Los Angeles (AP) – Infanticide was given a new name today when Jack Bauer\’s illegitimate fetus killed an abortionist attempting to terminate the pregnancy. The fetus, sensing he was in \”flank two\” position, grabbed a pair of scissors from the doctor and jabbed them into his neck. The fetus killed four other hospital employees by forcing them to watch a clip of Chloe O\’Brian\’s acting.

Bauer\’s ex-girlfriend, Department of Defense employee Audrey Raines, decided to terminate her pregnancy when she believed Bauer was dead for 18 months. As Grandma always used to say when tucking me into bed, \”a dead child is better than an unwanted child.\” While he was presumed dead, Bauer hid out where he knew nobody would see him: by starring in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.

The cause of death for the abortionist was listed as \”Fetus playing by its own rules, practicing its own vigilante brand of gestation.\” The fetus\’ willingess to fight back has inspired thousands of embryos to grow up to be just like him. In fact, a recent fertility clinic had to be closed down when it was discovered that the sperm were sneaking grenades into the donation rooms.

Before the attempted abortion, the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) downloaded the blueprints for the entire clinic to the fetus\’ cell phone, which apparently never runs out of batteries. The fetus was tipped off to the abortion attempt by former President David Palmer, who intercepted some chatter on the set of his latest Allstate Insurance commercial. CTU was especially busy that day, as every crazy relative of each employee decided to show up at the office on that exact day.

Upon hearing the news, President Charles Logan sent the fetus to the Middle East to hunt down Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Before making the decision, Logan consulted his closest advisors, all of whom apparently work for Al-Qaeda. It took the fetus about 45 seconds to get to Iraq, which is about the time it apparently takes to get from one side of Los Angeles to the other.

Next season, Bauer will take on his greatest challenge yet by attempting to write a plausible script for the popular FOX show \”24.\”

Fight back, fetuses! Viva la insemination!

So this discussion took place when I was playing with my daughter:

Baby York: \”I\’m going to get married, Daddy.\”

Me: \”Oh yeah, who are you going to marry?\”

Baby York: \”Miss Piggy.\”

Me: Awkward silence….

Me: (Looking at my wife:) \”I need a ruling on this – am I allowed to say she\’s supposed to marry a boy? What are you supposed to say these days?\”

Wife: \”So you\’re more offended that she would marry a girl than a pig?\”

——————————————————————-

After that, she and I practiced bouncing quarters off of a table into a cup. I figured this is genius on my part – I mean, when she\’s doing it in college, why not have her be the best in the world? We always played that the guy who makes it into the cup had to make other people drink – so if she\’s the Tiger Woods of playing quarters, she should never touch a drop of liquor, right? Daddy\’s looking out for her best interests. Brilliant. She has about 15 years to perfect it.

Later in the day, we were watching a basketball game and she said it was the \”black guys against the white guys.\” After dislodging the Cheeto from my windpipe, I said \”WHAT?\” I then realized it was Iowa (black jerseys) playing Indiana (white jerseys). I felt much better knowing I didn\’t have a three year old Marge Schott running around the house.

Someone sent this to me today, and I have to admit I almost died of laughter. The more you read, the funnier it gets. And I fully realize that the fact I thought it was funny means I should be checked into some kind of treatment center.

THIS BREAKFAST-PLATE IS UNTRUSTWORTHY

Here\’s another fun one someone brought to my attention:

Wis. Stat. 765.03(1):

(1) No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile…

This is fantastic news for the downtown Madison parking cops.

Exactly what special interest was in the Capitol lobbying for this one? Move over, WEAC and WMC – here comes the powerful \”people that are dying to marry their second cousins\” contingent. Do they raise a lot of money to spend on elections by selling fruit on the side of the road? Do they save money by handing down school photos from generation to generation? I can see the attack ad against Mark Green right now:

\”You grew up in the same trailer. You\’ve spent two weeks\’ pay on her at the DQ. BUT MARK GREEN DOESN\’T WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO MARRY YOUR OWN COUSIN. Call Mark Green and tell him you want to get in them drawers!\”

I mean, seriously – we allow cloning for stem cells but don\’t allow men to make an honest woman of their first cousins? I\’m surprised the UW isn\’t lobbying to fund this horrifying genetic milkshake.

Ah, but there\’s an out for the truly hard core in-family lovers. If you\’re permanently sterile or the woman is over 55, you can marry your first cousin. So you have struck gold if you either:

1. Work at a nuclear power plant; or
2. It is the year 2036 and you are Jessica Alba\’s first cousin.

Side note: Being married and posting pictures of Jessica Alba is an easy way to achieve sterility, as your wife is likely to \”take care\” of things herself. In fact, I think I hear her sneaking up behind me now…

Here\’s another one that I actually am interested in:

Wis. Stat. 765.035:

765.035 Validity of marriages of epileptics. All marriages, otherwise valid and legal, contracted prior to April 24, 1953, to which either party was an epileptic person are hereby validated and legalized in all respects as though such marriages had been duly and legally contracted in the first instance.

