By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) -- A cornerstone of U.S. politics since the 1970s, public funding of presidential campaigns may soon go the way of other relics of the era like long sideburns and lava lamps. Neither President Barack Obama nor any of the leading 2012 Republican contenders is expected to accept federal matching funds and the limits they impose.
In fact, opting to take public money to finance a presidential campaign this year is likely to be seen as the mark of a loser.
"I would be shocked if they took matching funds. I don't think that it's a successful model this time, or in the future," says GOP strategist Carl Forti. He's been an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and helped run American Crossroads, an independent group that raised millions to defeat Democratic candidates in 2010.
Obama's record-breaking fundraising in the 2008 campaign allowed him to abandon the public system in both the Democratic primaries and the general election. With his success as a benchmark, top-tier Republican candidates now are planning to go it alone.
The president, who has no Democratic primary race, may become the first candidate to raise $1 billion for the general election in 2012.
Republicans in a wide field must battle each other for the party's private donors. But the emergence of free-spending independent political groups - since the Supreme Court in 2009 cleared the way for unlimited corporate spending in campaigns - is expected to help close the imbalance between Obama and the GOP. Several of the Republicans also have immense personal wealth.
Presidential candidates of both parties once relied on money from the U.S. Treasury as an indispensible part of their budgets. Indeed, the ability to qualify for matching funds was considered an indication of a candidate's strength after the system was put in place following Watergate-era fundraising abuses. The system was intended to reduce candidates' dependence on large contributions from individuals and groups.
Money for the program comes from a voluntary $3 checkoff on Americans' income tax returns. The fund currently contains $195 million, which can be used only for presidential primary and general election campaigns and to subsidize the major parties' nominating conventions.
Over time, the program began to weaken. George W. Bush refused public funding in his 2000 and 2004 presidential primary campaigns but did accept the money in the general election. Several candidates in both parties opted out in the 2008 primaries, but others did accept matching funds, including Democrat John Edwards.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, turned down matching funds for the primaries but then took them in the general election - a move that severely hindered his ability to compete financially with Obama.
For this year's serious GOP candidates, refusing federal funds will be both liberating and daunting.
By refusing matching funds, candidates are potentially forfeiting a lot of money. Edwards received nearly $13 million in matching funds in the 2008 primary, and Joe Biden, now the vice president, accepted over $2 million for his primary run. McCain, the winner of the GOP nomination that year, accepted $84 million in federal funds for the general election, but that barred him from any private fundraising. Obama opted out of the system and raised $264 million.
For the general election this time, a qualifying party's nominee would get just under $90 million and would be prohibited from raising more privately. For the primaries it's more complicated: Qualifying candidates can receive a federal match of up to $250 for each contribution from an individual and must abide by both state spending limits and an overall spending limit of around $50 million.
Among the likely Republican candidates:
- Romney, a multimillionaire, turned down public funds in 2008. He raised $66 million and lent his campaign $44 million before eventually dropping out.
He's expected to enter the 2012 field soon and has begun assembling a list of "bundlers" who have been asked to raise $25,000 apiece. He has told donors he hopes to take in $50 million for the primaries - less than his 2008 run but an ambitious figure nonetheless. He has not indicated how much of his personal fortune he will commit.
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich hopes to raise $30 million for the primaries, his advisers say. Gingrich has long solicited funds for several organizations including the independent American Solution for Winning the Future, which raised and spent $28 million in 2010.
- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has a strong national fundraising base from his years as a lobbyist and as chairman of the Republican National Committee and Republican Governors Association. His advisers say he plans to refuse federal matching funds and has set a goal of raising $55 million for the primaries.
- Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty hopes to raise about $25 million for the primaries. Advisers say they don't believe he would accept matching funds. Pawlenty's campaign has deployed a 16-member national fundraising team aimed at starting an aggressive fundraising push April 1. He also has raised $4 million for three separate political action committees.
Other potential candidates have been less clear about their plans.
- Real estate developer Donald Trump says he will decide by June whether to join the field. Like Romney, he is very wealthy and has vast business connections.
- Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is expected to launch a campaign sometime this spring when he returns from China, where his is serving as U.S. ambassador. Huntsman has abundant personal wealth.
- Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a tea party favorite weighing a run, raised more than $13 million for her 2010 re-election campaign and has a strong national fundraising base. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is also considering a run and is popular among many social conservatives.
- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin are weighing bids but are considered less likely to run. Both have strong fundraising connections.
The big Republican field is off to a late start. Most 2008 contenders were in by early 2007 and were able to raise money in the first quarter of the year, between January and March. Most this time won't start until the second quarter, beginning April. 1.
"We have a very different environment than we did in 2008," said Dave Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign fundraising. "These candidates have all shown they have a proven ability to raise money. The problem is, if you have half a dozen or more relatively well-known Republicans running around, there is only so much cash to go around."
Some of the GOP-favoring private groups may get involved in the primaries, raising and spending money on behalf of candidates or targeting others for defeat. But many are likely to save their firepower for the general election.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/2/2012_SPURNING_CAMPAIGN_MONEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-31-15-34-52
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Ohio Collective Bargaining Restrictions Spark Strong Reaction From Police, Firefighters
First Posted: 03/31/11 08:03 PM ET
Updated: 04/ 1/11 12:25 AM ET
(AP) CLEVELAND — Unlike Wisconsin's high-profile effort to limit collective bargaining rights for public workers, Ohio's includes police and firefighters – who say it threatens the safety of officers and the people they protect.
Opponents have vowed to put the issue on the November ballot, giving voters a chance to strike the law down. The firefighters' union in Cleveland plans to hit the streets and help gather signatures.
Patrolman Michael Cox, a 15-year veteran of Cleveland's police force, said Ohio overlooked the inherent risks of police and firefighting work when lawmakers included them in the bill, which passed the Legislature on Thursday.
"We don't run from the house fire; we don't run from the gunshot," he said. "We're the guys that got to say, 'OK, we're going to go fix this problem real fast.'"
Under the Ohio plan, police and firefighters won't be able to bargain with cities over the number of people required to be on duty. That means they can't negotiate the number of staff in fire trucks or police cars, for instance.
Supporters of the bargaining limits say decisions on how to equip police and fire departments should be in the hands of city officials, not union members.
"Shouldn't it be the employer who decides what's safe and what's not safe?" said state Rep. Joseph Uecker, who was a police officer in the Cincinnati area for 15 years. "Don't you think they are the ones who should decide whether they should have one or two or three people in a car? That's what we call management rights."
Cleveland Police Officer Anthony Sauto is recovering after a bullet that pierced his leg a few months ago during a night shift on the west side of town. The wound will heal, but he worries that patrolling the streets will be even more dangerous when he returns to work.
"That's my No. 1 concern," Sauto said. "We put our lives on the line."
The 350,000 public workers covered under the bill can still negotiate wages and certain work conditions – but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. The measure also does away with automatic pay raises and bases future wage increases on merit.
Wisconsin's measure covers 175,000 workers but exempts police and firefighters.
Kasich has said his $55.5 billion, two-year state budget counts on unspecified savings from lifting union protections to fill an $8 billion hole.
In northeast Ohio, fear that a loss of bargaining will result in layoffs and further cutbacks is rippling through the law enforcement community.
One of the biggest worries is one-man patrol cars, said Steve Loomis, president of the city's local police union. Under the current contract, Cleveland police officers are required to have at least two officers in a patrol car when driving through certain neighborhoods, Loomis said.
Democrats have 90 days after Kasich signs the bill to gather more than 230,000 valid signatures to get it on the fall ballot. Loomis believes that if Senate Bill 5 goes unchallenged, the two-man rule will be the first thing to go.
"They're going to give up our safety for the illusion that there's more police on the street," Loomis said. "That's horrifying. Guys get killed."
And equipment that police officers say is vital but that the city says is too expensive – like computers in patrol cars, a rarity in Cleveland – will be harder to get without the complete bargaining process, Loomis said.
State lawmakers did make last-minute changes to the measure in the House that allow police and fire officials to bargain for vests, shields and other safety gear.
Mike Norman, secretary for Cleveland's local firefighters union, said that's a cold comfort compared with what he called an "all-out assault" on the union.
"Changes to the game supersede the topics that we're allowed to discuss," he said. "This isn't something that needed to be tweaked a little bit."
