Today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel manages to do the nearly impossible: it almost makes me feel sorry for former Democratic State Representative Dave Travis.

The Journal Sentinel uncovered the fact that Travis retired from the Legislature a couple days early last year, in order to avoid taking a hit on his retirement payments.  By leaving the job six days early, Travis dodged the damaging effects of the Wall Street meltdown last year – the same strategy used by hundreds of other state employees.

I realize as a think tank, we’re generally supposed to be critical of legislators.  If they’re not up to no good, why do we even exist?  But on this one, wasn’t Travis  simply doing what any normal, rational human being would do?  Can any employee of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel say with a straight face that they would have sat by and watched their retirement take a $70 per month hit on principle?

Then, predictably, the Journal Sentinal goes to the bullpen to call in their phony scandal expert, Jay Heck of Common Cause.  Heck (who I happen to like a great deal, incidentally) dutifully delivers this laughable quote:

Jay Heck, executive director of the nonprofit Common Cause in Wisconsin, said Travis’ early resignation was legal. But the action will “further undermine people’s confidence in state government,” Heck said.

“In a sense, there’s a take-the-money-and-run aspect to it,” Heck said. “As an elected official, you would have hoped for something better.”

So my confidence in state government is supposed to be eroded because one meaningless, backbenching legislator did the rational thing and retired early to save money?  Any word on the hundreds of other state employees who did the same thing and make a lot more than Dave Travis?  (Granted, some of the sizzle in this story is due to Travis’ cantankerous declarations that he should have been making more money all along.)

Here at WPRI, we do poll after poll that shows public trust in the Legislature eroding.  Much of it is certainly deserved.  But a great deal of it is fed by professional scandal mongers whose livelihoods depend on convincing people all their elected officials are corrupt.  As a result, the public has more trouble telling when corruption actually occurs.

If there’s a lesson here, perhaps it is that state employee benefits are too generous.  Many of them pay nothing and stand to gain huge payouts upon retirement – which leads to some game playing when it’s time to leave.  Travis’ retirement won’t cost the taxpayers an extra dime – the money has already been set aside for years in the state retirement fund.  But to make a phony scandal out of Travis doing what any reasonable human would do seems to be a substantial reach.

On the other hand, perhaps we should pay more attention to stories like this, where Democratic Majority Leader Tom Nelson explains that his caucus may still be able to forge ahead with their legislative agenda, despite a special interest laying off staff:

Two Fox Valley legislators think legislation to toughen state drunken driving laws will proceed even as the state office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving announced job cuts.

[…]

State Rep. Tom Nelson, D-Kaukauna, the Assembly majority leader, said MADD’s absence from the debate will not stop legislation.

“We intend to move forward on legislation regardless if groups are staffing up or downsizing,” he said. “It’s clear there has been an outcry from the public to toughen our drunken driving laws and I assume this subject will be addressed sometime this session.”

Oh really?  You might be able to move forward on legislation without the help of a special interest group?  That’s big of you, Tom Nelson.

Of course, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have a noble purpose – to reduce deaths on our roads.  And I certainly agree with their goal of toughening our drunk driving laws in Wisconsin.  But let’s not be confused – they are a special interest group looking to change state law, just as any other special interest group is.  They have a paid lobbyist and report lobbying expenditures, just like every other lobbying organization.  Their goals really aren’t an issue here.

Imagine Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald saying something like, “I know times are tough over at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, but I think we’ll still be able to forge ahead with the Senate Republican tax package anyway.”  Reporters would be sleeping outside his office doors, waiting for the chance to dice him up like a pot roast.

So what causes more of an erosion in confidence in the Legislature – Dave Travis retiring early, or the Assembly Majority Leader hinting that his caucus takes its marching orders from special interests?  I recognize the media has to cover something, considering we’re in an era of peace and prosperity and all.

With the drama regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich still unfolding, corruption is now back in style with the news media.  The Blago scandal allows the usual cast of characters to run out and claim that because Blagojevich tried to auction off Barack Obama’s senate seat,  we need to enact whatever campaign finance reforms they prefer – regardless of whether they would actually be relevant to the current debacle in Illinois.

Take the recent ranting from Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, called “The Real Scandal.”  He believes the fact that some people do business in Illinois and Wisconsin vindicates his view that government should be able to micromanage political speech.  Or something.  Basically, his little story has the word “Blagojevich” in it, and that’s all it really needed for McCabe to pretend it was relevant:

Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green’s failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor’s office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.