I\’m seriously curious about the history of this one. I\’m assuming that at some point, state law either didn\’t recognize or outright banned epileptics from marrying. The new law corrected that by grandfathering in any epileptic marriages that may have taken place prior to April 24th, 1953 (and what the significance of that date is).

Is there any way we can amend the constitution to go back and bar epileptics from marrying? Ever since I found out at about 6:00 tonight that it\’s legal, I have noticed my traditional marriage beginning to deteriorate. When I demanded my wife make me a pot roast, I was hit upside the head by a flying frozen hot pocket. It can only get worse from there.

It\’s fun to look at State Statute books from time to time and wonder how the laws that are there came about. Obviously, each new law has a story behind it, and sometimes it\’s pretty easy to see what activity precipitated the statute change.

Take Wisconsin Statute 47.03(3)(a) (a), which says:

47.03(3)(a) (a) No person may advertise any product as being blind-made or sell or distribute any product that is advertised as being blind-made unless at least 75% of the labor involved in creating the product was performed by blind or visually impaired persons.

So there was obviously some slimeball out there running around selling something and telling people blind people had made it, when all they really did was play a Stevie Wonder CD at the factory while it was being made. There has to be some benefit to blind-made goods, whether they get preferential contracts or people like helping out the blind by buying their product.

So I envisioned a conversation like this:

Seller: So take a look here at this beauty of a car – it\’s 100% blind made. Your purchase of this fine automobile will really help out all those blind kids I\’m always bumping into in my car.

Buyer: Um… It looks like the car doesn\’t have any wheels, bumpers, or a roof.

Seller: Yeah, well it was made by the blind. They skip a detail here or there. They can\’t see.

Buyer: Are you sure this car wasn\’t stolen? It\’s up on blocks and has an \”I Brake for Unicorns\” sticker on it.

Seller: This is blind labor at its best, my friend. Don\’t mock the crippled. They work cheap, which is why you\’re getting such a good deal.

Buyer: I don\’t even like the color – I\’m not really a pea-green kind of guy.

Seller: Green? That car is obviously midnight blue. Maybe you should come down and work at the plant.

Buyer: Wait… what? Are you saying I\’m blind now?

Seller: Well, you obviously can\’t see what a great deal you\’re getting on this finely tuned, brand new car.

Buyer: Will a personal check do?

Do we need to have this same statute in place for products manufactured by other minority groups? I would like some assurance that my candy bars are being produced by at least 75% Oompa Loompa.

So by now you\’ve likely heard of a bill in the State Legislature that would bar protesters from demonstrating at funerals, military or otherwise. This bill is in response to funeral demonstrations by The Westboro Church of Kansas, led by noted hatemonger Fred Phelps. Phelps argues that deaths of the soldiers in the Iraq War are God\’s revenge on the United States for its acceptance of homosexuality.

My question if this – if God truly is vindictive, what could America possibly have done that is bad enought for The Lord to burden us with Fred Phelps?

Chicago – Modern day slattern deity Oprah Winfrey went on offense against Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle today, accusing him of not being honest with her legion of unshowered viewers. Doyle, worried that voters will avoid him like a thrift store jock strap in November, went on Winfrey\’s show to clear his name.

Doyle has come under criticism recently for allegedly not telling the truth about his involvement in awarding state contracts to state donors, for inflating the effect of his supposed \”property tax freeze\” and for claiming he one played the part of \”Rerun\” on the 70\’s show What\’s Happenin\’.

Oprah\’s viewers were riveted as they watched the interview play out while stuffing their fat faces with Cherry Garcia, polishing the nails on their nasty feet, and narrowly escaping a visit from child protective services for one more day.

Doyle has been able to duck law enforcement punishment up to this point, claiming insanity and impotence as his defense. To prove his case on the show, he attempted to set fire to his pants, but accidentally burned campaign chair Marc Marotta, whose lips were attached to Doyle\’s ass at the time.

Midway through the interview, a teary Doyle admitted to selling off state government to the highest bidder. He admitted specifically to giving the state travel contract to Adelman Travel not only because they gave his campaign $20,000, but because they threw in a shiny pair of wings to wear on his shirt that he thought were \”totally cool.\” Doyle said the contract was given out by a civil service employee who he didn\’t know, hadn\’t met, wasn\’t sure she actually existed, and was pretty sure that if she did exist, likely smelled like potato salad. Potato salad immediately issued a press release denying any involvement.