As Cleveland's population has declined in the past decade, so have its ranks of police officers. Two rounds of layoffs have left the police force more than 300 officers smaller since 2004.
The street crimes unit, which used to investigate prostitution and gambling, is no more. The auto theft unit was also disbanded. And a city that stretches 22 miles along Lake Erie no longer has a single police boat to patrol its own waters; that job is now left to the Coast Guard, Loomis said.
The Fire Department has lost more than 200 members and closed five companies since 2004. City Public Safety Director Martin Flask said all furloughed police and fire employees have been recalled to duty, but he acknowledged that staffing levels have declined in recent years.
"What this bill is going to do," Loomis said, "is allow bean counters and people who have never walked a step in our shoes, sitting behind a mahogany desk, to make decisions on our safety."
The office of Mayor Frank Jackson did not respond to requests for comment on the police and firefighters' complaints.
Like other public employees, law enforcement officials are also worried about things like rising health care costs. Youngstown firefighter Dave Cook, 43, thinks it will be tough to attract qualified candidates to the dangerous profession if health care costs go through the roof.
"Who's going to come into a police or fireman job when the starting pay is $24,000 a year?" he said. "What type of recruits are you going to get?"
On his way to work Thursday morning, Cleveland police Officer Henry Steel said most officers would support the effort to repeal the bill. But at work, he said, it will be business as usual.
"We're all professionals," he said. "We're going to do our job, period. We're going to do our job. We may not be too happy about it."
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Ann Sanner, Julie Carr Smyth and JoAnne Viviano in Columbus, and John Seewer in Toledo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/ohio-collective-bargainin_1_n_843387.html
Updated: 04/ 1/11 12:25 AM ET
(AP) CLEVELAND — Unlike Wisconsin's high-profile effort to limit collective bargaining rights for public workers, Ohio's includes police and firefighters – who say it threatens the safety of officers and the people they protect.
Opponents have vowed to put the issue on the November ballot, giving voters a chance to strike the law down. The firefighters' union in Cleveland plans to hit the streets and help gather signatures.
Patrolman Michael Cox, a 15-year veteran of Cleveland's police force, said Ohio overlooked the inherent risks of police and firefighting work when lawmakers included them in the bill, which passed the Legislature on Thursday.
"We don't run from the house fire; we don't run from the gunshot," he said. "We're the guys that got to say, 'OK, we're going to go fix this problem real fast.'"
Under the Ohio plan, police and firefighters won't be able to bargain with cities over the number of people required to be on duty. That means they can't negotiate the number of staff in fire trucks or police cars, for instance.
Supporters of the bargaining limits say decisions on how to equip police and fire departments should be in the hands of city officials, not union members.
"Shouldn't it be the employer who decides what's safe and what's not safe?" said state Rep. Joseph Uecker, who was a police officer in the Cincinnati area for 15 years. "Don't you think they are the ones who should decide whether they should have one or two or three people in a car? That's what we call management rights."
Cleveland Police Officer Anthony Sauto is recovering after a bullet that pierced his leg a few months ago during a night shift on the west side of town. The wound will heal, but he worries that patrolling the streets will be even more dangerous when he returns to work.
"That's my No. 1 concern," Sauto said. "We put our lives on the line."
The 350,000 public workers covered under the bill can still negotiate wages and certain work conditions – but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. The measure also does away with automatic pay raises and bases future wage increases on merit.
Wisconsin's measure covers 175,000 workers but exempts police and firefighters.
Kasich has said his $55.5 billion, two-year state budget counts on unspecified savings from lifting union protections to fill an $8 billion hole.
In northeast Ohio, fear that a loss of bargaining will result in layoffs and further cutbacks is rippling through the law enforcement community.
One of the biggest worries is one-man patrol cars, said Steve Loomis, president of the city's local police union. Under the current contract, Cleveland police officers are required to have at least two officers in a patrol car when driving through certain neighborhoods, Loomis said.
Democrats have 90 days after Kasich signs the bill to gather more than 230,000 valid signatures to get it on the fall ballot. Loomis believes that if Senate Bill 5 goes unchallenged, the two-man rule will be the first thing to go.
"They're going to give up our safety for the illusion that there's more police on the street," Loomis said. "That's horrifying. Guys get killed."
