 Welcome back to the Donahue Group. We're delighted that you could join us. I think we're going to have a good half hour of discussion today. Everyone's in a really good mood. And talking about some issues around the state that I think are of great interest and all around the block. I, for one, am happy that Scott Jensen is staying out of jail, pending appeal. What do you guys think? I mean, he should be like Martha Stewart. Just suck it up and get it over with is what I... That was kind of my thought, but... Well, he made a mistake, I think, going to trial. I think he thought that he'd have a sympathetic jury. And they'd say, well, he's just being picked on. All these politicians are all the same. They're corrupt. And what he did is doesn't warrant a big felony conviction and a lot of jail time. And I think he played his cards and he lost. And now the judge has got to make some decision. How does he compare that guilty verdict and the resulting sentence with Koala and the other folks? And I think the more time he can buy, probably the more the judge gets to think about it and maybe looks at the other trial records and seeing why Koala got what he got and Foti got what he got and so on. So, yeah, while he probably pragmatically get it on, let's get it over with, he still would be one of the first ones who might end up in jail for the longest period of time. And he probably doesn't want that. There's been a point made that all of these legislators who have been convicted of various crimes relating to their professional or their public duties are still eligible for state pensions and will be receiving in the range of $1,700 to $2,000 a month when they reach the retirement age at which they'd be entitled to those pensions. And there's some thought, as I understand in the legislature, to do away with that so that if you are a legislator who is convicted of a crime related to your public duties, you would not be eligible for that pension. That may be a little bit knee-jerk, but that somehow seems fair to me. I mean, certainly at the national level, Lowe's Tom DeLay will continue receiving his pension, which I think is substantially more than $1,700 a month. But if you do wrong, as it relates to your public duties... Well, I'm thinking about it being a teacher. So I teach for 30 years, and then I make a dumb mistake in my 31st year, whatever it is with a student or with embezzlement or something, and I get penalized for that. I get caught. I've got 30 years of pension. Do I lose that? Yes. And it is a... You save your own contribution that you put in, but your employer-led contribution is taken out. Which for taxpayers? I don't know. So that's probably worth some discussion. It does impact more than just the worker. It impacts the family. If you have a spouse, for example, and what is a stay-at-home spouse for many years, and that person now is going to be out of any future security because of that person who has been found guilty, like you might say, in the 36th year of their work loses all their pension. This happens to die of a heart attack. The surviving spouse now at age 70 is left without any type of pension. And she made a decision. In most cases, in this case, it would be a wife, for example. Is she supposed to be penalized for the rest of her life? For the decisions she made and the reliance she had on that money, that pension being there. So I think the repercussions are maybe greater than just that one person. Maybe there can be some type of accommodation, but to maybe lose it totally when there is someone else's life and security and really benevolence toward that person, that ought to be considered. I'd personally be more interested in real campaign finance reform legislation, which I think solves the problems that all of these convictions are simply the manifestation of. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Our legislature ended its regular two-year session last month. They actually considered 1,997 bills and passed 487 of them compared to the last biennium. I'm sorry, not the last, but the biennium before that where they passed 109 bills. Now, someone pointed out to me that a lot of policy stuff used to go into budget bills and there's a little bit less of that going on now, but it's certainly a lively group there. They've got a lot of things that they bring forward. What was not brought forward or at least not passed was comprehensive campaign finance reform or the bill that would have merged the election and ethics boards and maybe given them a little bit more power and independence than they currently have to do real investigations of alleged misdoing or wrongdoing at the legislative level. There has been a call by some to bring the legislature back into special session. No, I didn't see that. Three titans, as it were, of the progressive part of the political spectrum. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey, and E. Michael McCann, the primary district attorney in Milwaukee County have gotten together and called for a special session. I think it's a great idea. I do too, and Common Cause surely does, because a lot of time and energy went into that merger bill of for the ethics board and the elections board and one of the reasons for it is that the present separate boards are proven to be ineffectual. So even though the law might be weak, they can't even operate under the weak law. You've got this particular elections board where it's half Democrats, half Republicans. When it comes to a decision, it's half Democrats, one way, half Republicans, the other way and nothing gets done. Well, why do we have this board? Why do we have this review? Why do we have the law? The enforcement agent simply divides based on partisan politics. So it's