Doyle\’s challengers pounced on his legal problems immediately after they became known. Unable to sell off state contracts, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker claimed he would be running a clean campaign, which explained why he currently had received contributions of $11.93, an unbreakable comb, and a copy of \”The Gap Band\’s Greatest Hits\” during the recent fundraising period.

Following the show, Oprah sentenced Doyle to three years of watching her own show. It was a rare chance for Oprah\’s viewers to see a political figure, as most of them think Geena Davis was \”totally\” wrong to invade Iraq. Oprah\’s Book Club has become a national juggernaut despite the fact that the last thing read by 97% of Winfrey\’s viewers was their child support check.

Reached for comment on the episode, Oprah\’s viewers\’ children said \”Where\’s daddy?\”

In completely unrelated news, Wisconsin blogger Jessica McBride was imprisoned for overdosing on too many exclamation points in one post. Cops began to be suspicious when exclamation points started disappearing from Wisconsin keyboards, only to find out McBride had been sneaking into homes and stealing them. As part of her probation, she will be forced to stop signing her name with a little heart over the \”i.\”

SIDE NOTE: If I ever do anything that involves four exclamation points, it better not be something I can tell my wife about.

Let me get one thing clear right out of the gate: Pat Summitt is the greatest women\’s coach of all time. There isn\’t even a legitimate argument to be made for anyone else.

But does she deserve to be compared to the great names in men\’s college basketball history? Of course not. Ever since Summitt won her 900th game last week, ESPN has been on a mission to point out how she has won more games than Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp, and Bobby Knight.

ESPN should be ashamed of themselves for even making such a comparison. To somehow equate men\’s basketball with women\’s hoops is ludicrous. The only thing they really have in common is that they play roughly the same amount of games during the year. But because everyone needs to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, Summitt always ends up on lists of \”greatest coaches.\”

Put simply, it is much easier to dominate a field in which there is such a shallow pool of talent. Whether you think it\’s good or bad, the bottom line is that few girls play basketball, and even fewer ascend to the level of Division I ability. So many more boys play basketball, there\’s enough talent to stock virtually all 300+ Division I teams, while teams like Tennessee and Connecticut can parlay their past successes to horde pretty much all the worthwhile talent in the country.

Summit racked up a lot of her wins when women\’s basketball was a complete afterthought in intercollegiate athletics. In fact, the only reason it isn\’t now is that federal law prohibits it. Many schools didn\’t even have teams when she was rolling through her schedule, and playing basketball wasn\’t exactly an attractive option for little girls growing up.

Now you may argue that there are a number of men\’s teams that are usually near the top of the polls. But let\’s take Duke for instance – a program that is second to none in success over the past 20 years. Duke has won one national championship in the last 13 years (in 2001: they won two consecutive in 1991 and 1992).

By comparison, Tennessee went one twelve year stretch where they won six national championships. Connecticut has won four in the last five years. Aside from UCLA\’s dominant men\’s teams of the 60\’s, those are runs that would be unheard of in men\’s basketball today.

That\’s not to say Summitt\’s 900 wins, or even Texas\’ Jody Conradt\’s 800 wins, isn\’t immensely impressive. But let\’s not let get crazy with political correctness. Just go down to any high school or college gym and see how many boys are playing pickup basketball and compare that to how many girls are playing. That should tell you all you need to know.

I\’m still slogging through my Sandburg biography of Abraham Lincoln, and I was stunned when I read the portion dealing with Lincoln\’s opposition to the Mexican-American war. Read some of these statements and tell me this exact debate from 1848 isn\’t taking place in America as we speak in 2006.

As you know, President James K. Polk began the War with Mexico in 1846 as a response to border disputes between Mexico and Texas. Democrats unanimously supported the war, while the Whigs (of which Lincoln was one) tended to oppose the war, seeing it as unnecessary, greedy, and a plot to divert attention from the administration\’s problems in dealing with settlement of the Oregon territory.

Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, on the floor of Congress, defended the President\’s decision to go to war in 1846:

\”Gentlemen have the hardihood to tell us that the President has unwisely and unnecessarily precipitated the country into an unjust war and unholy war. They express great sympathy for Mexico, profess to regard her as an injured and persecuted nation – the victim of American injustice and aggression. They have no sympathy for the widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers have been robbed and murdered by the Mexican authorities; no sympathy with our own countrymen who have dragged out miserable lives within the walls of her dungeons, without crime and without trial; no indignation at the outrages upon our commerce and shipping, and the insults to our national flag, no resentment at the violation of treaties and the invasion of our territory. I despair of ever seeing my country again in the right, if they are to be the oracles.

