FREDERICA FREYBERG:

HERE’S HOW THE STATE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS A BOYCOTT VOTE LIKE THE ASSEMBLY DEMS TOOK ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE BILL. NO STATE PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAY TAKE ANY OFFICIAL ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING A MATTER IN WHICH THE OFFICIAL, A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR AN ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH THE OFFICIAL IS ASSOCIATED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST. THAT RECUSAL WAS SPEARHEADED BY ASSEMBLY MINORITY LEADER PETER BARCA OF KENOSHA, WHO JOINS US NOW. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING SO.

PETER BARCA:

GREAT TO BE WITH YOU. IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT WEEK FOR THE STATE. UNFORTUNATELY IT’S NOT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT RECUSAL?

PETER BARCA:

WELL ACTUALLY, YOU’RE OBLIGATED TO RECUSE YOURSELF. IT’S NOT AN OPTIONAL THING. YOU’RE REQUIRED IF IN FACT, AS YOU JUST READ THE STATE LAW, YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST. NOW, WE TRIED TO AMEND THIS BILL SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO RECUSE OURSELVES. PROBABLY MOST PROMINENTLY WAS REPRESENTATIVE MANDELA BARNES WHO SAID, “LET’S HAVE THIS EFFECTIVE NEXT ELECTION AFTER YOU’RE REELECTED.” THAT’S THE WAY IT WORKS FOR PAY RAISES. YOU CAN VOTE YOURSELF A PAY RAISE, BUT ONLY THE NEXT LEGISLATURE CAN GET IT. AND THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON. PEOPLE DO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES. MORE SO IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE LEVEL. REMEMBER LAST SESSION A NUMBER OF LANDLORDS RECUSED THEMSELVES WHEN THE REPUBLICANS PASSED THE BILL TO ENORMOUSLY HELP LANDLORDS AT THE EXPENSE OF TENANTS. AND SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK YOU ARE SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFITED FROM THAT LEGISLATION. IN THIS CASE, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COMING IN TO BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETELY COORDINATED. AND INCUMBENTS ALREADY HAVE SUCH AN ENORMOUS ADVANTAGE. IT’S ALREADY DIFFICULT TO BEAT AN INCUMBENT. THIS MAKES IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IN MANY INSTANCES.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

SO YOU FELT THAT YOU WERE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO MAKE THAT VOTE, BUT IN THE END IT THEN RESULTED IN AN UNANIMOUS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL, WHICH YOU ARE SO NOT IN FAVOR OF.

PETER BARCA:

WELL, AS MY COLLEAGUES — AND IT REALLY WAS — I WAS TO CREDIT REPRESENTATIVES SONDY POPE, GARY HEBL, CORY MASON – ALL WERE PART OF COMING UP WITH THIS IDEA THAT LET’S LOOK AT THIS. I MEAN, IS THIS REALLY RIGHT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS? I DOUBT ANYBODY IN THE STATE THINKS THAT ANYBODY THAT RECUSED THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED VOTING FOR A BILL OF THIS SORT. IT WAS FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE REASONS. AND I HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE A GIANT FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY TO SHOW THAT TO HAVE SUCH AN ABOMINATION OF OUR CAMPAIGN LAWS, TO JUST EVISCERATE THEM, SO THAT BASICALLY YOU HAVE UNLIMITED SPENDING GOING ON IN THIS STATE, WITH ALMOST UNLIMITED COORDINATION, AND IN MOST OR MANY CASES IT WILL BE 60 DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION, UNLIMITED SPENDING WITH ZERO DISCLOSURE AND IN MOST CASES NOT EVEN ANY DISCLAIMERS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW, SPEAKER VOS SAYS THAT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION MAKES THE LANGUAGE IN STATE LAW MORE CLEAR AND SIMPLY CODIFIES WHAT THE COURTS HAVE RULED. SO WHY IN YOUR MIND ISN’T THAT AT LEAST A GOOD STEP?

PETER BARCA:

THAT’S ALMOST AN OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM. EVEN JUSTICE SCALIA IN THAT TERRIBLE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION THAT WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT — WHICH, INCIDENTALLY 80% OF REPUBLICANS BASED ON A RECENT POLL BY BLOOMBERG WANT TO SEE THAT DECISION OVERTURNED AND DO NOT SUPPORT IT. BUT IT’S AN OUTRAGEOUS POINT BECAUSE WHAT JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IS THAT ALONG WITH THIS ABILITY FOR CORPORATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED PEOPLE, WHICH IS RATHER FANCIFUL, BUT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE UNLIMITED TRANSPARENCY. AND THAT’S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE DID HERE IN WISCONSIN. WE DID QUITE THE OPPOSITE. WE MADE IT SO THERE WILL BE FAR LESS TRANSPARENCY. FOR PEOPLE SPENDING $2500 OR LESS, THERE’S ZERO TRANSPARENCY, NOT EVEN A DISCLAIMER. AND YOU COULD HAVE UNLIMITED SPENDING IN ISSUE ADS WITH AGAIN ZERO TRANSPARENCY, ZERO DISCLOSURE AND NO DISCLAIMER WHATSOEVER. WE’VE NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE. AND WE’LL BE THE ONLY STATE IN THE NATION, THE ONLY STATE, FREDERICA. THERE’S SIX DIFFERENT STATES THAT DO ALLOW FOR UNLIMITED CORPORATE SPENDING. WE’LL BE THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL ALLOW THIS ZERO DISCLOSURE AND NO DISCLAIMER. AS JAY HECK HAS SAID, WE’VE GONE FROM FIRST TO WORST IN THE NATION. AND IT IS EMBARRASSING AND I BELIEVE IT OPENS UP THE STATE FOR MASSIVE CORRUPTION.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

IN FACT, YOU’VE SAID THAT THIS WEEK WITH THE RAFT OF BILLS THAT PASSED THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY WAS THE WORST WEEK IN YOUR POLITICAL CAREER. IS THAT AS REPUBLICANS SUGGEST HYPERBOLE?

PETER BARCA:

NOT HYBERBOLE AT ALL. IT’S JUST SO SAD TO ME. I MEAN WE’VE HIT A NEW LOW, IN MY JUDGMENT. I MEAN THE IDEA THAT YOU GET RID OF THE GAB, SOMETHING THAT WAS VOTED ON BY 130 LEGISTATURES IN FAVOR, ONLY TWO AGAINST, THAT’S BEEN CITED BY THE OHIO STATE CENTER THAT LOOKS AT THESE THINGS AS A NATIONAL MODEL AND WENT TO A PARTISAN SYSTEM, I DON’T BELIEVE ANY CITIZEN WILL WANT THAT. I THINK IT’S JUST TERRIBLE. BUT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, IN THAT SAME BILL, IF YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE LEGISLATORS OR OTHER OFFICIALS, YOU HAVE TO ASK THEIR PERMISSION, ESSENTIALLY. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO ANY MAJOR KIND OF INVESTIGATION THAT COSTS MORE THAN $25,000, SAYING, MR. CO-CHAIRMAN, WE’RE THINKING OF INVESTIGATING YOU. WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AS TO GIVE US SOME MONEY TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE YOU? I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF SOME SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE. IT’S JUST BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE VERY PEOPLE POTENTIALLY THAT ARE BEING INVESTIGATED HAVING TO GIVE PERMISSION. IT’S OUTRAGEOUS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW, ON THE JOHN DOE BILL THAT WAS THE THIRD OF THE TRIFECTA THIS WEEK, THAT PROHIBITS THE TYPES OF SECRET INVESTIGATIONS FOR POLITICAL CRIMES. WHAT IN YOUR MIND IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THAT?

PETER BARCA:

I DON’T KNOW, BUT DANA WACHS FROM EAU CLAIRE CALLED IT THE CORRUPT POLITICIAN PROTECTION ACT, WHICH I THINK IS SO APT, BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT TYPE OF ABILITY FOR PROSECUTORS, THERE’S A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT GOVERNOR WALKER’S SIX ALLIES AND AIDES WHEN HE WAS COUNTY EXECUTIVE MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED. AND THEY ACTUALLY MADE PARTS OF IT RETROACTIVE BELIEVE OR NOT. NOT QUITE THAT FAR BACK. BUT IF IT IS IN FACT SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN’T BE UTILIZED IN WISCONSIN, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE FUNDED GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT. SECONDLY, IF THEY IN FACT THOUGHT THIS WAS SUCH A TERRIBLE PROCESS TO USE, WHICH HAS BEEN USED SINCE WE WERE A TERRITORY, IN FACT, THEN WHY NOT EXCLUDE ALL CRIMES? WHY STRICTLY POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL CRIMES? AGAIN, THIS WAS A WEEK WHERE THEY FEATHERED THEIR OWN NEST, WHERE I THINK YOU PROTECTED PEOPLE WHO ARE CORRUPT POLITICIANS FROM REALLY HAVING EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATORY TOOLS, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH GAB, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH JOHN DOE. AND AT A TIME WHEN WE’RE GIVING UNLIMITED SPENDING ABILITY WITH NO DISCLOSURE. IT’S JUST SO OUTRAGEOUS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

PETER BARCA, THANKS VERY MUCH.

PETER BARCA:

THANK YOU. GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.