And equipment that police officers say is vital but that the city says is too expensive – like computers in patrol cars, a rarity in Cleveland – will be harder to get without the complete bargaining process, Loomis said.
State lawmakers did make last-minute changes to the measure in the House that allow police and fire officials to bargain for vests, shields and other safety gear.
Mike Norman, secretary for Cleveland's local firefighters union, said that's a cold comfort compared with what he called an "all-out assault" on the union.
"Changes to the game supersede the topics that we're allowed to discuss," he said. "This isn't something that needed to be tweaked a little bit."
As Cleveland's population has declined in the past decade, so have its ranks of police officers. Two rounds of layoffs have left the police force more than 300 officers smaller since 2004.
The street crimes unit, which used to investigate prostitution and gambling, is no more. The auto theft unit was also disbanded. And a city that stretches 22 miles along Lake Erie no longer has a single police boat to patrol its own waters; that job is now left to the Coast Guard, Loomis said.
The Fire Department has lost more than 200 members and closed five companies since 2004. City Public Safety Director Martin Flask said all furloughed police and fire employees have been recalled to duty, but he acknowledged that staffing levels have declined in recent years.
"What this bill is going to do," Loomis said, "is allow bean counters and people who have never walked a step in our shoes, sitting behind a mahogany desk, to make decisions on our safety."
The office of Mayor Frank Jackson did not respond to requests for comment on the police and firefighters' complaints.
Like other public employees, law enforcement officials are also worried about things like rising health care costs. Youngstown firefighter Dave Cook, 43, thinks it will be tough to attract qualified candidates to the dangerous profession if health care costs go through the roof.
"Who's going to come into a police or fireman job when the starting pay is $24,000 a year?" he said. "What type of recruits are you going to get?"
On his way to work Thursday morning, Cleveland police Officer Henry Steel said most officers would support the effort to repeal the bill. But at work, he said, it will be business as usual.
"We're all professionals," he said. "We're going to do our job, period. We're going to do our job. We may not be too happy about it."
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Ann Sanner, Julie Carr Smyth and JoAnne Viviano in Columbus, and John Seewer in Toledo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/ohio-collective-bargainin_1_n_843387.html
Electronic Frontier Foundation uncovers PATRIOT Act abuses
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, March 31st, 2011 -- 9:32 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/31/electronic-frontier-foundation-uncovers-patriot-act-abuses/
Thursday, March 31st, 2011 -- 9:32 pm
The digital rights advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced Thursday it had discovered violations stemming from the FBI's use of expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Documents obtained by the group as the result of pending Freedom of Information Act litigation suggest that abuses of surveillance powers granted by the PATRIOT Act had been flagged by the FBI.
Congress passed a bill in February that extended the roving wiretap, "lone wolf" and "library records" provisions of the PATRIOT Act until May 27. The three provisions allow authorities to conduct surveillance without identifying the person or location to be wiretapped, permit surveillance of "non-US" persons who are not affiliated with a terrorist group, and allow law enforcement to gain access to "any tangible thing" during investigations, respectively.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the three provisions should be made permanent. He also told the committee he was "not aware of any" abuses resulting from the provisions.
Among the heavily-redacted documents obtained by the EFF is a report [PDF] showing that the FBI monitored young children for five days, despite the fact that none of the voices being monitored matched the language of the target. The report concluded that the roving wiretap violation occurred as a result of an inadequate review of the wiretap renewal application.
The documents were obtained as part of the EFF's ongoing FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government (FLAG) Project.
Congress is expected to pass a longer extension of the three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but some senators have vowed to amend the legislation to ensure American's civil liberties are protected.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) has proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the government to describe the target of a roving wiretap "with particularity."
"Roving wiretaps, which do not require the government to specify the place to be bugged, are designed to allow law enforcement to track targets who evade surveillance by frequently changing phones," he explained. "Before the PATRIOT Act, roving wiretaps were only permitted for criminal investigations."
"Unfortunately, the PATRIOT Act did not include sufficient checks to protect innocent Americans from unwarranted government surveillance," Sen. Durbin continued. "Under current law, the FBI is not required to ascertain the presence of the target of the wiretap at the place being wiretapped, as it is for criminal wiretaps."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/31/electronic-frontier-foundation-uncovers-patriot-act-abuses/
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Donation Plea: "Donations are Unlimited and Undisclosed."