Douglas quoted Frederick the Great, “Take possession first and negotiate afterward,” and declared “That is precisely what President Polk has done. He has taken possession and proposed to negotiate.”

By the time Lincoln took his seat in Congress, the war with Mexico was nearly over. Over 27,000 American soldiers had died in the conflict. Mexico had succumbed, but questions arose about what the U.S. would do with the land it had conquered.

In 1848, Lincoln took to the floor of Congress, “declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President.” He spoke of his impression of how he and others believed they ought to behave while their country was engaged in a war they considered unjustly commenced. “When the war began, it was my opinion that all those because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously oppose the conduct of the President in the beginning of it should nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least until the war should be ended.”

Now, he was forced to break his silence; the President was telling the country, continually, that votes of the Whigs for supplies to the soldiers in the field were an endorsement of the President’s conduct of the war. Then too, the President was holding back documents and information to which the public was entitled.

He said of President Polk: “Originally having some strong motive to involve the countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory – that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood – that serpent’s eye that charms to destroy – he plunged into it, and has swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculations of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where.”

“The President is in no wise satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it he argues himself out of it, then seizes another and goes through the same process, and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again. His mind, taxed beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease…”

Lincoln took a beating back in his Illinois home district for his anti-war position, which was seen as Anti-American.

From Sandburg\’s book:

Back in Illinois were political enemies murmuring that Lincoln was revealed as a Benedict Arnold in his “spot resolutions” [against the war]. The Belleville Advocate for March 2, 1848, came along with a report of a meeting in Clark County of patriotic Whigs and Democrats who adopted this declaration: “Resolved, That Abe Lincoln, the author of the ‘spotty’ resolutions in Congress, against his own country, may they long be remembered by his constituents, but may they cease to remember him, except to rebuke him – they have done much for him, but he has done nothing for them, save in the part they have taken in their country’s cause.” The Illinois State Register was telling its readers of newspapers and public meetings that declared Lincoln to be “a second Benedict Arnold.”

Lincoln lost his next election, in large part due to his opposition to the War with Mexico, and settled back in to practice law in Springfield.

While this post isn\’t necessarily a reflection my own views of our current war, I thought it was interesting how the same issues emerge during wars of any era. I\’m sure I\’ll hear from somebody explaining the obvious differences between the wars and the justification for each. But the parallels between the politics and rhetoric of each war are profound.

I was reading this editorial by Jonah Goldberg from The National Review when I came across this throwaway paragraph near the end:

I find it revealing that a significant number of conservatives I know (and even work with) either oppose the death penalty on moral grounds or are inclined to. But they are consistently put off by the radical chic crowd, which has grown deceitful, narcissistic and married to agendas no conservative would ever sign on to.

As an opponent of the death penalty myself, this is something I have struggled with. I am firmly in the anti-death penalty camp, and I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. I hope we never see it in Wisconsin. As a skeptic of governmental power, I am especially wary of the government\’s use of the ultimate power – the ability to put its own citizens to death. I find nothing inconsistent with a conservative distrust of government and a belief that occasionally sentencing the innocent to die is inconsistent with a civilized society. (I part on this issue with the wonderful John McAdams, one of my daily must-read bloggers.)

But when it comes time to see my position represented in public, I never see anyone that even appears to have come to their position via thoughtful reflection. It\’s always some flaming lefty nutjob whose motives are far beyond the moral issues presented by capital punishment. It\’s always something about how our racist nation has framed a future Nobel Prize winner for the death of some policeman who was probably crooked anyway. And so it goes.

So should I be proud of my association with people I generally loathe? Should I sit back and let Mike Farrell do my talking for me? I\’m certainly not ashamed of my position on the issue, but I am definitely ashamed of the company of people with which my beliefs group me. Next thing you know, I\’ll be seen emerging from a smoke-filled Volkswagen van before I give a speech at next year\’s Fighting Bob Fest.

I can imagine what it must be like for pro-life Democrats. How can any good Democrat stomach having their views on abortion represented by the likes of Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed and the rest? (I realize I\’m going way back for the Ralph Reed reference, I just figured he has a special place in the hearts of Democrats). If you\’re a stringent Catholic Democrat, how do you rectify this arrangement? Can we get some kind of support group together?

SIDE NOTE: The death penalty issue is a good test example for how abortion law would look if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Overturning Roe wouldn\’t immediately outlaw abortion across the nation – it would be an issue to be decided on a state by state basis, as the death penalty is. Some states would have it, and Utah wouldn\’t. And for people such as myself who oppose the death penalty, it doesn\’t bother me that other states have it – I\’m content with the fact that I live in a state that doesn\’t. Think pro-abortion groups would feel likewise?