Wonderful.  But, of course, that story has nothing to do with what’s happening in Illinois right now.  In fact, I was actually spotted paying a highway toll in Illinois last week – perhaps I am also partly to blame for the Blagojevich scandal.  Jim McMahon played for both the Bears and the Packers – seems a little fishy, huh?

Then McCabe gives up on trying to pretend there’s any link between Blagojevich and Wisconsin and pivots to “The Real Scandal:”

It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people’s life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.

Yeah, all those campaign contributions by Ford Motor Company are doing them a lot of good right now.  That automaker bailout bill is just flying through Congress.  Or not.

Furthermore, any time the WDC throws out a number, it should immediately be discounted.  Take, for example, their “report” that says big business gives twelve times as much to candidates as organized labor – a number immediately contradicted by a search of federal campaign contributions by political groups.  Actually the top 2 donors were AFSCME and the NEA.

So basically, the Blagojevich story merely serves as the host for whatever snake oil these campaign finance parasites are selling.  I may need to check the statutes, but I believe what Rod Blagojevich is accused of doing is already illegal. And not just a little illegal.  Does anyone believe that Blagojevich would have magically decided not to auction off a U.S. senate seat if there were tighter limits on campaign contributions, or if there were increased regulation of election advertising?  Of course not.  It’s like saying too many people are driving drunk, so we need more laws to regulate car ads on television.  In fact, the exact opposite is true – the more laws we pass, the more opportunities for corruption there are, as government encroaches more and more into our lives.

As a side note, USA Today last week conducted an analysis of the most “corrupt” states in the U.S.  Their list was topped by the state we all consider to be a hotbed of government corruption – North Dakota.

Basically, the newspaper just took a total number of elected officials who have been convicted of misdeeds in each state, added them up, and handed out a “corruption ranking.”  Wisconsin ranks in the middle somewhere, with 2.1 convictions per 100,000 residents.

But is this really an accurate measure of corruption?  It would seem that a state that arrests and convicts its elected officials that break the law is actually fighting corruption.  States that tolerate corruption don’t send their legislators to jail – and therefore would rank pretty low on the list (Illinois ranks 18th, for instance.)

So to the states high on this list, congratulations – you’re doing a good job of weeding out your bad eggs.  Not merely tolerating them.

A couple weeks ago, I explained how a Democratic Legislature could begin to micromanage political speech to their advantage by passing a partisan version of campaign finance “reform.”  Today, the Wisconsin State Journal interviews all the usual suspects cheerleading for these new laws.

The article, which identifies some potential roadblocks to passing “reform,” includes quotes from five proponents of new laws regulating political speech (Sheridan, Erpenbach, Ellis, Heck and McCabe), and one quote from an opponent, attorney Mike Wittenwyler.  Wittenwyler’s quote mostly deals with the issue of taxpayer financing for campaigns, which is really more of an ancillary issue.  To his credit, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker’s spokeswoman dodges the issue, saying they want to work on a bill that will “pick up support from Republicans.”  In Capitol-speak, that means they don’t really want to do anything, because they can pass whatever they want without a single damn Republican – they just want to be able to blame the GOP when nothing passes.

But given the imbalance in quotes, you’d think hardly anyone opposes campaign finance “reform.”  This isn’t a surprise, given the cheerleading newspapers all over the state constantly do in an effort to shut down political speech during election time.  If groups can’t spend money to disseminate their speech, then newspapers think they will become more relevant.

Of course newspapers, who should be the staunchest defenders of free speech, are all for shutting down speech that isn’t theirs.  Imagine the Legislature passing a bill saying the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or the Wisconsin State Journal had to report the names of all their subscribers and sources of income to the state before they could write a political editorial or endorse a candidate.  Think they’d approve of that restriction on their free speech rights?

Of course not.  But that is exactly what they argue should be imposed on any group that doesn’t happen to be a newspaper.  Unless you have been blessed by the all-knowing editorial boards of this state, they argue you shouldn’t have the First Amendment right to criticize your government.  Instead, you’d be silenced unless you run through a mountain of red tape, reviewed by the very government you’d be trying to criticize, and subjected to the same retribution by those government officials.  There’s a reason we vote anonymously – and that anonymity should apply to political speech.

In case after case, courts have rejected the government’s attempts to micromanage the political speech of its citizens.  Most of these cases stem from the federal McCain-Feingold law, which purported to eliminate money from the political system.  In fact, it has done nothing but drive it down into these 527 groups, where it is harder to trace.  And large portions of the law have been struck down by the courts as undue restrictions on political speech.  There are terrorists who have a better won/loss record in the U.S. Supreme Court than senators Russ Feingold and John McCain.

