our technical schools and now we’ve seen a 2 billion-dollar shortfall in building projects that the university has now identified. And so that impacts the communities that those universities are an economic impact. An economic driver in those communities around Wisconsin.

Freyberg:

I want to just ask you one last question each. Would you continue the tuition freeze?

Schilling:

I think the tuition freeze is short-sighted. It doesn’t really fix the problem and as we look at college affordability to allow students when they graduate to make sure that they can refinance their student loans like you can your home or mortgage. But it does nothing to help once you are past the bricks and mortar of college, you still have that large student debt to pay down.

Freyberg:

Dan Kapanke, what about continuing the tuition freeze?

Kapanke:

Well, the average student has saved $6,300 over the last four years with this freeze. And so I would be in favor of keeping it at least for another two, four years because it helps a student and if they can get through faster and save $6,300, I’m all for it.

Freyberg:

All right, Dan Kapanke, Jennifer Shilling, thank you very much.

Schilling:

Thank you.

Freyberg:

From the state senate election to the race for president, we’ve heard candidates talk about how important small donations are to their campaigns. It allows them to claim grassroots support but how important are those contributions to donors? And how do the Trump and Clinton campaigns respond to those small donations? Zac Shultz hit the Wisconsin campaign trail to find the answers.

Bernie Sanders:

Anybody here know the average contribution? 27 bucks.

Schultz:

In the presidential primary, Democrat Bernie Sanders shattered fundraising records by raising more than 200 million dollars from small dollar donors. More than one million people giving small amounts to keep his campaign running.

Sanders:

Where you get your money is extremely important because it means who you are beholden to. I am proud to be beholden to people who send me a check for 27 dollars.

Schultz:

Even with Sanders out of the race, that message continues to resonate.

Roxanne Caloni:

I’m the Bernie Sanders 27 dollar, I’m the small donation person.

Jeff Duris:

The country is discovering that the small amounts matter and are adding up. The Sanders campaign is a good example of that.

Eleanor Powell:

There has been a sort of increased discussion about the value of small dollar donors.

Schultz:

Eleanor Powell is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison and studies the influence of money in politics. She says that there is a technical definition of a small dollar donor.

Powell:

Donations less than 200 dollars count as small dollar donors and that’s in part because of the FEC reporting rules. There’s a 200 dollar cut point and under 200 dollars, they often don’t have to disclose the identity of the individual donors.

Schultz:

In most elections, politicians brag about the number of small dollar donors because it shows grassroots support. But in the past, small donations didn’t net campaigns that much money because it costs so much to solicit them by mail. But with online fundraising, that cost is basically zero.

Jeanne Crone:

I contributed online. It’s very easy.

Lisa Hallenbeck:

Yeah, I got on his email list and I didn’t donate a lot, but two small amounts.

Donald Trump:

But we’re being helped by the small donors. And yesterday, because of the tremendous success of the debate, we raised almost 18 million dollars which is a record for our campaign.

Schultz:

Besides the money, small dollar donations bring legitimacy to third party candidates like Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson:

It’s really the heart of the campaign and right now, that’s the heart of our fundraising.

Jennifer Streit:

In giving to him, it wasn’t response to hoping that the media would notice the numbers. I don’t really think that the amount I give is gonna change anything beyond that there would be some uptick in recognition from the broader media.

Schultz:

There are a lot of reasons why people donate to campaigns but it’s usually emotional.

Caloni:

It’s participating in America. It’s the process and we own it, we’re part of it. And I want to do more than just vote.

Crone:

I feel like I’m helping him to win to put his ads on TV. And I feel like I’m helping my children. That’s why I do it.

Schultz:

Powell says there’s a big reason why campaigns love small dollar donors. They almost never reach the federal individual contribution limit of 2, 700 dollars, so they can keep giving.

Powell:

We see candidates rely on email blasts, repeatedly every day, every couple of days. Sort of going back and trying to encourage the same donors to give again.

Schultz:

We wanted to see just how often the Clinton and Trump campaigns were emailing their small dollar donors. So we found the type of voter that both campaigns are targeting. She’s white, married, college-educated, professional, a mother, she lives in the swing state of Wisconsin, she votes, and she’s never donated to a candidate before. She’s also my sister, Brea. She agreed to donate two dollars to each of the campaigns through their websites. She did this around 9:00 on September 29. And what she received in response since then shows two very different candidates running very different campaigns. Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns emailed to thank Brea within a few minutes but that’s where the similarities end. Over the next three weeks, Clinton’s campaign emails 90 times, only missing the day after Brea’s donation. At first, it was just once or twice a day, but within a week, it was five or more emails daily. A few emails asked her to volunteer or to like the campaign on Facebook. But 87% of emails asked for a second donation. The tone of the emails shifted over time. At first, they were upbeat with subject lines like “glad you’re here” and “thanks for powering this campaign” but after a few days, they became urgent with subject lines like “We’re not gonna panic” or “Falling short”. Then they were pleading: “Are you with me right now?” and finally, they took a shaming approach by writing “will you wish you’d done more?” and “you’ll regret skipping this, Brea.” Eleanor Powell says this was all by design.

Powell:

In some sense, they’re emotional appeals that sort of try to motivate donors to give again if they’ve already given the first time. The campaigns, particularly at the presidential level, do incredible research testing the effectiveness of various appeals. So they test which appeals draw in new donors, which appeals cause people to give again.

Schultz:

By contrast, the Trump campaign sent just 15 emails in three weeks. Two emails thanked Brea for making a recurring 2 dollar donation. Brea says she didn’t intend for her donation to repeat and after she cancelled the recurring donation, Trumps campaign never again asked her for money. A few other emails asked her to volunteer. Seven advertised Trump’s October 17th rally in Green Bay and the last email came from Trump’s Team Florida and invited Brea to a Trump debate watch party 1300 miles away from where she lives. Eleanor Powell cannot speak to the Trump campaign’s email strategy, but she says most Republicans use the same methods as Clinton’s campaign.

Powell:

They measure all of this. They measure what is in the headline, subject header, what works, what time of day. This is all part of the new campaign science.

Schultz:

Powell says some donors may be turned off by the repeated appeals for money. But most are not.

Bev Braun:

Every day I get more than one.

Schultz:

Most are like Bev Braun, who says donating to Hillary Clinton was an emotional decision.

Braun:

It doesn’t bother me that they’re asking me. It only bothers me that I can’t do it all the time.

Freyberg:

That was Zac Shultz reporting. Next week his reporting takes a look at presidential candidates visits to the state, or lack of, and what that says about the race in Wisconsin. If you’re just joining us, welcome to the Pearl Street Brewery in La Crosse. Owner Tami Plourde and her brew staff are carrying on the long tradition of brewing in the La Crosse area. The craft brewery is housed in a reclaimed portion of another piece of La Crosse history, the La Crosse Rubber Mills factor, established in 1897. By 1930, it was La Crosse’s largest employer and now is home to start ups and new businesses like the Pearl Street Brewery, bustling on this Friday night. Thanks again to Tami and her brew crew. Coming up next, a UW La Crosse political scientist talks about civility or incivility in the presidential race and its impact on voters.

Man:

I think people are afraid to talk about the presidential race because people get so emotional about it.

Woman:

All this middle school mean girl crap is going back and forth between their campaign committees. And they’re not talking the issues.

Man:

Really sad that it’s degraded to the kind of freak show that it is. I would rather have an election where actual issues are being talked about, that are going to make a difference in people’s lives.

Freyberg:

Our next guest has been watching the politics at the top of the ticket on down and has some thoughts on civil discourse. He’s UW La Crosse political science professor, Tim Dale. Thank you so much for being here

Tim Dale:

Thanks for having me.

Freyberg:

So, in fact, you actually did a teach-in at UW La Crosse on civil discourse. What was the takeaway of that?

Dale:

Well, a lot of the students at the university, this is their first election that they’re voting in. This is the first time they’re voting in a presidential race. And as we know, the presidential race is very heated. It’s a heated time in politics. So a lot of students are having questions. Is it always this nasty? How do I have arguments with my friends and still maintain friendships? So we decided at the university it would be a good idea to have a discussion about how to have political conversations and remain friends with the people that you have political conversations with. It’s not always modeled in politics. And really the takeaway is that even though it looks in an election time like politics is about winners and losers and really who makes the most aggressive or assertive argument and turns off the most people, politics is much more about things like listening and mutual respect. So the work of democracy really happens much more in conversation with people outside of the context of elections. And it just so happens that during election time, we get really the worst of politics in terms of where people are turned off.

Freyberg:

Inside the context of this very election, at the presidential level though, why is there so much anger and vitriol?

Dale:

Well, I think part of it has to do with the candidates. We have two candidates at the top of the ticket for president that are really looking at historic lows in terms of people who find them an appealing candidate. So the people who tend to be voting on either side, really are doing so in a sense in response to the other candidate, more so than they are embracing the candidate. And I think likability in that way is something that’s really feeding into the negativity at the national level.

Freyberg:

Does all of that leave down ballot people running for office replicating that or trying to rectify it?

Dale:

Well, it’s interesting, because this year I think we actually have seen some movement away from that. And so we not only see some movement away from the national candidates, we see some movement away from the negativity of the national candidates. One of the things about local races and state races is that candidates typically have to see each other a lot more. They appear on shows like yours, they sit next to each other, and so the humanity really comes out a lot more in the debates. And I think that definitely lends itself to a more civil discussion. But it’s also about issues that people care about at the local level. They’re running for office in a place where they know their neighbors. They know their friends. So I think people are turned off a lot more quickly at the local level by negativity in politics. So for local and state races, I think there is a lot more caution around that kind of thing.

Dale:

Well, in fact, we just had two state senate candidates sitting very close to each other and they were very civil. So in terms of the issues in this local community, what rises to the top for people?

Freyberg:

One of the things that’s interesting about the state of Wisconsin is that both Hillary and Trump lost by 13 points in the state of Wisconsin. So all across Wisconsin, we really see a microcosm of what’s happening across the country, which is that voters are dissatisfied with the national parties and in the state, I think it really requires people and candidates to talk directly to the interest of what the voters are asking about. Which is what the proper role of government is? What the job of state government is? Really, where their money should be spent in terms of investing in the future? And so I think that’s where real substantive issues play a role in local races and I think people are really happy to see the local candidates talking about those issues.

Freyberg:

Right, Tim Dale, great. Thank you very much.

Dale:

Thanks for having me.

Freyberg:

In addition to programs like this one, Wisconsin public television produces history programs like “Hometown Stories- La Crosse.” In this excerpt, we hear from an important member of the Ho-Chunk, describing the land and his ancestors, including the culturally rich, Oneida people who made their home in the La Crosse area as far back as 1300.

Narrator: You stand on the bluffs above La Crosse, hundreds of feet above what is now the city of La Crosse. It’s one of the most beautiful areas in the United States, I’d argue in the world. It’s bountiful, it’s rich. It’s green, it’s clean. It just reinforces what’s been going on there for hundreds and thousands of years. It’s not just Indian history. It’s not just Ho-Chunk history. But it becomes a part of who we are as a community. This is part of the history of the people of La Crosse. And the people of La Crosse are not just the people that are standing vertical today. The people of La Crosse are the people that have been there for thousands and thousands of years. Oneida culture, and yes even before that.

Freyberg:

“Hometown Stores- La Crosse” can be seen in its entirety on WPT.org. Wisconsin Vote on the Road rolls on next week to Green Bay. That’s where WPR’s Joy Cardin will broadcast her Friday morning show. Next Friday night’s “Here and Now” guests include the candidates running in the open seat for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 8th Congressional District. Outgoing congressman Reid Ribble will also join us. Stay with Wisconsin Vote on the Road all the way to Election Day.

For now, thank you to Pearl Street Brewery for letting us camp out here tonight in La Crosse.

I’m Frederica Freyberg, have a great weekend.

Schultz:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by friends of Wisconsin Public Television. For more information on “Here and Now’s” 2016 election coverage, go to WisconsinVote.org.