Here & Now

Rep. Vos Defends Campaign Finance Proposal

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

BUT FIRST A TRIFECTA OF BILLS PASSED IN THE ASSEMBLY THIS WEEK INCLUDING CHANGING THE GAB BACK TO TWO COMMISSIONS, SIMILAR TO THE FORMER ETHICS AND ELECTIONS BOARD. GETTING RID OF JOHN DOE INVESTIGATIONS FOR POLITICAL CRIMES WHICH THIS AFTERNOON THE GOVERNOR SIGNED INTO LAW. AND NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE LEGISLATION. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT MEASURE WOULD ALLOW POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES TO MAKE UNLIMITED DONATIONS TO A CANDIDATE COMMITTEE. IT WOULD BAN COORDINATION BETWEEN CANDIDATES AND OUTSIDE GROUPS ON SO CALLED EXPRESS ADVOCACY- ADS FOR EXAMPLE THAT TELL WHO TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW COORDINATION ON ISSUE ADVOCACY ADS THAT STICK TO A CANDIDATE'S POSITIONS ON ISSUES. NOW, REPUBLICANS SAY THE BILL SIMPLY FOLLOWS THE LEAD OF THE COURT AND CLEANS UP LANGUAGE. DEMOCRATS SAY IT WILL FLOOD ELECTIONS WITH THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF MORE AND MORE MONEY. AND SO FOR THEIR PART, WHEN THE TIME CAME TO VOTE ON THE BILL, DEMOCRATS CLAIMED ITS PROVISIONS REPRESENTED A PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SO THEY TOOK AN UNPRECEDENTED STEP.

CLERK:

RELATING TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AS THE FINAL VOTE FOR THE BILL CAME UP, DEMOCRATS AS A BLOC RECUSED.

CORY MASON:

THERE’S A REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR PEOPLE VOTING ON THIS TODAY. SO MR. SPEAKER, FOR ME, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS BILL COULD DIRECTLY IMPACT MY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL HAS A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS MATTER, I MUST THEREFORE RECUSE MYSELF ON VOTING FOR THIS BILL.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

THE MINORITY PARTY THEN ALL STOOD TO SPEAK, CAUSING MOMENTARY CONFUSION. BUT WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR WHAT WAS HAPPENING, THE SPEAKER WAS NOT PLEASED.

ROBIN VOS:

WHAT YOU’RE BASICALLY SAYING IS YOU DON’T WANT YOUR CONSTITUENTS REPRESENTED. AND YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT I THINK LET’S BE HONEST AND SAY THAT IF YOU ARE NOW TAKING A STANDARD TO SAY THAT IF A BILL AFFECTS YOU, YOU CAN’T VOTE ON IT. YOU’RE NOT VOTING ON THE STATE BUDGET. YOU’RE NOT VOTING ON THE GAB. YOU’RE NOT VOTING ON ALMOST EVERYTHING ON OUR CALENDAR NEXT WEEK. THAT IS AN AMAZING PLACE TO BE. AND UNFORTUNATELY RATHER THAN SHOWING THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ARGUMENT, YOU’RE SHOWING THAT YOU’RE TREATING THIS INSTITUTION LIKE A JOKE.

GORDON HINTZ:

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT’S A JOKE? YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT’S RIDICULOUS? ONE GUY WRITES A BILL AND TRIES TO JAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS IN TWO WEEKS. THAT’S A JOKE.

JOEL KLEEFISCH:

THIS IS A STUNT. EVERY SINGLE THING WE VOTE ON IN THIS BODY AFFECTS OUR CONSTITUENTS AND IN SOME WAY POTENTIALLY US EVERY TIME WE TAKE A VOTE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

ONE MILWAUKEE DEMOCRAT WAS THE MOST PLAINSPOKEN OF ALL ABOUT HER DECISION TO RECUSE.

LATONYA JOHNSON:

THE REAL REASON THAT I’M RECUSING MYSELF FROM VOTING FOR THIS BILL, MR. SPEAKER, IS BECAUSE IT SUCKS. THIS BILL SUCKS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AFTER ALL THE RECUSALS, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE BILL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY SPEAKER REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE ROBIN VOS JOINS US NOW FROM BURLINGTON. MR. SPEAKER, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING SO.

ROBIN VOS:

THANKS FOR DOING IT FREDERICA. I APPRECIATE IT.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WELL AS YOU KNOW DEMOCRATS HAVE LOTS OF ANGRY WORDS FOR THIS WEEK’S SLATE OF BILLS THAT PASSED IN THE ASSEMBLY. WORDS THAT YOU DESCRIBE AS HYPERBOLE, BUT LET’S START WITH THAT MEASURE THAT LED TO THOSE RECUSALS-CAMPAIGN FINANCE. WHY DOES WISCONSIN NEED THIS LEGISLATION?

