From Scoop # 57 March 31, 2008
 

Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee Public Watchdog or Liberal Support Group?
by Carl Soderberg
of The Inside Scoop
 

In December of last year, the President of the State Bar of Wisconsin announced that his group was forming the ponderously titled Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee to address problems he felt arose from last year’s Ziegler - Clifford race for Supreme Court.  He and his spokesmen were widely quoted in the mainstream liberal media as forming a “public watchdog” group, composed of a “group of citizens” who would “monitor” the Wisconsin Supreme Court race to “protect fair & impartial courts.”

The Committee would monitor the Supreme Court race, and criticize candidates’ and their supporters’ statements if the WJCIC felt they were false, misleading, ad hominem,  indicated a predisposition to rule in a certain way, or otherwise violate state law regarding judicial campaigns.  And, they wanted the candidates to sign a public pledge not to do so.

Shortly after this debut, it became obvious that his new committee was nothing more than another political special interest group.  It would be neither public, a watchdog, citizen-based, or even interested in fairness and impartiality.  It appears to be another partisan, left wing support group for liberal candidates to the Wisconsin Supreme Court masquerading as a “good government” group.  Is its destiny to shower conservative judicial candidates with embarrassing “complaints” to make them look ethically challenged?  Its long term future purpose is still to be seen.

The WJCIC Members

The Wisconsin Club for Growth has done masterful research into this WJCIC.  First, on January 2nd, they analyzed the backgrounds of the original members of the committee.  Then, on February 19th, they published emails from some of the members, obtained through the open records law (2 members are UW professors.)

All the members have ties to the Democrat Party or its candidates.  One member has donated to Butler’s campaign, as have 3 of the member’s spouses, including one spouse who is listed as a “Supporter” on Butler’s website.  Seven of the eight members have donated to Gov. Jim Doyle and other Democrat political candidates.  Six of the eight were appointed to government positions by Jim Doyle.  Two are former Democrat politicians.  The one former GOP politician, a Doyle appointee to the Government Accountability Board, has since resigned.

Oddly enough, no members or spouses have donated to, or have ties to, Gableman’s campaign.  I wonder why that is? 

What Their Own Email Shows

When the Wisconsin Club for Growth released the WJCIC’s own emails, they revealed an ever deeper level of partisanship.  Personal attacks, of an almost childish quality, were plenty.  Gableman campaign staff are called “mercenaries.”  Gableman consultant Darrin Schmitz is “the legitimate child of the demon R.J. Johnson” (from the Club for Growth) “an advocate of wedge politics from whence all the trouble arises.”  (He then recommends “a sharp poke in the slats.”)  Gableman’s rejection of the WJCIC’s pledge is not because of their partisanship, but because “paranoia induces stupidity.” 

Smacking the candidate’s team wasn’t enough for the WJCIC, though.  After all, what liberal can resist going after the ultimate evil of all evil, Talk Radio.  While bemoaning their lack of coverage by the press, they celebrate that Talk Radio’s criticisms are similarly ignored by the “legitimate press.”  (So I guess that makes Talk Radio illegitimate.)  And for added measure, WTMJ 620AM’s Charlie Sykes is a “skunk.”

The other bastion of opposition to liberal Democrats also got its smack by the committee.  The WMC (Wisconsin Manufacturers’ and Commerce) is, aside from conservative bloggers, the one institution in Wisconsin which consistently supports pro-business and conservative policy and legislation.  Again from their own emails, according to one committee member:  “WMC turns out to be just as smart as the people in Ohio.  They, too, can count to four.”

I’m surprised they didn’t take a shot at Wisconsin Right to Life while they were at it.

In another odd expression for political “non-partisans,” the emails seem to offer political advice to the Butler campaign.  One member explained that replying to a WMC video was an opportunity for attack.  “Surely they (Butler campaign) are familiar with the enemies strategy.”  “Butler can talk about the professor’s oversimplifications and about the megaphone supplied by the WMC and take the boost that gives him without mentioning his opponent.  And, of course, he can also use the platform this attack gives him to talk about what the campaign is really about and his own virtues.  Just a suggestion.”

Suggestion to whom?

Economic With the Truth

Although it criticizes candidates when it feels they are being false or misleading in statements or advertisements, the WJCIC apparently doesn’t feel the same rule applies to them.  This is clearly illustrated by their pretense that they are non-partisan.  Clearly, they favor liberal judges like Judge Butler.  (Just imagine what the reaction would be if a similar Republican group, or watchdog committee of the WMC, was formed.)

But members have been less than fully honest, or misleading, in some of their statements.  At the WJCIC’s announcement, State Bar spokesman Thomas Solberg said “This is a group of citizens speaking out...”  In a letter to Judge Gableman’s consultant Darrin Schmitz, Basting writes “...WJCIC -- a group of private citizens...”  