I have a tip for white politicians that decide to pander to African-Americans on Martin Luther King Jr.\’s birthday: Stay home. You are embarrassing yourselves.

Test Case #1: Governor Jim Doyle, who in a speech celebrating Dr. King\’s birthday in the State Capitol, decided to equate black struggles to those of gays. From Wispolitics.com:

Gov. Jim Doyle spoke out against the so-called\”Defense of Marriage\” constitutional amendment during a celebration honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., calling it an act of \”discrimination.\” “We should not enshrine discrimination in the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin,” Doyle said of the proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent same-sex marriage.

Where do you start with this? Here\’s a news flash to Doyle – if you took a poll in Wisconsin, I would bet blacks would be the demographic most favorable to the amendment to ban gay marriage. There isn\’t any \”brotherhood\” with gays. This isn\’t any \”festival of the aggrieved\” where all discrimination is equal. You think African-Americans need to be told what real discrimination is?

I believe public schools still teach about this little-known practice known as \”slavery,\” where an entire class of American citizens were kept as servants. They were sold from owner to owner, often breaking up families in the process. They were beaten, lynched, worked to death, underfed, raped, and murded. Our nation had laws and Supreme Court decisions affirming that black Americans were property. Half our our nation\’s citizens decided they would rather fight to their death in a war than let blacks be recognized as free citizens.

Exactly what period of oppression would lead you to believe that gays have any claim to the same standing of discrimination as African-Americans? Did black leaders march and die for the right of Ryan Seacrest to have his own talk show? Wasn\’t the last meaningful gay march last weekend when candlesticks were 30% off at Pottery Barn? How exactly do you earn protected class status based on where your genitals occasionally end up?

Of course, I\’m making light of a serious subject. I\’m not suggesting for a second that gays and lesbians don\’t face discrimination or that we still don\’t have have progress to make in their full recognition of equal citizens. But you can\’t tell me for a second that African-Americans appreciate the \”struggle\” of gays being equated to the horrific systematic racism that has been prevalent throughout our nation\’s history. To do so is to disgrace the memory of those that gave their lives in the name of civil rights.

Test Case #2: New York Senator and Presidential Hopeful Hillary Clinton gave a speech on MLK Day where she said:

The House “has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about,” said Clinton, D-N.Y. “It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.”

(See the video here.)

My plea to African-Americans to join the Republican party begins and ends with statements like this. Democrats take blacks for granted to the extent that they are willing to make offensive statements like that, without fear of any kind of backlash.

For anyone – ANYONE – to equate serving in the U.S. Congress with being a slave on a plantation is beneath the contempt of any thinking person. I\’m certain there were a lot of slaves working under the hot sun in the cotton fields of Georgia that said to themselves, \”Thank God I\’m not in Congress. That sounds like a pretty tough job. Hillary Clinton has it rough.\”

For the record, Senator Hillary Clinton is fully capable of writing and introducing any legislation that she wants. She is also capable of making an argument in favor of that legislation, and she has every media outlet in the country willing to make sure she is heard.

How uncomfortable is it to watch this rich, lily white cracker ass stand up before a black church and try to speak to them on their terms? How insulting to blacks is it that she feels the need to speak to them in \”their\” language and use pandering metaphors that \”they\” will understand? Did she hire Bulworth as her campaign manager? When she goes to speak before a group of devout Jews, is she going to compare serving in the Senate to Auschwitz?

I don\’t know what it is that causes white politicians to lose their minds when honoring civil rights greats. One would think an appreciation of Dr. King\’s accomplishments would stand alone without injecting shameless pandering into the discussion. So I apologize on their behalf.

SIDE NOTE: In his speech, Doyle stated that he supported marriage between one man and one woman, and that no constitutional amendment was necessary because this concept is already clear in state statutes. So he supports \”enshrining\” discrimination, as long as it\’s statutory and not constitutional? Owen at B&S caught the same thing here.

Often times, our government is criticized for moving slowly to address societal problems. But the only thing worse than government acting slowly is government acting too quickly.

Put your ear to the ground – that rumbling you hear isn’t Kirstie Alley running away from a salad bar. That sound is elected officials running away from fundraising scandals at both the state and federal level. Soon, “campaign finance reform” plans will be passed between legislators more often than bottles of Grecian Formula. Our lawmakers rightfully acknowledge the lack of public confidence in their motives, but in their rush to rehabilitate their own images, they may hastily enact unnecessary changes that erode public participation in the election process.