ROBIN VOS:

WELL, OVER THE COURSE OF REALLY THE PAST 50 YEARS BECAUSE REMEMBER THE LAST TIME CAMPAIGN FINANCE WAS UPDATED IN WISCONSIN WAS 1973. I WAS FIVE YEARS OLD SO IT’S AN AWEFUL LONG TIME COMING. SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAVE BEEN LITERALLY DOZENS OF COURT DECISIONS AT THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, ALL DEALING WITH WISCONSIN’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, REALLY MAKING IT INTO A BIG LUMP OF SWISS CHEESE WITH ALL KINDS OF HOLES THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM. SO WHAT OUR PROPOSAL DOES IT REALLY TAKES ALL OF THOSE COURT CASES, WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE COURT CASE OR DISAGREE WITH IT, AND I WOULD SAY THE SAME WITH THE DEMOCRATS, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT SYSTEM HAVE REALLY BEEN THE ONES WRITING WISCONSIN’S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. AND I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE ELECTED LEGISLATURE CODIFING EXACTLY WHAT SUPREME COURT AND WHAT COURT CASES HAVE BEEN DECIDED AND DRAWING A VERY BRIGHT LINE SO THAT ANYBODY WHO’S PARTICIPATING IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, BE THEY A CANDIDATE OR A VOTER OR SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO INFLUENCE THE PROCESS THROUGH THE ELECTION CYCLE, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED. AND THAT’S THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND OUR PROPOSAL, WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT BEING CODIFYING COURT CASES THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED AT ONE LEVEL OR ANOTHER.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW IN FACT OUR STATE SUPREME COURT RULED COORDINATION BETWEEN A CANDIDATE AND AN OUTSIDE ISSUE ADVOCACY GROUP IS A MATTER OF FREE SPEECH. AND NOW CODIFYING THIS AS YOU SAY WOULD MAKE US THE ONLY STATE IN THE NATION TO ALLOW THIS. WHY DO CANDIDATES WANT TO COORDINATE WITH SUCH OUTSIDE GROUPS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, CLUB FOR GROWTH?

ROBIN VOS:

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR STATE HAS BEEN A LEADER IN SO MANY THINGS AND I GUESS STANDING UP AND PROTECTING AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FREE AMENDMENT IS AS OPEN AND OPERATIVE AS POSSIBLE IS REALLY A GOOD THING FOR OUR STATE AND I THINK FOR OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY. ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WHATEVER THEIR POLITICAL PARTY ARE FRUSTRATED WITH IS THE FACT THAT WE NEED MORE PEOPLE KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING ON IN GOVERNMENT. HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY AT ELECTION TIME WHO’S FOR AND AGAINST THE THINGS YOU’RE PASSIONATE ABOUT. AND THAT’S REALLY WHAT A LOT OF GROUPS DO WITH ISSUE ADVOCACY. THEY DON’T ELECT A CANDIDATE. THEY DON’T SAY VOTE FOR OR VOTE AGAINST. THAT’S CALLED EXPRESS ADVOCACY. AND ACTUALLY IN OUR BILL WE HAVE GREATER REGULATION ON EXPRESS ADVOCACY. BUT IF YOU’RE AN ISSUE ADVOCACY GROUP ADVOCATING FOR LOWER TAXES OR MORE SPENDING FOR SCHOOLS I REALLY THINK UNDER THE CONSTITUTION YOU SHOULD HAVE EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWPOINTS AND HOPEFULLY TRY TO INFLUENCE THE DEBATE. WE NEED MORE DEBATE AND MORE DISCUSSION, NOT LESS.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

BUT NOW THE BILL ALSO ALLOWS SOME BIG SPENDERS TO STAY SECRET NOT REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF WHO’S FUNDING THESE KINDS OF GROUPS WHICH DON’T EXPRESSLY ADVOCATE FOR CANDIDATES. WHAT’S THE BENEFIT OF NOT HAVING TO DISCLOSE?

ROBIN VOS:

WELL, LET’S REMEMBER THAT ON EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL YOU SEE ON TELEVISION, WHERE IT’S ADVOCATING FOR AN ISSUE, THEY DON’T HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHERE THEIR MONEY COMES FROM OR HOW IT’S SPENT. AND THAT’S THE LAW. THAT’S THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT THEY HAVE UNDER CITIZENS UNITED AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SO WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IS WE’RE TRYING TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITICAL PARTY PROCESS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IN WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS IN THE EARLY 1990s CREATED A LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWED UNLIMITED SPENDING FROM UNIONS TO GO INTO POLITICAL PARTIES TO HELP THEM ELECT CANDIDATES. BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT FAIR. SO RATHER THAN SAYING A UNION CAN’T BE INVOLVED, WE WANT TO GIVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY SO EACH SIDE HAS A CHANCE TO BE IN AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCESS THROUGH THE POLITICAL PARTY. THAT’S WHAT I WOULD PREFER, IS MORE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THAT OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCESS. IT’S WHY WE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICS THROUGH A TRADITIONAL PARTY WHERE WE KNOW WHAT EACH SIDE STANDS FOR AND HAVING A CITIZEN BOARD TO BE ABLE TO RUN IT. BUT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BAND TOGETHER AND TO ADVOCATE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. AND THERE’S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT DISCLOSURE.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

NOW I WANT TO JUST MOVE ALONG THEN TO THE WATCHDOG ON ALL OF THIS. YOU AND OTHER REPUBLICANS DESCRIBE THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AS A FAILED EXPERIMENT. HOW SO?

