Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production. You’re watching “Here & Now” 2024 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:
Out of staters come to Wisconsin to campaign for the presidential election and Tony Evers’ attempt to force Republicans’ hand on PFAS funding falls flat.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Charles Franklin joins us for the latest match ups for president and U.S. Senate. Then the Menominee Indian Tribe is suing big social media companies. We speak to their lawyer. Another impasse over PFAS funding leaves impacted communities waiting and how some school districts use financial tools to keep local tax rates stable. It’s “Here and Now” for April 19.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
Enthusiasm for voting in the presidential election is way down from four years ago. That’s a message from the latest Marquette Law School poll out this week. For details we turn to poll director Charles Franklin and thanks very much for being here.

Charles Franklin:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Overall how does enthusiasm to vote for president compare to 2020?

Charles Franklin:
Compared to March of 2020 versus now, early April, it’s down 20 points who say they are very enthusiastic about voting. That’s quite a drop and it was down in our January poll, also about 20 points below where it had been four years ago. Now enthusiasm can change over the course of the year. This is not necessarily baked in but I think certainly at the start of the races, it shows we’re not really eager in looking forward to the fall campaign.

Frederica Freyberg:
Let’s take a look at the presidential matchups in your polling. It is Trump 51% to Biden at 49%. In your last poll, they were even but you also found independent RFK, Jr. got 13% and he was taking votes from Trump. What is this spelling for Biden?

Charles Franklin:
We’ve seen this in several polls now, that Republicans vote for Kennedy about four to five points more than Democrats vote for Kennedy. So it is a little more from the Republican side. Now the Green candidate, Jill Stein and the independent, Cornell West, take more from Democrats than Republicans. This month is basically a very small change. Trump is up two in the head-to-head. He’s up by one point in the five-way race. So the net effect of all this is actually slightly improved Biden’s position but it is a very slight difference. One last thing, Kennedy getting 13%. Remember in 2016, which was the recent high-water mark in Wisconsin, all independent candidates together only got 5.5% of the vote.

Frederica Freyberg:
So 13% is a big number. Taking a look at the Tammy Baldwin – Eric Hovde comparison, among registered voters is Democrat Tammy Baldwin, 52% to 47% for Republican challenger Hovde. How has that moved since Hovde announced?

Charles Franklin:
We didn’t have an earlier vote question because he wasn’t an announced candidate yet. This is our first time of polling that. Hovde has gotten better known since January, when we did ask if you had a favorable or unfavorable view. Then in January, 82% said they didn’t know enough to have an opinion. This time it’s 56%. So a substantial growth in name recognition for him but still more than half the electorate don’t have an opinion. That’s totally normal for nonincumbent candidates at this stage of the race but by comparison 11% said they didn’t have an opinion of Tammy Baldwin.

Frederica Freyberg:
Among likely voters, their numbers are even at 50%. What is the implication of that?

Charles Franklin:
Well, it’s two things. One is that 50/50 tie means this could look like a close race. If people were thinking of Baldwin’s 11 point win six years ago, this looks like a much closer race than what we saw in 2018. The other is that I think Hovde actually benefits in an odd kind of way in that 50/50 split we are saying Democrat Tammy Baldwin or Republican Eric Hovde when half the electorate don’t have an opinion of Hovde supplying the Republican label really helps them decide, oh, this is someone on my team or maybe not on my team. Two other ways of asking the question show a range of answers with Baldwin ahead by as much as seven or five as we just emphasized on the registered voter or tied. So it is a range of things. I think a close race is the best answer to take away from it.

Frederica Freyberg:
Looking kind of deeper into the enthusiasm part of your polling specific to presidential candidates, it seems lopsided. Forty-one percent of Biden voters are very enthusiastic to vote compared to 59% of Trump voters. Then for not at all enthusiastic to vote, 62% say that for Joe Biden, 37% for Donald Trump.

Charles Franklin:
I think this is really the look of the race, that Trump has a very supportive, very enthusiastic group behind him. Biden voters are just simply maybe Biden voters. They are certainly mostly not Trump voters but they’re not really excited about the race or enthusiastic. They, like the country, have reservations about Biden’s age. There’s a division within the party about handling Israel and Hamas and all of those things are making Biden supporters unenthusiastic even if they are still pretty committed to voting for him. And can you mobilize those unenthusiastic supporters?

Frederica Freyberg:
Let’s take a look at issues that you polled on. The top three issues were the economy, immigration and abortion. It seems of note that the issue of Israel and Gaza was way down the list at 2%.