Lawyers have a saying that “hard cases make bad law.” Campaign finance reform advocates (both of them) are using the opportunity of “scandal” in legislatures to push their reform agendas. Normally, finance reform isn’t anywhere near the top of the public’s “to do” list. The public sees campaign finance reform as about as necessary as “Big Momma’s House II.” What isn’t clear, however, is how the reformers\’ plans to restrict political speech actually deal with the problems that have been uncovered. In fact, the only thing evident is that the laws as currently written are working. At the state level, Democrats Brian Burke and Chuck Chvala, and Republicans Bonnie Ladwig, and Steve Foti have all been convicted, with Scott Jensen still waiting in the wings. Who could plausibly look at the current string of convictions and conclude that the current laws aren’t effective?

Furthermore, let’s look at what these legislators have been accused of: Brian Burke was accused of shaking down lobbyists in his office and filing false per diem reports. Chuck Chvala allegedly extorted money from lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, sent Capitol staffers out to run campaigns, and illegally coordinated campaign ads with special interests. Bonnie Ladwig and Steve Foti were found guilty of using their taxpayer-funded staffs to campaign, and Scott Jensen is accused of the same.

For the sake of argument, let’s lump all of these transgressions together (even though comparing Burke and Chvala to the rest are like comparing John Gotti to John Denver). “Campaign finance reform” as it is generally understood involves a complicated maze of fundraising limits, taxpayer money to run campaigns, and greater transparency by third party advertisers attempting to influence elections. How any of these changes would affect the crimes committed by Wisconsin legislators is unclear, at best.

How will taxpayer financed campaigns keep Brian Burke from falsifying his per diem documents? How will installing stricter contribution limits help legislative leaders resist the temptation to campaign on state time? Should we have a statute against extortion that ends with “and we really, really mean it this time?” Advocating for finance reform in the wake of these incidents is like advocating for less money in banks, so there is less temptation for crooks to rob them.

Instead of imposing a draconian new finance system, we need to look at what a good system of finance we have now. Unfortunately, the “good old days” of clean government that reform advocates like to cite likely never existed. Before our current laws of campaign limits and reporting were passed, campaigns were often funded by huge corporate financiers looking to earn government contracts and favorable legislation. All the contributions were limitless and went unreported (for an example of this, see the 1949 movie “All the King’s Men” starring Broderick Crawford). The days of “clean government” were the days of back room deals and special interests run amok. It wasn’t until 1972 that the system of contribution limits and reporting we have now was instituted, which means literally anything could have gone on before then without full public knowledge. (For a full history of finance reform law in Wisconsin, go here.)

Fast forward to today, where campaign financing is limited and transparent. Campaigns can raise money through any of three different ways; through individuals, through conduits (where individual contributions are bundled together by a third party), and through political action committees (special interest donations that are capped both in how much can be given and how much total one candidate can receive). In each of these three cases, all of these contributions are accepted and reported on campaign finance reports. So if anyone is concerned that their State Assemblywoman might be unduly influenced by a specific special interest, they are only a couple of mouse clicks away to find out exactly how much she has gotten from an individual, conduit, or political action committee.

It is because of these strict reporting requirements that the 2006 Wisconsin gubernatorial candidates can now criticize each other for money accepted by Jack Abramoff, the disgraced federal lobbyist. You’ll notice that nobody is actually accusing anyone of having committed a crime by accepting Abramoff’s money, just criticizing each others’ judgement for accepting “tainted” money from an unseemly source. This is the beauty of the current system. Ultimately, it will be the voters that judge the candidates on the wisdom of accepting Abramoff’s money, and the voters and media know that this money was accepted because of the reporting requirements that currently exist.

Of course, Governor Jim Doyle is also undergoing a separate investigation into the timing of campaign contributions and the distribution of state contracts, and whether the two are related. Again, this type of dealing, if true, is already illegal, and is known because of the reporting requirements already on the books. There is nothing being proposed that would have had any effect on this activity – giving money to try to affect contracts is illegal and will continue to be so under any new “plan.”

The current campaign finance system is better than any of the proposed reform changes because it still requires public participation in the election process. All the information is there for voters to make up their minds on specific candidates if they are willing to do their research. All the finance numbers are available to the press to report on how much is being given by who to what candidate, and what elected officials may be influenced by large giving by certain interests. If voters want to make allegations tying an elected official’s support of or opposition to a piece of legislation to specific contributions, they are able to do so – all the information is there.

For finance reformers, however, full transparency in fundraising isn’t enough. They see the whole process of fundraising as evil, and therefore want to all but end that practice, as well. Not only do they not want you to be able to contribute to a candidate of your choice if you support their ideals, they want to control how much you can hear from that candidate during an election and mandate how much of your tax money that candidate will get to run their campaign. Think back to the last campaign you lived through – are campaign ads really something you think need taxpayer support? Do we really need to subsidize mudslinging between candidates when we have other funding priorities? Campaigning is hard work, and one of the signs of a good candidate is one that is willing to do the unpleasant work of fundraising. By essentially socializing the campaign process, you are providing a government subsidy to many lazy candidates who are unwilling to do the hard work.