ROBIN VOS:

WELL, THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AND REMEMBER FREDERICA, I VOTED FOR IT IN 2007. AND THE HOPE AT THAT TIME WAS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE NONPARTISAN INDIVIDUALS PUTTING ASIDE THEIR DIFFERENCES AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD, CLEAN ELECTIONS. WELL SINCE THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, NOT A SINGLE CASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT WHERE SOMEBODY WAS ACTUALLY CONVICTED. JUST A LOT OF EMPTY CHARGES THAT WERE ALL THROWN OUT BY A COURT. WE SAW UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM WE ACTUALLY HAD A MUCH MORE RIGOROUS PROCESS WHERE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE WATCHDOGS ON EACH OTHER TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY WENT OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES. AND THAT’S WHY WE SAW THE CONVICTIONS INSIDE THE CAUCUS SCANDAL WHICH OCCURED RIGHT INSIDE THE CAPITOL UNFORTUNATELY. AS I LOOK AT THE FUTURE, WE REALLY HAD THIS MISGUIDED NOTION THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE NONPARTISAN. AND EVEN IF THE FACTS WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATS’ SIDE, AND I CERTAINLY DON’T THINK THEY ARE, DON’T YOU WANT TO HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM FEELING LIKE THE PROCESS IS FAIR? AND BY HAVING IT AS A BIPARTISAN WATCHDOG, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BOTH EQUAL ON THE BOARD, I THINK WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A BETTER PROCESS THAT PEOPLE CAN REALLY BELIEVE IN.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

AND ON THE CAUCUS SCANDAL, IT WAS EVENTUALLY A JOHN DOE PROBE THAT RESULTED IN THE CHARGES IN THOSE PARTICULAR CASES, AND ON JOHN DOE WHY IS IT THAT THE BILL THAT YOU PASSED IN THE ASSEMBLY THIS WEEK WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH PROBES FOR POLITICAL CRIMES? I MEAN, WHY IS IT OKAY FOR THERE TO BE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATIONS FOR OTHER KINDS OF CRIMES, BUT NOT POLITICAL CRIMES?

ROBIN VOS:

WELL, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT’S THE DEMOCRATS’ TALKING POINT BUT IT’S NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE THE WAY THAT WE HAVE STRUCTURED THE BILL, IF YOU THINK OF HOW THE OTHER 49 STATES IN OUR COUNTRY OPERATE, IT’S SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE ON LAW AND ORDER. WHERE YOU HAVE A PROSECUTOR STANDING IN FRONT OF A GROUP OF CITIZENS IN A GRAND JURY HAVING TO EXPLAIN WHY HE OR SHE BELIEVES THAT THERE’S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO ISSUE AN INDICTMENT CHARGE. AND THAT’S WHEN LIBERTIES BEGIN TO BE TAKEN AWAY, WHEN THAT INDICTMENT CHARGE IS ISSUED. UNDER OUR CURRENT PROCESS YOU CAN’T TALK TO YOUR LAWYER IN MANY CASES. YOU CAN’T TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS OR YOUR FAMILY. YOU HAVE NO ABILITY TO DEFEND YOURSELF. AND IT’S REALLY A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A JUDGE, WHO THE PROSECUTOR FREQUENTLY HAS WORKED WITH FOR YEARS, AND THAT PROSECUTOR WITH NO OVERSIGHT. THAT IS NOT FAIR. IT’S A STAR CHAMBER CONCEPT. AND WE’RE NOT ELIMINATING IT FOR POLITICIANS. WE’RE ELIMINATING IT FOR ENTIRE CLASSES OF CRIMES. SO NOT FOR MURDER. NOT FOR RACKETEERING. BUT AS AN EXAMPLE BRIBERY. WE DON’T NEED TO HAVE A SECRET PROCESS FOR BRIBERY. IF SOMEBODY ATTEMPTS TO BRIBE SOMEBODY TO GET A LOAN AT A BANK, THEY’LL BE PROSECUTED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS SOMEBODY WHO ATTEMPTED TO BRIBE A POLITICIAN. SO NO ONE IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. IT’S JUST THEY’LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS GRAND JURY PROCESS LIKE 49 OTHER STATES DO. AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ANY NEWS SEARCH, ANY SITE ON GOOGLE, YOU WILL REALIZE RIGHT AWAY THAT CONVICTIONS HAPPEN IN A LOT OF OTHER STATES WITH POLITICIANS USING THE SYSTEM THAT WE’RE PROPOSING. IT’S NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT’S BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN A LOT OF OTHER PLACES.

FREDERICA FREYBERG:

WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE. ROBIN VOS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

ROBIN VOS:

THANKS, FREDERICA. I ALWAYS ENJOY IT.