Which is untrue.  It is a State Bar of Wisconsin committee.  It described itself as “a project of the State Bar of Wisconsin,” and its press releases and information have this imprint.  The State Bar is not a “citizen group.”  It is an association formed under and regulated by Wisconsin statutes, to which all practicing lawyers in Wisconsin must belong and fund.  (It is also a liberal special interest group, but that is a whole other topic.)

And, the WJCIC is not public.  Its deliberations are kept secret, and only their President is authorized to speak for it.

After the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors February 29th meeting, the WJCIC press release trumpeted “Board members expressed strong support for the WJCIC and its mission at the body’s Feb. 29 meeting at the State Bar Center in Madison.”

However, the Wisconsin Law Journal on March 10th 2008 reported that “On Feb. 29, some members of the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors called for the Bar to  suspend sponsorship of the WJCIC and one criticized President Thomas J. Basting, Sr., for his administrative authority to create the committee.”

“Governor Michael J. Morse, who proposed withdrawal, questioned the ability of the Bar to be formally associated with an organization which polices the speech of state Supreme Court candidates.”

If this is “strong support,” I’d love to see what opposition is.

And in an interview with wispolitics.com on January 30th, WJCIC Chairman Tom Bastings said the committee was recently expanded by two members simply to make it larger, that criticism of its Democrat leaning played no role in the expansion, that the committee was balanced before and after the expansion, and that political donations were not considered in picking the two new members (“We didn’t look at political donations - to us it’s not relevant.”)

Again from the committee’s own emails, a State Bar Association staffer writing to the committee on January 24th about possible new members discusses “expanding the ideological, geographic and gender diversity,” and changing Judge Gableman’s mind about the committee by “the addition of a few members with more Republican bona fides.”  I am curious why two new members with GOP “ties” and GOP donations were added to the committee.  Why not just add two more Democrats tied to Gov. Doyle?  If the committee was balanced before expanding, it would still be balanced after adding the same type of members.

And despite not considering political donations, the same staffer describes the two potential new members as “... reasonable and sensible individuals with extensive Republican donor records.”  Oops.

Where Lies the Future?

In the race so far, the WJCIC has criticized advertisements for and against both candidates, and by both the candidates and outside groups.  And rightly so.  Some of the advertising has been misleading, mainly of the variety that takes a fact, event, or ruling out of context and without background, and then over-hypes a conclusion drawn from it.  And they will have plenty of business if they restrict themselves to this type of criticism. 

We already have a Wisconsin Judicial Commission to enforce the rules that govern how judges behave in office and in their campaigns.  Why do we need another group to do the same thing?  In his January 30th interview with wispolitics.com, President Basting explained:         

            “We’re not going to encroach on what the Wisconsin Judicial Commission

            does.  The problem with if somebody makes a complaint to the Judicial

            Commission, and when that complaint is made, it’s confidential.  And this

            election is so short that usually those complaints, uh, it’s difficult to for the

            Commission to act on them and do anything until long after the election is

            over, which is something that you’ve seen in the past.”

So why the big hurry to publicize complaints?  Deb Jordahl of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, on February 21st analyzed this interesting statement.  She describes the WJCIC as a “drive through window for left wing groups to file complaints that define Louis Butler’s opponent in a negative light before he has an opportunity to define himself.”

She refers to the 2006 case of Gov. Doyle’s hack, behind the scenes, arranging for the liberal majority of the now-defunct State Elections Board to rule against Mark Green for “converting” his federal campaign fund into a state campaign fund, and using it for his campaign for Governor.  Even though they had previously allowed Green to do so, and Democrats had done the same thing in previous elections.  Doyle-tied smear groups then blanketed TV with ads claiming Mark Green was corrupt. 

Note, this was intentionally done shortly before the election, so Green never had time to prove his case to Wisconsin voters.  Sure, months after the election, he was exonerated of any wrong doing.  But that was too late to de-program the unfortunately large group of voters who still believe what they see on TV.

Is the same kind of future in store for the WJCIC?  Its membership, its formation from a liberal special interest group, and its ties to one side of the political aisle, especially to Jim Doyle, have to make one wonder.  Only time will tell. 

For decades, the mainstream media fooled itself into believing it was unbiased, and would tell anyone who would listen how impartial it was.  Actually, they still are and still do, but now even their own side doesn’t believe it.  Can a self-appointed, self-righteous group who are so left leaning, really anoint themselves the arbiters of judicial fairness & impartiality, and then actually pull it off?

They have already fooled the mainstream media into treating them as a legitimate, non-partisan, unbiased “public watchdog” “good government” group.  So the first step is complete.  We will just have to wait and see if the WJCIC becomes a reincarnation of the State Elections Board.