Also at issue to reformers are so-called “issue ads” which are paid for by anonymous third parties, many of them wealthy. These groups get together and buy
ads supporting or opposing specific candidates and their identities are never known. In the past groups such as WEAC, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Indian Tribes have taken part in this “issue advocacy.” What reformers would like to do is regulate this type of political speech by requiring disclosure of the donors for these types of ads. This type of regulation of free speech (which was the main “accomplishment\” of McCain-Feingold) will have the effect of chilling individuals’ right to debate candidates and issues. For reformers, less political speech is better.

There’s no question that those pushing for campaign finance reform mean well. Everyone is for “cleaning up the system.” However, the reforms advocated for by groups like Common Cause and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign are an insult to voters and an assault on the First Amendment. Lawmakers are in an impossible situation – regardless of how offensive these proposed changes may be, they are unable to credibly argue against them, as they will be seen as defending the current system of corruption. So you end up with a never-ending charade of politicians saying they support \”reform,\” when very few actually do. Nobody has the stones to stand up and explain why the current system is adequate, if given the chance to work.

Often times, reformers point to races where immense amounts of money are spent to show how “out of control” the system has gotten. What they often fail to mention, though, is that the amount of money spent has very little to do with the outcome of the election. Ask Alex Paul how much his $400,000 State Senate primary against Julie Lassa went in 2003, when she pounded him by a 68% to 32% margin. Ask Mary Panzer how her 2004 primary against Glenn Grothman went, when she spent $300,000 to lose 80% to 20%. Reformers consistently underestimate the ability of voters to make choices about candidates based on issues, trust, and likeability.

So myopic are campaign finance reformers, they don\’t even concede a fundamental right for individuals to support candidates with which they agree on issues. Reformers believe that monetary support for a candidate is almost always a payoff for some beneficial action that elected official has taken. Rather than believing individuals or interests support candidates with which they agree, reformers always accuse special interests of giving money in exchange for official actions. For instance, see the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign\’s \”special report\” on what they consider to be a \”graft tax.\” The WDC essentially totalled up all the property, sales, and income tax exemptions in current law and accused business groups of paying off elected officials to gain these exemptions.

Set aside the fact that most people think tax exemptions are a good thing. They stimulate economic development in areas that the state deems important. Doing away with such \”big business\” exemptions would increase the cost of buying a home, of diapers, and food. But more importantly, is it inconceivable that business groups support candidates that support lower taxes because they honestly believe that a smaller tax burden helps generate economic activity? The WDC doesn\’t think so. They believe these common sense tax exemptions were essentially purchased by big businesses solely to better their bottom line, which simply doesn\’t make sense. So does money follow the candidate, or do candidates follow the money? Isn\’t that up to voters to decide?

Of course, when reforms are enacted that limit political speech, influence will find its way into the political process in other ways. Take the Abramoff case, for instance. Jack Abramoff would set up fake non-profit front groups that would pay for travel and perks for legislators. And when that is outlawed, influence will find its way into the process in more clandestine, insidious ways that aren’t as transparent as the full reporting requirements we have now. The famous McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance reform bill passed in 2002; after which Abramoff spent millions on influencing public officials. In fact, McCain-Feingold didn’t do anything meaningful but require those phony “I approved this message” disclaimers in federal TV ads.

Needless to say, you will find an editorial in a local newspaper supporting polygamy before you will find one opposing any version of campaign finance reform. To see why, you need only to follow the influence. The less money that is raised and spent on campaigns, and the more limits on political speech there are in the political process, the more influence outlets that don’t have those restrictions will have. In other words, as political speech is pushed down, the influence of newspapers is pushed up. This isn’t necessarily a case of the news media being “biased,” it just merely shows that they are acting in their own self-interest. In fact, it has recently come under question at the federal level whether independent information outlets such as blogs are covered by the McCain-Feingold law which was supposed to limit “unregulated” political speech.

A Lexis-Nexis search of Wisconsin newspapers illustrates the length to which the print media are willing to lobby on behalf of themselves. In the last 5 years, the names “Jay Heck” and “Mike McCabe” (of Common Cause and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, respectively) have appeared 1,655 times. Divide that by the 1,825 total days there have been in the last 5 years, and you end up with .9 of a mention per day for the campaign finance reformers. Can you think of any other issue that has warranted one mention per day for five years?