Charles Franklin:
Way down at 2% and among people 18 to 29, it was 7% that said Israel and Gaza was the most important problem. I think this is just a good example that individual groups and particular issues can mobilize a lot of people who have really strong opinions. That doesn’t mean it’s the most important issue on the country as a whole or even among young voters and it is less than 7% among Democrats and people who consider themselves very liberal. The other thing on this issue is that Democrats put abortion as the first issue but immigration only gets 1% as the most important issue for Democrats. It and the economy are by far the top two issues for Republicans.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right, Charles Franklin, thanks very much.

Charles Franklin:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
A Menominee nation lawsuit against social media giants like Meta, Snap, YouTube and TikTok blames the companies for rewiring the brains of teens and young adults causing suicidal distress. The suit alleges the algorithms coded into the platforms encouraging obsessive scrolling and resulting negative self-image, especially among girls. The lawsuit cites the CDC, saying tribal teen suicide rates far exceed the national average, alleging a link to social media use. We are joined now by one of the attorneys for the Menominee Indian Tribe, Timothy Purdon. Thanks very much for being here.

Timothy Purdon:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Your lawsuit describes how soaring suicide and mental illness have devastated tribal communities. What is the situation among the Menominee in Wisconsin?

Timothy Purdon:
Generally across Indian Country, the reservation communities like Menominee, you know, for a long time, decades really, you know, the tribal youth, the teenage populations in those communities, really some of the most at risk populations in this country. You look at any of the statistics for mental health, suicide rates, those sort of things, a Native American female teenager has a five-time rate of suicide risk to a white female teenager. Those sorts of statistics are all too common in Indian Country and over the last ten years, we’ve seen injected into that vulnerable population the sophisticated business practices and algorithms of these social media companies which the growing research and data directly links to decreased mental health amongst teenagers, increased suicides, all those sorts of things.

Frederica Freyberg:
How exactly, in your belief, does a young person engaging with social media apps contribute to this?

Timothy Purdon:
Well, the statistics are clear, right. The CDC studies are clear and they establish a link. So that is the scientific basis behind this lawsuit and a number of other lawsuits. Let’s be clear. Menominee Indian Tribe is not the first entity to come forward and sue these social media giants for the negative impact on teenage youth mental health. Forty-one, at least 41 state attorneys general filed lawsuits similar to ours last October against these companies including the attorney general for the state of Wisconsin. This is a nationwide epidemic, a nationwide crisis. Social media platforms impacting young people. The point of our lawsuit is in the mix of all that the most vulnerable population of teenagers in this country are Native teens living in their reservation communities.

Frederica Freyberg:
So that is why this is what you describe as a first of its kind lawsuit?

Timothy Purdon:
Right. So historically — historically over the last 150 years if you will, tribal nations have not necessarily come forward and exercised their sovereignty in this way. Coming forward, filing a lawsuit on a public health crisis that’s impacting their reservation as it’s impacting the rest of the country. In the big tobacco cases of late ’90s, American Indian tribes were not plaintiffs. They didn’t sue the big cigarette companies and when those cases went to trial and settled, tribal communities didn’t really share in the settlement dollars. Over the last five, six years, you’ve seen that change. Tribes were heavily involved in the litigation against the national — national litigation against opioid manufacturers and distributors for the opioid epidemic in this country. Again, an epidemic that has hit tribal communities exceptionally hard. Over 225 federally recognized tribes came forward and filed lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers. And when those cases settled, to date over $1.5 billion will flow directly to tribes from those settlements. This is the latest situation where tribes are exercising their sovereignty. Sitting shoulder to shoulder if you will with the state attorney general from Wisconsin, the attorney general from Minnesota, and bringing these cases saying we are tribal governments. We are sovereign. We have these claims. Our people have been impacted. It’s a robust, growing exercise of sovereignty by tribal nations in our country.

Frederica Freyberg:
What is your suit seeking?

Timothy Purdon:
Well, we — there’s a public health crisis. The suit alleges there’s been a public health crisis created here and we’re seeking compensation, abatement. We want to see that the dollars flow to the tribes so they can develop programs to address the growing mental health crisis and suicide crisis that is linked to the business practices of some of these defendants.

Frederica Freyberg:
So are there specific ideas, to your knowledge, on the part of the tribes of how they would specifically use this money?

Timothy Purdon:
We are, you know, we’re at the very — we are taking the first step in what could be a very long journey towards justice here. So to talk about what this might look like at the end I think is a little premature. I can tell you in the opioid cases, tribes that have received some of that $1.5 billion have built treatment facilities, have expanded treatment opportunities on the reservation and those sorts of mental health treatment, mental health care options are all too scarce in Indian Country. So any monies that can be brought in to bring help to people on the reservation is a big help.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. We leave it there. Timothy Purdon, thanks very much.

