Winnig campaign may fall short due to cash donations
During the festival Joel approached me to formally introduce himself and his campaign for “Independence, Integrity and Justice” and handed me a small flyer with his campaign information and top priorities. Justice for Marijuana Consumers is something you do not hear, let alone read on a political ad so I decided to follow this campaign.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the race as “One of Kind” and I would agree. The political landscape is an odd one with quirks, rules and regulations, probably one of the reasons most people shy away from entering a race.
Madison — This spring’s state Supreme Court race will be the first – and perhaps the last – of its kind.
At least two of the four candidates are expected to receive taxpayer money for their campaigns under a new law meant to keep spending down and give candidates more independence. Critics argue that could have the effect instead of amplifying the voice of anonymous special interests and allow them to drown out the candidates even more than they have in the past.
The rules of the campaign could change midstream because of pending lawsuits.
The article went on to give the important who, what, when, where and why about the election, now it is up to use to choose a candidate.
Court decisions on the constitutionality of the campaign financing law may not come until after the Feb. 15 primary or April 5 general election. But even if the law survives constitutional challenges, it may be repealed by Republicans who now control the Legislature.
“The ground rules are not clear,” Justice David Prosser Jr. said. “The rules could change midstream and in fact the rules are changing all the time.”
The contest pits Prosser against Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, Madison attorney Joel Winnig and Marla Stephens, director of appeals for the state public defender’s office. The winner will enjoy a 10-year term on the seven-member court.
Recent court races in Wisconsin have turned into expensive, partisan-style contests that have drawn national criticism. The public financing law was passed to combat that.
Prosser and Kloppenburg are expected to receive public financing under the new law, which provides $100,000 for the primary and $300,000 for the general election. They will not be able raise money privately, beyond the small amount – less than $28,000 each – they have already raised.
I was slightly disappointed to see that he may not qualify for the public funding. All more reason to make sure if you are doing something, it is down right. That includes the law or rules to begin with, which may be the case in this instance.
Winnig said the new public financing law was the only reason he was able to run, but he may wind up not qualifying for the funds.
To get the taxpayer money, candidates have to show they have a base of support by raising 1,000 contributions of $5 to $100.
Winnig was able to raise enough, but too many of his contributions came in the form of cash. The law requires that cash contributions total $500 or less.
Winnig filed a statement with election officials saying he believed that requirement is unconstitutional and asked them to provide him with the money anyway. The Government Accountability Board will consider his request Thursday.
“The requirement to have a poor elector with no bank account be required to turn a contribution from cash into a money order places a substantial and unconstitutional burden on the elector’s right to participate in the process of the election” because of bank fees, Winnig wrote to the board.
Could the Winning or any public financed campaign even compete with the millions of dollars spent in Wisconsin elections?
The 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court races cost about $6 million each, more than quadruple the previous record.
In response, Democrats who ran the Legislature in 2009 passed the public financing law. They said it would limit the influence of special interests, but Republicans argued taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for campaign ads.
