Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Supreme Reform

By: dmc-admin//December 24, 2007//

Supreme Reform

By: dmc-admin//December 24, 2007//

Listen to this article

Once the calendar turns to 2008, judicial campaign efforts around the state will intensify leading up to the Feb. 19 primary.

The recent institution of an independent ethics watchdog group and pending legislation on public financing could soon influence the nature of campaigning, especially for the state Supreme Court.

On Dec. 6, the State Bar of Wisconsin formally launched its Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee, which will attempt to get Supreme Court candidates to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct as it relates to campaign advertising.

Senate Bill 171, also known as the Impartial Justice Bill, seeks to increase the amount of public funding available to Supreme Court candidates. The legislation is currently awaiting action by the Joint Finance Committee, which received the bill in October.

Pledge of Allegiance

The integrity committee appears more likely to affect candidates in the 2008 spring election.

State Bar President Thomas J. Basting, Sr., said the committee will monitor campaign-related activities of candidates and their supporters, specifically for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

Two candidates — Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Gableman and Madison-area attorney Charles Schutze — have emerged to challenge Justice Louis B. Butler, Jr.

Candidates have until Jan. 2 to file nomination papers with the Wisconsin State Elections Board.

Schutze and Gableman could not be reached for comment, but have admitted on their respective Web sites to have distinctly different ideologies than the current justice, who they characterize as a liberal member of the high court. Gableman has emphasized his “tough-on-crime” stance, while Schutze has said his judicial philosophy is “95 percent conservative.”

Basting said judicial candidates should focus their advertising on “record of public service and similar judicial qualifications, rather than signaling how they or their opponents are likely to rule on matters that would come before the court.”

To ensure that narrow scope, the committee drafted a campaign advertising agreement which includes a provision to publicly disavow advertisements that impugn the judicial system or fellow candidates.

Sachin Chedda, a campaign advisor to Butler, said the justice has not yet evaluated the pledge, but he is interested in the concept.

“Justice Butler is very comfortable with the idea of running a clean campaign and we will certainly take a look at whatever specific requests come our way,” said Chedda. “Without having seen a pledge yet, all I can say we are generally supportive.”

The Fun in Funding

Senate Bill 171 was introduced on April 27 and focuses on increasing public funding for judicial candidates, specifically those for state Supreme Court.

Introduced by Sen. Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls), the legislation seeks to generate public funding up to $100,000 per candidate for the spring primary and $300,000 per candidate for the spring election.

Kathy Daggs, a spokesperson for Kreitlow, said that public funding is rarely sought by candidates now because private groups can infuse much more than the state can provide.

Currently, candidates for the Supreme Court cannot receive a public grant for primary elections and a maximum of around $97,000 for the general election.

“This bill would help make public funding more attractive,” said Daggs.

According to the bill, additional funding would come from a newly created Democracy Trust Fund for Supreme Court candidates.

The fund would be established through an increase in the income tax “check-off” from $1 to $3. Currently, individuals filing taxes can designate $1 to the Wisconsin election campaign fund.

“Right now $1 goes to a public endowment for candidates who seek public financing,” said Daggs. “The change would allocate $2 for the democracy fund and keep the $1 for the campaign fund.”

The bill would also level the playing field for candidates who opt for public financing.

A candidate would receive additional public financing equivalent to any independent expenditures made against the candidate or in support of his or her opponents if those expenditures exceed 20 percent of the amount of the public financing benefit for the office that the candidate seeks.

On Dec. 10, the Wisconsin Supreme Court jointly issued a statement in general support of the concept of public funding. Chedda reiterated the Court’s comments on behalf of Butler and added that any changes would need to reflect the “political realities of running a campaign.”

“The general support is there, but any change would have to be meaningful,” said Chedda. “You can’t just give a Supreme Court candidate $50,000 and say, go run your campaign.”

Though the additional funding would not increase an individual’s tax liability or decrease refunds, Daggs said there has been some resistance to the bill, primarily in the State Assembly, because if “check-offs” do not provide enough revenue, additional state appropriations will be needed to cover the difference.

The fiscal estimate indicated that as much as $2.8 million would be needed in the Democracy Trust Fund to cover costs in a contested election.

Daggs said that any impact the legislation might have on the upcoming Supreme Court election is unknown, since she did not anticipate the bill getting to the Senate until early in 2008.

“I think it will pass the Senate in the next session, but I’m not sure about the Assembly,” said Daggs. “At this point, we haven’t heard from any of the current candidates on the bill.”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests