Campaign Reform Survey: Hintz Yes, Leschke/Didlo No Response

The League of Women Voters along with Common Cause and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently posed 6 questions to all legislative, gubernatorial, and attorney general candidates. With former state legislative leaders convicted of felonies, and Wisconsin now a national model of pay to play politics, and with the ethical caliber of the state's politics at an all time low, you'd think that candidates would jump at the chance to demonstrate their support for reform.

Not so. In the 54th Assembly District, Democrat Gordon Hintz answered "Yes" to all 6 questions, but Republicans Julie Leschke (who is supported actively by assembly majority leader Mike Huebsch, a hostile anti-reform insider) and Larry Didlo did not respond. Leschke continues to disappoint by claiming to be indepedent and not a politician, yet almost always ending up on the side of the Republican party leadership in Madison. In other words, she's acting just like another politician.

If the 54th continues to remain in the hands of the Republicans, it should be someone like Senator Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) who is willing to take stands that defy the party leadership. So far we have not seen that from Julie Pung-Underheim, I mean Leschke.

On the other hand, responding "Yes" to the 6 survey questions below doesn't really mean much of anything. Jim Doyle answered Yes to all six questions, yet no one seriously believes that he will lead on reform issues, especially given how his reelection campaign is for sale to the highest bidders. And no one around these parts other than Xoffian spinmeisters thinks that Gordon will go to Madison and defy Doyle on anything.

Mark Green would probably be worse than Doyle on campaign finance reform and ethics issues, but not by much. For honest government, the Green Party's Nelson Eisman is the only serious choice.

Here are the 6 questions Hintz answered yes to:

1. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for bipartisan legislation (similar to 2005-2006 Senate Bill 1) to strengthen enforcement of Wisconsin's ethics code and campaign finance laws by replacing the current State Elections and State Ethics Boards with a nonpartisan and politically independent Government Accountability Board with an enforcement division with the authority and resources to investigate and prosecute violations of state elections, ethics, campaign finance and lobbying laws and regulations?

2. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for bipartisan, comprehensive campaign finance reform that would reduce special interest influence and the cost of campaigning by setting new voluntary campaign spending limits as a threshold condition for receiving public financing grants equal to at least 35 to 45 percent of the legally established spending limits for the offices they seek as well as:

• Provide supplemental public grants to candidates who are the targets of outside interest group spending and/or are opposed by candidates who do not agree to limit their spending and exceed the spending limit;
• Require increased disclosure and regulation of so-called "issue advocacy" by interest groups or individuals;
• Prohibit campaign fundraising during the state budget process and ban contributions by anyone bidding for a state contract;
• Eliminate leadership-controlled legislative campaign committees;
• Limit out-of-state special interest money;
• Ban the pooling of special interest political action committee money to create so-called "SuperPACs"?

3. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for bipartisan legislation mirroring the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Law of 2002 (commonly known as McCain-Feingold) requiring the complete disclosure of the source of funding for so-called "issue ads" and requiring that the funds for such ads comply with campaign contribution limits in Wisconsin law? (This would limit individual donations and prohibit the use of money from the general treasuries of corporations, labor unions and Native American tribes to pay for such electioneering.)

4. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for legislative measures making electoral competitiveness a legal or constitutional standard that must be applied by the Legislature and the courts in establishing state legislative and congressional district boundaries?

5. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for legislative measures establishing an independent commission or authority to handle the task of redrawing legislative and congressional districts after each census beginning in 2011?

6. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for legislation to tighten Wisconsin's "revolving door" policy by requiring at least a one-year "cooling off" period before former legislators, top legislative aides and key executive branch officials can become registered lobbyists and prohibiting persons convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor committed in their former capacity as a legislator, legislative aide or key executive branch official from becoming registered lobbyists?