For those who aren't aware, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) is a lobbying group. They have funded millions of dollars worth of slimy political attack ads over the years, all of them directed at Democrats and others that WMC perceives as liberal.
It should come as no surprise that they are seeking donations to smear Joanne Kloppenburg, candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Their plea for dollars is a perfect example of the need for campaign finance reform. They boast in the letter that donations to WMC are "unlimited and undisclosed."
In a letter dated March 24th, the president of WMC, James Haney, repeats the usual distortions about Kloppenburg, and praises her opponent as being fair, despite the Prosser campaign's statement that Prosser would be a conservative complement to Governor Scott Walker and the Republican state legislature.
The money quote, however is the one I mention in the title:
Click here to make a generous corporate contribution to counter their efforts. Donations are unlimited and undisclosed.
The emphasis is not mine. it's in the letter.
It's even more disgusting when you read the fine print at the end. Even though the letter is obviously an outright request for money to support David Prosser and smear Joanne Kloppenburg, they "disclose" the following. This time the emphasis is mine:
Paid for by WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc.WMC IMC is a special fund established by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce to deliver the business message and promote grassroots activity to support the business agenda. WMC IMC is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Corporate contributions are accepted and kept confidential. There are no contribution limits under law. WMC IMC issue advocacy does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Buckly v. Valeo /Wisconsin State Elections Board v. WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc.) It is our understanding that your financial support for WMC-IMC is an unrestricted, general support grant and is not earmarked or targeted support for any specific WMC-IMC activity. While it is possible that a portion of your donation may be used for political purposes (such as supporting or opposing candidates) you are not donating specifically for the purpose of furthering any independent expenditure activity.
I know some will point out that the disclosure language is standard for all 501(c) organizations, including those that support liberal candidates. Perhaps, but it all stinks. This is not what democracy looks like, no matter who does it. Unlimited, anonymous donations are not free speech. They are bribes.
The election for Supreme Court is Tuesday, April 5th. Two Madison cab companies, including Union Cab, are offering free rides to the polls.
March 29, 2011--Madison, WI. Last week, Union Cab of Madison Co-operative’s Board of Directors has authorized free rides to and from Madison, WI polling places on April 5, 2011. Today, Badger Cab, Madison’s oldest cab company, has decided to join with Union Cab and also provide free rides. Tom Royston, of Badger Cab, noted that “Badger has been part of the Madison community for over 65 years and is happy to support our community by helping people get to the polls.”
Originally posted to Giles Goat Boy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:44 AM EDT.
For those who aren't aware, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) is a lobbying group. They have funded millions of dollars worth of slimy political attack ads over the years, all of them directed at Democrats and others that WMC perceives as liberal.
It should come as no surprise that they are seeking donations to smear Joanne Kloppenburg, candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Their plea for dollars is a perfect example of the need for campaign finance reform. They boast in the letter that donations to WMC are "unlimited and undisclosed."
In a letter dated March 24th, the president of WMC, James Haney, repeats the usual distortions about Kloppenburg, and praises her opponent as being fair, despite the Prosser campaign's statement that Prosser would be a conservative complement to Governor Scott Walker and the Republican state legislature.
The money quote, however is the one I mention in the title:
Click here to make a generous corporate contribution to counter their efforts. Donations are unlimited and undisclosed.
The emphasis is not mine. it's in the letter.
It's even more disgusting when you read the fine print at the end. Even though the letter is obviously an outright request for money to support David Prosser and smear Joanne Kloppenburg, they "disclose" the following. This time the emphasis is mine:
Paid for by WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc.WMC IMC is a special fund established by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce to deliver the business message and promote grassroots activity to support the business agenda. WMC IMC is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Corporate contributions are accepted and kept confidential. There are no contribution limits under law. WMC IMC issue advocacy does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Buckly v. Valeo /Wisconsin State Elections Board v. WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc.) It is our understanding that your financial support for WMC-IMC is an unrestricted, general support grant and is not earmarked or targeted support for any specific WMC-IMC activity. While it is possible that a portion of your donation may be used for political purposes (such as supporting or opposing candidates) you are not donating specifically for the purpose of furthering any independent expenditure activity.