Another example: Hurricane Katrina was one of the most horrific human tragedies our nation has ever seen. Since August 31st, Wisconsin papers have mentioned “Ray Nagin” and “Kathleen Blanco,” two of the central figures of the disaster, a total of 26 times combined. In that same time, Heck and McCabe have appeared in Wisconsin papers 138 times. If newspapers actually spend half the time actually reporting on the finances of candidates than they do lobbying for campaign finance reform, we would all be able to make more educated choices about the people we elect.

All of this doesn’t mean that steps can’t be taken to reduce the effect of special interests on legislation. The most meaningful reform that can be made would be to actually shrink the size of government and eliminate government programs that our state has its tentacles all over. Over the past few decades, our government has accrued more fat than Alec Baldwin. And for each area the government controls, there will be moneyed lobbyists and interests attempting to influence the system to their advantage.

Other steps can be taken to level the playing field come election time. Naturally, incumbent legislators have a huge advantage in name recognition and voter contact. This advantage is exacerbated by the lavish office accounts they can use to mail what essentially amounts to campaign literature to their constituents. While constituent contact is necessary and helpful, many of these mailings cross the line into shameless propaganda. Legislators also are able to campaign all day, every day during the election cycle and still collect their state checks. Some poor schmuck looking to run for office and spend that kind of time on voter contact either has to quit their job, or take huge amounts of time off, often unpaid. There’s no way to rectify this, but it is worth noting.

Heavy-handed campaign finance reform plans send us in the opposite way we need to be heading. We need full transparency in our elections, which leads to more voter involvement, engagement, and political discussion. We don’t need the nanny state to dictate for our virgin ears and eyes what political messages we can or can’t handle, and we certainly don’t need to spend taxpayer money on campaign TV and radio ads. Whatever “reforms” are adopted will l
ikely do nothing to address either the illegal activity that has taken place in the recent past, or any of the temptations that lay ahead for candidates in the future. We don\’t need more regulation – we need more meaningful citizen and media involvement. In the end, the upcoming push will be more about image reform than campaign reform, and we will be a poorer state as a result.

William from Colorado disputes my assertion that the terrible AJR 71 has no chance of getting through the Legislature and passed by the voters. He writes:

On your blog, you noted the educational amendment to TABOR, Assembly JointResolution 71,and said it has little chance of passing. Au contraire! Our moronic state did just that. After passing TABOR, a few years later,under the usual \”WE OWE IT TO OUR CHILDREN!\” campaign, Colorado voters passed Amendment 23, which states:

* It requires the state to increase the base per pupil funding, and funding for certain specified programs (called categoricals) for K-12 by at least inflation plus one percent each year for ten years, and by at least inflation thereafter.

* It establishes the State Education Fund which receives the amount of the tax on one third of one percent of Colorado taxable income (about 7% of total state income tax). This fund is then used to meet the additional funding requirements of amendment 23 and other specified educational programs.

* It includes a \”maintenance of effort\” clause to ensure the solvency of the State Education Fund by requiring that current K-12 General Fund spending is not diverted. This General Fund K-12 spending requirement contains an \”escape valve\” which is activated when personal income growth falls below a specified level.

So this is the VERY thing you mentioned, and upon which the WI Amendment is no doubt based. Educational funding can never, EVER go down, no matter howmuch or how little income rolls into state coffers.This created a budget problem in Colorado in recent years, which this pastelection cycle resulted in the passage of Amendment C, which gave the state theright to KEEP funds that would have otherwise been disbursed under TABOR.Of course our (allegedly) Republican governor praised this as a good thing, promising things like road construction to alleviate the congestion Denver area drivers suffer daily.

However, immediately after passage, the Democrat-controlled legislature toldthe governor that, in effect, new roads would be built over their dead bodiesand that 100% of the monies now available would be spent on social issues.Now groups are crawling out of the woodwork to spend the new money, as one wouldexpect.As part of the pro-C campaign, it was said that if had not passed the Universityof Colorado would have faced draconian budget cuts (this whining done largelyby another alleged Republican, Hank Brown); instead immediately afterpassage the Denver Post revealed, in an article they ADMITTED they had heldoff publishing until after the election, that the University regularly wastedmillions of dollars on things like limosines for CU Regents.

So don\’t be so quick to dismiss AJR 71 as moronic; it\’s the law here in Colorado.

-William

…please. There, doesn\’t that feel better?

A burgeoning scandal took full flight today as Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle admitted to accepting a free flight from superdonor Wonder Woman in her private invisible jet.

Doyle has been criticized recently for his acceptance of free flights from well-heeled campaign donors. While state law clearly states that the Governor may not accept gifts, Doyle maintains that a flight is not a gift, as no peanuts were served on board and the soda was flat.

(I actually wrote this afte a couple beers on Saturday night, before I even knew Doyle was on his way to Ireland on a big donor\’s private jet – hence the old link. I must be clairvoyant.)

See below post on why this post is truncated.