time for a change. The governor supports it. Many legislators support it. They passed one house. I think it's a great time for us to do something. A special session would be great. Who calls the special session? The governor? Yes. And then he's got to set the agenda for the special session. Well, and the governor's not interested. According to the article that I have here in front of me, the governor is just not intending to do it. So it appears that it will not happen. That'll bring attention to his problem with campaign contributions and your calling this. What do you want done, governor? Well, Mark Green has got a big problem too. I mean, let's not forget that one of the great issues that you could bring before the voters probably will not be discussed. And I think that's what Earl and Garby and McCann are talking about, is because they both have their problems on this issue. I mean, Mark Green has got substantial problems with his Jack Abramoff contributions. And I don't think he's in any position to point the finger at Doyle. And Doyle has, I think it's a, I'm interested in your view, but I think the conviction of the, I'm sorry, and I can't even remember her name. I apologize. Thompson. Thompson. The state travel, travelgate as it were. I think that does not bode well for the Doyle campaign. Yeah, so I call a special session on campaign financing and reform when you've got that facing it. You just play it down. Don't raise feathers. Don't call the session and just deal with the problem out there in the field for the re-election. Oh, and I just think even on a more basic level, aside from all that, I mean, how do you debate campaign finance reform when you're busy raising gobs and gobs of money this summer for the fall? Yeah, that's true. I mean, yeah, you got to play by the rules that you have right now, but I think it's just very difficult for both, especially for the governor, because he happens to be sitting in the chair right now to be saying, this is so important. I'm calling a special session. And by the way, I'm still raising, you know, millions and millions of dollars every month. Or a legislator. I mean, most of the Senate races that are contested, those will be a million dollar per candidate races, and they're going to be raising all kinds of money that would probably be quite contrary to what the bill's language would be. Yeah, yeah. So what are they going to do? They're going to minimize any conflict between what they're doing and what they're voting on. So I don't see any, I think the governor and anybody who's involved in the present campaign is probably not going to be very objective in looking at this whole thing. The only good that might come out of this is it's going to be raised by the news media, hopefully every debate between Green and Doyle and so on. What is it that you will sign? What is it you do support and get them on record repeatedly so that when the legislature reconvenes in January, whoever is governor is pretty well on record about what they should be doing as the new governor or the quarter exit. That doesn't seem to make much difference when... Well, I think in many cases our society has not held politicians' feet to the fire on this issue. They have not. No. And I think the news media is much of blame as any. They maybe do a few editorials when common cause rings or shakes their cage, you know, but maybe they ought to be up front a little more. Some of it is due to conflict of interest, of course. Yes. The media gets big bucks. Exactly. And so it's about time they do some soul searching as well. But, you know, it really is tough for Doyle to say I'm for all this than this, but I'm not going to call a special session. And then secondly, you know, who's going to really pay attention in the summer? I think that's... You know, everybody's... I know Jim Doyle quite well. And I think... I've talked to him a lot about this issue. And basically he says, I know what I want and they're not going to give it to me by the Republican legislature. Oh, great. You can get something to campaign on then. Yeah. Well, that's maybe what his intent is. I don't know how he's going to raise it, how he's going to couch it out there. But basically he said that, you know, I wouldn't get what I think we really need in this state. And I don't want a third of a loaf maybe when we ought to be doing this. So that's his deep inside thinking on the issue. Well, and the plain fact is, and I really like Jim Doyle and I have a lot of respect for him. And I think he has been a fine governor and the campaign will be interesting just in terms of how those issues get played out. But he's as good as Tommy Thompson was at raising money. And it's not a pleasant process. It is a process of... As far as I can see, it appears to be a process of influence. And what will your money get you? And it's certainly not Doyle alone, but he's gotten very, very good at it. And we've talked about the millions and millions of dollars, or as Mr. Risto said, the gobs... I like that, the gobs of money that will need to be raised in order to finance this election. And it's money wasted, in my view, because so little of what is purchased assists voters truly in analyzing the positions of the candidates and making rational, informed decisions about how they want to vote. But I... I mean, Doyle is... he's out tomming Tommy. He should call a special session on how to keep businesses in the state. Change the tax laws, change the regulatory laws, because we just have this big software company. I don't remember the word. Yeah, it's talking about moving out of the state and employ, I don't know how many people, 900 people. 