Yet, given reporting on the issue, you’d never know how often these laws are struck down by the courts.  This article only makes mention that if a law were enacted, then those “shady” groups would file a lawsuit.  But then again, you can file a lawsuit against your coworker for having excessive nose hair – it doesn’t mention that those lawsuits actually have a solid track record of succeeding.

Just once, it would be interesting to see a newspaper report on the issue of campaign finance reform without treating it as if it were some necessary “reform.”  Imagine a story in the State Journal with a headline “Democrats Push for Campaign Speech Restrictions,” which, incidentally, is an entirely fair way of portraying the issue.  Don’t hold your breath.

For years, we have been told by the media what a great thing campaign finance reform will be.  We’ll all be better informed when those dishonest, nasty attack ads are off the air, and local media has a monopoly on campaign speech.  Candidate messages to the voters can’t be trusted, but newspapers can.

Then, we see articles like this one from the Shepherd Express “newspaper” in Milwaukee.  It claims to be their “State Senate Update,” yet merely regurgitates every Senate Democratic Campaign Committee talking point fed to them.  I would be shocked if nearly every word of the article wasn’t written by the SDCC coordinator.  To wit:

Wasserman (Democrat) is cautiously favored for two reasons, even though this district has had a slight Republican bias. Wasserman, an obstetrician, is definitely outworking Darling (Republican). He has knocked on more than 23,000 doors over the past year and a half. In addition, many moderate Republicans, especially women, are disappointed with Darling, who went from being a moderate Republican when she was first elected in 1990 to a traditional conservative Republican.

Oh really?  Wasserman is “definitely outworking” Darling?  Is it mere coincidence that this “23,000 doors” number comes from Wasserman’s first campaign ad?  And where are these moderate Republican women disappointed with Darling?  This is merely a Democratic fantasy – the district isn’t “slightly” Republican, it is solidly so – George W. Bush, J.B. Van Hollen and Mark Green all received more than 56%.  (And yes, I realize this is essentially a GOP talking point, but I don’t purport to be a newspaper.)

Then there’s this gem, from the Sheila Harsdorf (Republican)/Allison Page (Democrat) race from the Northwest corner of the state:

But while her rural district is becoming more Democratic, Harsdorf has been moving to the right as a more party-line Republican. She has, for example, supported policies that would provide tax incentives for out-of-state trash companies to dump their garbage in Wisconsin landfills. At the same time, though, Harsdorf is a very likable and decent person.

Never mind that Harsdorf was the Senate author of a bipartisan bill that increased the tipping fee on business that dumped trash in Wisconsin – in response to Minnesota businesses bringing all their trash to our state.  (In the Northwest part of the state, you’d be better off defending child molesters than trash haulers.)  So why would the Shepherd Express in Milwaukee be so willing to peddle a demonstrably false accusation from a race all the way across the state?  Because they’ve essentially just become a newsletter for Senate Democrats.

Now, I could go through the entire article and point out how ridiculous its assertions are – anyone believing Wasserman is “favored,” or that Page has a “very good chance” for an upset, or that Republican Dan Kapanke’s seat in La Crosse is an “excellent chance for a Democratic pickup” would be laughed out of Madison by anyone knowing anything about those races.

The point is, this is why newspapers are so insistent on campaign finance reform, which would shut down campaign speech by candidates and their supporters.  By limiting spending and adversiting during political season, newspapers become more relevant, as they then carry the most influential public message about campaigns.  And in the Shepherd Express’ case, they can then print whatever ridiculous nonsense they are fed them by Senate Democrats without any competition.

In the early days of American democracy, much of the campaign messages were carried by partisan newspapers, which printed scandalous, unfounded rumors about candidates that they opposed.  By giving rags like the Shepherd Express a monopoly on political speech, we’d be heading right back to that type of partisan yellow journalism.

Nearly a decade ago, British provocateur David Icke took a trip to Canada. As he swiped his passport through the scanner at the Vancouver airport, the words “WATCH FOR” appeared on the screen. Security quickly whisked him away to a holding cell.