Timothy Purdon:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Action and inaction on the major problem of PFAS contamination in Wisconsin. On the action part, new federal maximum levels have been set at four parts per trillion, much lower than Wisconsin’s 70 parts per trillion. On the inaction part, Republican lawmakers this week rejected Governor Tony Evers call to meet and approve spending $125 million to help deal with PFAS. Meanwhile state and national lawsuits against parties deemed responsible for PFAS contamination are in various stages of settlement or verdict. One lodged by Wisconsin against Tyco Fire Products goes to trial later this year. Tyco manufactured firefighting foam used at its training facility in Marinette. It and surrounding communities including Peshtigo are now hot spots in Wisconsin for PFAS contamination. With health problems associated with exposure to PFAS and years of testing and fighting and looking for help, our next guest is former chair of the town of Peshtigo board, Cindy Boyle. Thanks very much for being here.

Cindy Boyle:
Thank you for having me. I’m happy to discuss this.

Frederica Freyberg:
Just to set the stage, how long have you been fighting to try to address PFAS in your hometown and your own property?

Cindy Boyle:
This November will be eight years.

Frederica Freyberg:
So there have been hundreds of millions of dollars hoping to come to the rescue of places like Peshtigo from feds, the state, lawsuit settlements, even company outlays. Has that money yet made a difference to you?

Cindy Boyle:
I’m encouraged by the fact there is significant funding coming to states on what appears to be a consistent basis at this point. Far more than we could have hoped for even seven years ago, or six years ago. To my knowledge, not in a significant meaningful way as far as a permanent water solution for our community’s problem, no, not yet but I know the DNR does have mechanisms in which to distribute and allocate some of that funding to actually start putting it to use and putting it to work. We just have to now hopefully get that funding released from the trust and into the DNR’s direction.

Frederica Freyberg:
Because as to the infighting between the governor and Republican legislators over $125 million, what do residents like yourself think of that fighting in Madison when you are looking for this urgent help?

Cindy Boyle:
It’s an important question and it’s complicated, as are all things PFAS. But I wonder — I understood very well that SB312 legislation and understood the arguments on both sides of that. I’m concerned — I’m grateful first of all that Governor Evers did veto it. The primary reason for that is because we as a state cannot afford to have in any way, shape or form, this bill’s law weakened. This bill’s law is the single mechanism by which residents in the state of Wisconsin have protection with the DNR. If they lose that protection in any way, shape or form, our community, for one, would never have benefitted from the help they have provided us. So we need to keep that foremost in our minds as things go forward. I am very, very hopeful that new legislation will make its way through or that the finance committee will at least release those funds as intended over a year ago. It needs to start being able to be put to work.

Frederica Freyberg:
So PFAS is complicated. All the remediations and all the responsible parties and all of it. Has this divided your community?

Cindy Boyle:
More recently I would say people get a little bit worn out. Maybe they get a little defeated and feel like there isn’t going to be a solution or maybe people thought the partial settlement that Tyco distributed through our community was the best they could hope for and are now choosing to not think about it. I don’t know. I know the topic too well to do any of those things, so myself and others who are in community leadership roles and advocacy roles are working very hard in our community to continue moving forward toward permanent safe water and accountability for the responsible party.

Frederica Freyberg:
Meanwhile, you describe being excited about a new announcement out of the EPA. What was that?

Cindy Boyle:
Yes. So this morning the Biden administration finalized a rule for the first time in 40 years. They are deeming PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, which is critical because it will qualify them under CERCLA, more commonly understood as Superfund. Now, that seems very contradictory to say that you would ever hope your community would be considered for Superfund because basically it means you live in a very polluted area but it also means the EPA has the authority to come in and hold responsible parties accountable to make sure they do adequate, comprehensive remediation for things like surface water, soils, as well as help innocent land owners such as myself, make sure that we have permanent safe water solutions. Without today’s announcement, there was uncertainty around the next steps for this. With today’s announcement, we are very vindicated and encouraged and optimistic that there is still a strong path forward, so we are very, very grateful this rule has gone into place.

Frederica Freyberg:
Combine that with recent EPA setting the max PFAS level at four parts per trillion, what was that like?

Cindy Boyle:
Equally amazing. It doesn’t impact our community directly because our community is on private drinking wells but last — well, a week ago Wednesday, the rule that you just referenced, that is for water systems that are on utilities. So all the people who are on water through a public utility now have the assurance of the protections, especially for Wisconsin, we had as you mentioned earlier, a limit of 70 parts per trillion and the EPA adjusted that now to four parts per trillion, which is a more protective number. We are very grateful for that. That too had not happened in 30 years so these are really significant steps. I’m going to give it to you straight. That tells me two things: Industry lobbyists are very good at their job. Number two, it tells you how bad PFAS is that those two rules still were made.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Cindy Boyle, we leave it there. Thank you very much.