I know some will point out that the disclosure language is standard for all 501(c) organizations, including those that support liberal candidates. Perhaps, but it all stinks. This is not what democracy looks like, no matter who does it. Unlimited, anonymous donations are not free speech. They are bribes.
The election for Supreme Court is Tuesday, April 5th. Two Madison cab companies, including Union Cab, are offering free rides to the polls.
March 29, 2011--Madison, WI. Last week, Union Cab of Madison Co-operative’s Board of Directors has authorized free rides to and from Madison, WI polling places on April 5, 2011. Today, Badger Cab, Madison’s oldest cab company, has decided to join with Union Cab and also provide free rides. Tom Royston, of Badger Cab, noted that “Badger has been part of the Madison community for over 65 years and is happy to support our community by helping people get to the polls.”
Originally posted to Giles Goat Boy on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:44 AM EDT.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/545141/wisconsin_manufacturers_and_commerce_donation_plea:_%22donations_are_unlimited_and_undisclosed.%22/#paragraph4
Former Gov. Lucey Leaves Prosser's Campaign, Endorses Kloppenburg
Lucey Resigns As Honorary Co-Chairman Of Prosser's Campaign
Posted: 8:33 pm CDT March 31, 2011
Updated: 9:13 pm CDT March 31, 2011
MADISON, Wis. -- Former Democratic Gov. Patrick Lucey is withdrawing his support for incumbent Justice David Prosser for Wisconsin Supreme Court and is throwing it to Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Lucey released a statement to the media Thursday evening saying the campaign has revealed what he called "a disturbing distemper and lack of civility" in Prosser, though he did not cite specifics.
"I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman," Lucey said in the statement. "I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser's candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice -- as for any judge -- even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility."
At the same time, Lucey said he has continued to be impressed by Kloppenburg, saying she has shown the proper judicial temperament.
"(Kloppenburg) has adhered throughout the campaign to even-handedness and non-partisanship and has exhibited both promising judicial temperament and good grace, even in the heat of a fierce campaign," Lucey said.
Lucey said he has resigned as the honorary co-chairman of Prosser's campaign, and he is endorsing Kloppenburg for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The election is Tuesday.
The campaign between the Prosser and Kloppenburg has been contentious. A public-policy group recently calculated that spending on the race has reached $1.7 million.
A message left at Prosser's campaign was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Lucey served as Wisconsin's 38th governor. In his statement, he noted that he appointed to Wisconsin's Supreme Court "two quite different but equally principled justices" -- Shirley Abrahamson and Roland Day -- and that he has endorsed several more justices over the years.
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/27392391/detail.html
Posted: 8:33 pm CDT March 31, 2011
Updated: 9:13 pm CDT March 31, 2011
MADISON, Wis. -- Former Democratic Gov. Patrick Lucey is withdrawing his support for incumbent Justice David Prosser for Wisconsin Supreme Court and is throwing it to Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Lucey released a statement to the media Thursday evening saying the campaign has revealed what he called "a disturbing distemper and lack of civility" in Prosser, though he did not cite specifics.
"I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman," Lucey said in the statement. "I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser's candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice -- as for any judge -- even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility."
At the same time, Lucey said he has continued to be impressed by Kloppenburg, saying she has shown the proper judicial temperament.
"(Kloppenburg) has adhered throughout the campaign to even-handedness and non-partisanship and has exhibited both promising judicial temperament and good grace, even in the heat of a fierce campaign," Lucey said.
Lucey said he has resigned as the honorary co-chairman of Prosser's campaign, and he is endorsing Kloppenburg for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The election is Tuesday.
The campaign between the Prosser and Kloppenburg has been contentious. A public-policy group recently calculated that spending on the race has reached $1.7 million.
A message left at Prosser's campaign was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Lucey served as Wisconsin's 38th governor. In his statement, he noted that he appointed to Wisconsin's Supreme Court "two quite different but equally principled justices" -- Shirley Abrahamson and Roland Day -- and that he has endorsed several more justices over the years.
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/27392391/detail.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