Icke, a former English football player and BBC sports correspondent, had his career take a remarkable turn in 1991, when he declared himself to be the Son of God on a British talk show. Later, he wrote that he believed the Earth was secretly controlled by an extraterrestrial race of reptiles which, if they consume enough human blood, will enable them to take a human form. In his 1999 book, “The Biggest Secret: The Book that Will Change the World,” Icke exposed George H.W. Bush and Hillary Clinton as members of this reptilian ruling class.

While they appeared to some to be nothing more than the rantings of a madman, Icke’s theories were immediately denounced as anti-Semitic. While he never accused Jews of any plot to rule the world, some believed his “lizard race” theory was too similar to many other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. As a result, Icke was flagged by Canadian customs authorities, who had been pressured by anti-discrimination groups to keep him out of the country altogether.

In the airport holding cell, a man with rubber gloves rifled through Icke’s belongings to find anti-Semitic artifacts. Two immigrations officers berated him, trying to get him to admit he was an anti-Semite. “The families in positions of great financial power obsessively interbreed with one another,” he said. “But I’m not talking about one earth race, Jewish or non-Jewish. I’m talking about a genetic network that operates through all races, this bloodline being a fusion between human and reptilian genes,” he protested.

After four hours in the cell, the Canadian authorities concluded that when Icke said lizards, he really meant lizards. They released him, and he was free to go on his way. He began giving speeches to Canadian crowds, which were often cut short by protestors hurling pies at him.

Certainly, it’s a long way from lizard conspiracy theories and Canadian immigration agents to Wisconsin in 2008. Yet the state Government Accountability Board (GAB) is attempting to unilaterally impose Canadian-style restrictions on free speech, without any action by a single elected official. In essence, they’re going to give themselves the ability to decide whether or not people are talking about reptiles.

The unelected GAB, made up of former judges, was instituted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2007, in order to more aggressively enforce existing elections laws. Instead, the Board has deigned it necessary to make new laws which have never been considered by the Legislature. (Also known as those who represent the people of Wisconsin.)

For instance, the GAB is trying to make itself the sole group that decides what can and can’t be said during an election. They are looking into promulgating rules that would allow them to regulate the timing and content of political speech in Wisconsin by determining what is and what is not “express advocacy.” Is a television ad urging people to call their legislators to support tax relief political speech? Only the GAB will know. Is a newspaper ad asking voters to support candidates who are pro-life “express advocacy?” If the GAB decides so, it could be yanked from the papers. As a result, many citizens who normally band together to criticize legislators or their policies will be intimidated into silence during campaign season.

With the power of free speech vested in such a small group of “elites,” who knows what they will decide is appropriate? Is an ad discussing Barack Obama’s ties to Jeremiah Wright’s church legitimate, or is it a secret racist code? Is an ad criticizing Sarah Palin’s lack of experience accurate, or is it an unfair attack on working mothers? Only the GAB will be able to decide. And if the future holds anything that is certain, it is that they won’t be able to fairly determine when a lizard is just a lizard.

-September 22, 2008

For more on the travails of David Icke, see \”Them: Adventures with Extremists,\” by Jon Ronson.

NBC\’s Richard Engel, often vilified by the Right as a left wing cheap shot artist, actually did some outstanding reporting on China\’s effort to suppress demonstrations during the Olympics. In the story, Engel tells the story of a woman whose house was being bulldozed to make way for a road. She applied for a permit to demonstrate, then was arrested and imprisoned for 30 days, or until the Olympics were over.

View the video here.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the state Government Accountability Board continues to assert its authority to regulate the content and timing of political speech during campaign season. Certainly, they are speech suppression on different scales – but in both instances, they restrict the common citizen\’s ability to criticize the actions of their government.  Neither case should be acceptable in a free society.

It appears WisconsinEye has posted the video of my debate with Senator Jon Erpenbach,  Senator Mike Ellis and Gail Shea regarding campaign finance reform.  Prepare to be scintillated as the audience skewers me.

Part One

Part Two

For the last couple of days, I\’ve been selling out arenas nationwide on the Pro-Corruption World Tour. Last night\’s stop included the Humanities building on the UW-Madison campus, where Common Cause held a debate on the merits of campaign finance reform. I debated Senators Mike Ellis and Jon Erpenbach, along with poor Gail Shea, who wasn\’t able to get a word in edgewise with all of our hot air taking up the time.

Here\’s how it went down:

Ellis and Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, said they hope to pass legislation that would limit the amount of money interest groups are allowed to spend on political campaigns. The bill would require disclosure by advertising groups on how much they are spending and where the funds come from.

Heck said legislation on campaign finance reform could easily pass, except legislative leaders are “philosophically opposed” to the idea and would not bring the issue to light.

But according to panelist Christian Schneider, a fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, there is strong ground for opposition to Ellis and Erpenbach’s campaign finance reform because of the right to freedom of expression.

“If the First Amendment is meant for anything, it is to protect unpopular political opinions,” Schneider said. “It is condescending to voters to say, ‘You’re not smart enough to see through negative television advertisements.’”

Schneider added negative advertisements can bring harsh truths to light and often increase voter turnout by making voters more interested and invested in campaign issues.

However, Erpenbach and Ellis were quick to defend their campaign finance reform legislation from Schneider’s attacks.

“I do believe firmly in the First Amendment,” Erpenbach said. “I think everybody has the right to free speech — but you can’t go into a crowded theater and yell ‘fire.’”

Erpenbach added huge contributions collected by special interest groups can mute individual opposition voices.

But Ken Mayer, UW political science professor, questioned Erpenbach’s idea of campaign finance reform as a shield to defend the individual opposition voices.

“I’m a little uncomfortable with this idea of using government power to redistribute funds,” Mayer said. “There is no reason to punish those with more money.”

The Wispolitics.com account is here.

And despite my disagreements with virtually everyone in the room on this issue (except Mayer, apparently,) everyone was extremely welcoming and pleasant. In fact, they were so interested in what I had to say, they asked me every question during the crowd Q&A period.

From what I understand, video of the event will be available on WisconsinEye at some point. I\’ll post it when it goes up so you can see me spar with Ellis and Erpenbach.

SIDE NOTE: Ken Mayer as written some excellent pieces about campaign finance reform.  See \”\”Political Realities and Unintended Consequences: Why Campaign Finance Reform is Too Important to be Left to the Lawyers.\”

And:\”Do Public Funding Programs Enhance Electoral Competition?\”

I also have plenty to say as a follow-up to some of the details discussed at the forum.  I\’ll be posting those in the near future.

Tomorrow, voters in Wisconsin head to the polls to elect a new Supreme Court justice, to vote on a constitutional amendment to limit the governor\’s veto power, and to vote for various local offices.

Much has been written about the Supreme Court race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler, and the \”nasty\” tone that the race has taken. (Fortunately, Butler never figured out that Gableman\’s middle name is \”Hussein.\”)* TV ad after TV ad, including a great deal of independent ads not sponsored by the candidates, hammer away at their respective opponents, accusing them of everything from being \”soft on rapists and murderers\” to \”not recycling.\” As a result of these ads, the two competitors have become ubiquitous in the last month.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the \”Frankenstein Veto\” constitutional amendment up for a vote, which would restrict the govenor\’s ability to \”stitch\” together words from separate sentences of an appropriations bill to cobble together new laws never intended by the Legislature. Unless you\’re a regular reader of the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper in Madison (who have made it their personal mission to get the change passed), you likely have little idea what this whole amendment does. Voters will likely go to the polls, read the question, and decide on the spot whether they approve of this broad veto power.

And why are people so less informed about this important constitutional change? Well, because there hasn\’t been any television, radio, or print advertising. Frankenstein himself hasn\’t been running any ads in favor of the veto power, and neither have groups opposing it. As a result, this crucial change to state government is flying under the radar. It\’s hard to predict what the final outcome will be, since it\’s hard to gauge how much people know about it.

On the other hand, voters are much more informed (or, misinformed, in some cases) about the Supreme Court race. Why? Because all these \”scurrilous\” ads actually have the effect of informing voters and heightening the profile of the race. In that respect, despite the unpleasantness of the ads themselves, it appears they do actually make voters more aware of the candidates.

As evidence, see the outstanding work of UW-Madison political science professor Ken Goldstein, who was featured in Sunday\’s Wisconsin State Journal:

Mudslinging is taken for granted in most political campaigns these days, and it \’s a tactic that we love to hate.

But negative campaigns ads may be getting a bad rap, says UW-Madison political science professor Ken Goldstein.

Goldstein \’s research suggests that, counter to what many may think, negative ads can enrich the political process by focusing vital attention on issues and the differences between candidates.

\”Talking about people \’s records and people \’s weaknesses I think is perfectly fair game when we talk about the important things that are at stake in elections. It \’s actually the very definition of a representative democracy, \” said Goldstein, co-author of the new book, \”Campaign Advertising and American Democracy. \”

\”You don \’t always find positive effects from negative advertising, \” he added. \”But you \’re not likely at all to find negative effects. \”

[…]

Negative ads are more likely to be about policy issues, he said. They \’re also more likely to be factually correct, perhaps because they can expect to face greater public and media scrutiny.

\”People certainly like to complain about them, but the evidence also shows they learn from them, \” Goldstein said. \”Everyone thinks negative ads are these mudslinging personal things. They are sometimes, but most of the time negative ads are about policy issues and so they \’re verifiable claims. \”

Contrast this to all the hand-wringing by good government types, whose tender sensibilities are so offended by negative advertising that they propose shutting them down altogether. Recently, the state\’s Government Accountability Board voted to regulate third party campaign advertising, which is constitutionally questionable, given these groups\’ free speech rights. The State Bar has attempted to set up a board to condemn what they believe to be misleading ads. Several bills in the Legislature seek to limit third party campaign spending, while funding campaigns with public money.

Yet, as Goldstein suggests, without both positive and negative advertising on behalf of candidates, nobody would know anything about what\’s at stake in the campaigns being run. Supreme Court races would be determined by a smaller slice of voters, as ill-informed voters are less likely to show up to vote. If editorial boards and campaign reformers had their way, statewide races would look a lot more like the Frankenstein veto effort – barely informed voters not knowing what they\’re voting on, or not showing up to the polls at all. Sadly, their \”ideal\” campaign is the biggest threat to true democracy that we face.

————————————————–

*This is not true.

News has come down from on high: The newly-created Government Accountability Board has decided that they should be in charge of what people can and can’t say during elections. Apparently, they believe it is in the public’s best interest for an unelected board to limit political speech to save us all from democracy. Or, they just want to shut down Fairsley Foods:

When legislation authorizing the GAB was initially passed, there was concern that the Board’s powers may be too broad. It is now clear that those concerns were well-placed. Note the Board’s “duties” as described by the Legislative Council:

Act 1 creates two divisions in the GAB, each of which is under the direction and supervision of an administrator appointed by the GAB: the Ethics and Accountability Division and the Elections Division. The former has responsibility for administering campaign financing, lobbying, and ethics laws. The latter has responsibility for the administration of election laws.

[…]

The GAB is required to investigate violations of laws it administers and may prosecute, by its legal counsel or a special prosecutor, alleged civil violations of those laws. Alternatively, it may refer prosecution of alleged civil violations to the appropriate district attorney (which is the same prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal violations).

Note anything missing there? Clearly, the GAB has the authority to prosecute existing laws that candidates violate, or ship them off to a district attorney for action. Yet the GAB has no authority to just make up new laws of their own to enforce. Those powers still rest with the Legislature, as explained in the article by Attorney Mike Wittenwyler:

Mike Wittenwyler, a lawyer who represents groups that sponsor issue ads, defended the ads as discussing public policy matters rather than candidates and said there ‘s no need to change the current rules. But he said that if the board makes changes, they must comply with state and federal court rulings.

Wittenwyler also questioned whether the board even has the authority to regulate issue ads, saying that ‘s the Legislature’s job.

Under the original bill, the GAB is allowed to issue advisory opinions, but states that “each advisory opinion issued by the board must be supported by specific legal authority under a statute or other law, or case or common law authority.” Needless to say, there is no current laws that deems the GAB the “speech police.”

Basically, the Board sees TV ads that they don’t like, and authority be damned, they want to do something about it. This smacks of the same outcome-based reading of the law that centers around the current Supreme Court race.

What’s even more troubling is how little credit this unelected board gives voters. They think that voters just must see these TV ads, not recognize them as typical attack ads, and swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. They think the typical voter has just fallen off the proverbial turnip truck. (My apologies to anyone who actually has fallen off a turnip truck for the use of this insensitive metaphor.)

I will grant that these ads do have some effect. Otherwise, campaigns and third parties wouldn’t spend the kinds of dough they do to run them. But how much effect is really in question. It’s pretty clear that people who would most likely be affected by the message (those who know nothing about campaigns and politics) would be the least likely to vote. In some instances, voters might actually turn away from a candidate who runs an ad they deem to be inaccurate or repulsive. It’s impossible to measure the backlash.

Nobody likes negative campaign ads. But if the First Amendment exists for anything, it is to protect unpopular speech. Notice that nobody’s proposing a board to regulate praise of Brett Favre in Wisconsin. The only acceptable remedy for objectionable speech is more speech, not shutting it down altogether.

(Note: I see that Chris Lato makes a similar point today in this column.)