Cindy Boyle:
Thank you very much.

Frederica Freyberg:
Just before the April election, we reported on the rise of school districts around the state going to referendum for operating expenses. In February and April, voters approved 41 operating referenda, the biggest being the $252 million a year for Milwaukee Public Schools. But a number of districts saw their requests denied by voters. The two school districts we profiled, Fort Atkinson and Richland, both saw theirs passed. “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz tells us they both used the same method to make their referenda look more appealing to voters promising them the tax increase wouldn’t cost them anything.

Zac Schultz:
In the runup to election day, the Fort Atkinson School District held a public information session on the referendum.

Kory Knickrehm:
The upcoming operational referendum provides the district to use funds differently.

Zac Schultz:
The district was telling voters the operational referendum would let them levy an additional $6.5 million a year for three years to avoid more cuts but it was promising voters it would not result in a tax increase.

Man:
I just want to make sure that I have the figures straight because I’m still having trouble relating.

Zac Schultz:
There was a lot of confusion.

Man:
I’m afraid I don’t understand that connection.

Zac Schultz:
Here is the amount Fort Atkinson receives from property taxes. Fort Atkinson could promise a $6.5 million increase for the next three years wouldn’t raise taxes because they’d already increased their levy by $7 million the year before to prepay an old construction loan. It’s called defeasance and it’s one of the only ways a district can increase their spending limits without permission from voters or the state. If the operating referendum passed, they would go back to paying their normal debt payment in future years. Defeasance is essentially prepaying debt to avoid interest. District administrator Rob Abbott says after their operating referendum failed the prior two years, the school board decided to raise their levy to prepaid debt.

Rob Abbott:
The idea of defeasance or prepaying debt is difficult for people to understand but definitely is a strategy that is a long-term benefit to the taxpayer. In our case, it equates to around $3.4 million in savings of interest over the term of those 20-year bonds.

Zac Schultz:
But the school board members clearly didn’t want to say they had already raised taxes on their own. They described it as needing voter approval to reallocate funds.

Robynn Selle:
Now we’re saying we need the money to be able to maintain the current programming we have. We can’t use that funding over there that we use to prepay the debt.

Zac Schultz:
It really wasn’t sinking in.

Man:
Of that prepaid $7 million one-time payment, you’re seeking permission to shift $6.5 million three times.

Nathan Knitt:
We are levying the same dollar amount over each year, approximately but we’re just shift — we’re reallocating based on voter permission.

Another Man:
It doesn’t matter whether we vote yes or no because you are still going to — you’re still going to just move it around.

Woman:
No, they can’t. They can’t move it around. They need our permission.

Rob Abbott:
Even in our best efforts to be as simple or to be as concrete as possible when talking about school finance, it’s still very, very difficult for people to understand how all of that works.

Zac Schultz:
In the Richland School District, an increase in state aid a couple years ago would have meant a drop in the tax rate.

Steve Board:
We wanted to stabilize that mill rate and then use that to prepay some of our existing debt.

Zac Schultz:
District administrator Steve Board says the school board decided to use defeasance to keep the rate the same.

Steve Board:
As a result, we have taken an $8.7 million debt and we’ve cut it down to just under $4 million in just a couple of years.

Zac Schultz:
That allowed them to sell their referendum as tax neutral as well.

Steve Board:
So then we’ve been able to use that gap to do this operational referendum essentially at a zero tax impact.

Zac Schultz:
Both district administrators say the use of defeasance to set up their operating referendum was key to passage.

Rob Abbott:
This isn’t a referendum we can live without so we are forced to create an effort that will hopefully be as successful as possible in passing a referendum.

Zac Schultz:
Richland’s operating referendum passed by 139 votes. Fort Atkinson’s passed by just 79 votes. Some of their neighboring districts didn’t have the same results. Voters in the Mauston School District rejected their operating referendum by 480 votes. Voters in the Jefferson School District rejected theirs by 685. Both Mauston and Jefferson were asking for less money than their neighbors but each of those came with a tax increase. So should we expect to see more districts using defeasance of capital debt in order to make an operating referendum look tax neutral?

Steve Board:
A district can only do that if they have referendum debt out there for capital improvements that they are taking out bonds on and then they can use that defeasance strategy as way to help stabilize the mill rate.

Rob Abbott:
But I think for other districts, if they are not passing an operational referendum, the only other way they can keep that tax rate stable or where it had been is to prepay debt, if they have debt. But of course when districts run out of debt, that opportunity evaporates as well.

Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Fort Atkinson, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here and Now.”

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.