200 in the state, 900 all over. But they're in Waukesha area, I think, and they're talking about leaving the state. Which is... I mean, because Wisconsin actually has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the nation. That whole tax burden has been passed on to individuals. Maybe it's their individual employees who are paying higher taxes. I mean, Wisconsin is well, well in the bottom quartile, isn't it, Cal, in terms of corporate income tax rates? That's not what I hear. Of course not. Sure. I mean, you know, the regulatory kinds of things, and the most recent Supreme Court decision. Which one? It had to do with regulation, but I'm trying to think of... it made the Wall Street Journal. I can't think of a little word of it. I thought it was the malpractice caps that that was going to bring down the Wisconsin economy. The news media this week has been filled with articles on businesses now leaving China and going to India, because India is the new low-wage champion. Well, I'm not so sure Wisconsin can compete with that scenario. Yeah. No matter what we do. Yeah. It'll be interesting. And that, of course, is a topic for a show beyond our meager abilities here, modest abilities. But it does lead to... Tommy Thompson came, he saw, and he left. It would appear there's not much coming to us in the way of not running against oil, not running against coal. Some of us here think that if you'd run against oil, he might have beat him. I don't know. Can you come home again? Cal, you said you didn't think that Tommy could beat coal, and I would... Well, I think he'd have a tough time, and I just wonder whether Tommy Thompson wants to go back to Washington, D.C. It apparently was sort of a difficult decision the way he portrayed it to leave the state in the first place, to go to Washington, and then said he was only going to serve one term and come back. Well, he has come back, and I'm sure he's doing quite well in the private sector. So does he want to, for a certain limited, probably much smaller salary, go back to Washington, D.C.? I'm not so sure that that's what he's desiring to do. No, he still has his friends and his contacts and his influence without being in the running for office. Well, let's all remember that Bill Clinton made $8 million in 2005, so there is life. There's no better place to spend your money in my humble opinion, so let's earn on A. But then again, that wasn't in the Sheboygan Press. Well, I think any early thoughts on the Doyle-Green election? Actually, in the article that I was reading about Tony Earl, Ed Garvey, and E. Michael McCann, mourning the loss of any kind of meaningful campaign finance reform, one of the options might be is drafting a reform candidate to run against either Doyle or Green. These folks are going to be working with the People's, I'm sorry, the People's Legislature, which is part of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Doyle, Green, and E. Michael McCann, or do we get a third-party candidate? We talked about the system just doesn't seem to handle third-party candidates, but... I mean, people talk about how they don't like politicians, but when they're given a choice of a third candidate, I guess because their fathers and mothers and grandmothers, all fathers voted Democrat or Republican, that's the way they vote. I mean, look at the Ralph Nader quest, you know, and they'll go way down, George Wallace or Anderson, whoever you want to pick, never really did real well. America is not quite ready for the third and fourth parties to be viable parties, even though people complain about it, they just don't vote that way. They really don't. We've had some third-party spoilers, but that's about it. What do you think the issues are going to be? The legislature with Doyle has brought in a balanced budget in the last and both biennium, I think. Well, the two-state referendum will be discussed. I still think that's what the issue is. Now they're talking about the tax climate in the state of Wisconsin up there for retaining businesses. They'll bring that in. That's three, I don't know. There'll be others. Wow, certain corruption in government. But again, that'll apply to everybody, but that'll go Republican and Democrat. I think neither party has a cutting edge campaign issue on money or corruption because it just seems to be equally spread across the board. This is going to be ugly for that reason. Neither party is going to be able to really lay out a vision of where they want to take Wisconsin. That's going to be really compelling, whether it be the governor's record or whether it be Green's. I know Green was trying when he was in Sheboygan, trying to say we're going in the wrong direction. He was trying to articulate that position, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. So that means you're going to end up on personality issues. You can see already in some of the campaign ads, they're both throwing mud at each other about corruption and being influenced, whether it be casino, Doyle and casino, and then later on it's going to be Thompson or whether it be Jack Abramoff or whomever. No, I know one. Nancy Musbom, is she running for that congressional seat? Right. She's campaigning against Bush, so Bush will be right in, you know. I mean, I've seen several of her ads. I saw one last night for the first time. President Bush. President Bush. She's campaigning against President Bush. I mean, I don't know if she makes it through the primary. She's, I mean, that congressional race is very interesting. And because it's a congressional race, I think talking about national politics certainly makes sense. But she is facing two other pretty strong Democratic candidates in that primary. That guard running amongst others. And guard is running. I'm thinking guard is not that strong. I mean, he certainly had a quick rise to the top in the Wisconsin legislature. But I'm not sure on a congressional campaign how well he plays. He came to the legislature after you left. He was there, but he wasn't in the leadership position. Okay. Well, he's been there a long time and he's. He looks young. Well, I don't know how much money he has. And I think that's many times the key to running for a national office such as that is you've got to have money for the TV time. I don't know having been in leadership along with Jensen and the other characters who seem to do well raising money in Madison. I don't know what he's got to transfer from his state coffered state committee to the congressional committee. You got to think though the Republican National Committee is going to give him gobs of money. Oh, sure. I mean, because that's a, I mean, that's, it's compared to a lot of other congressional, you know, areas. This is somewhat a competitive race. Right. And I think it's in play. And I mean, nobody's talking about a Democratic takeover of the House, but if you're the Republican National Committee, you really going to have to invest a good chunk of money in that seat to keep it in the Republican column because it only needs a swing of what, eight or nine seats, I think, right now. Right. Yeah. Nine. Nussbaum is interesting. She spoke at a conference that I attended and just spoke, I thought very eloquently about how she started out in politics. I believe she was the, I believe the mayor of Depear before she became the Brown County executive. And she talked about just going into Depear from business to business and going in and talking to the owners of the businesses that she visited and talking about their needs. And she connected with people. And I think for women to win higher offices, you know, beyond say city council or school board races, but, you know, power positions takes a, takes a nudge. And so I think she's working at it very hard. So it'll be interesting. And if it's a guard Nussbaum race, they say it's a competitive district, although it's always seemed to me to be very conservative, but. Well, it's been Republican ever since Father Cornell was defeated. Right. And that was quite a few years ago. Well, Toby Roth? He was in there for many years after Cornell. He was very conservative, if I remember correctly. And Jay Johnson, the Democrat, he was a media personality, channel 11, I believe he made a reasonably respectable run in that seat against was it green? It was green when green first, I think when green, I think they were both newcomers coming into that position was open seat. Talking about money, the both of our state Senate candidates have announced or at least to have, I'm not sure they're going to be more. Joe Leibhame and Jamie Allick. Leibhame is certainly an extremely well established politician, office holder. Jamie Allick, I think is kind of an interesting, but I keep saying kid. He's 26, I believe, although Leibhame is only 37. So we're talking about young people in any event. And you just wonder where the money will come from for Allick to run any kind of race against Leibhame who? Well, Weak. And that's true. And his wife is a special... I've not been in the meetings, but I would think. Well, his wife is a special education teacher in Manitowoc. But Weak is not endlessly wealthy or maybe it is. Well, they do a lot of polling. Offly nice building. There are three races usually they'll focus on because that's trying to change the balance of power is what they're trying to do even by one vote. So they'll do their polling and find out whether there's a chance and they'll target their money. And so will the other interest groups, whether it's WMC or whoever it would happen to be. And that's where you get these multi-million dollar state Senate races. It's a real challenge for what's his first name? Jamie. First of all, name recognition. Jamie. Number one. Jamie is that the incumbent is really very, very polished. Extremely. Extremely polished, very articulate, personable. I mean the times I've interacted with Senator Leibhame. We're always very, very civil and always very, very... He's not very confrontational. He's a fine constituent. He does constituent services very, very, very, very well. And he spends a lot of time being very publicly visible at church picnics and all sorts of public events and making the rounds of nursing homes. I think he's going to have a real hard time meeting the resources that Joe's going to bring to this race. And I think he's going to have a hard... Because he's new at this process, it's going to be a pretty steep learning curve for him. He had a telephone call in my answering machine from him and he seems like a very earnest person and a very sincere person. But there's going to have to be a certain amount of polish and maybe that will come in the campaign as time goes on. I don't know. Yeah. Well, there's not a whole lot of time either. Right. Although if we could only do the English model of six-week election cycles... Maybe a lot better. Of course, I think they have more elections than we do depending on when the elections get called. Winning any election, I think, in particularly if you're going way uphill, which is what I think Alec is doing, is finding the issue and framing the issue. And I think that that is going to be... That's going to be somewhat difficult. But at least there's a candidate. Yep, you've got to have a candidate. Republicans don't have a candidate against Cole at this point. Yeah. Well, and it appears the Republicans don't have a candidate in the 26th Assembly District. Terry Van Akron has announced. No, it's true. Really? I have not heard of anyone. Well, I'm surprised. I have not heard of anyone running. And so that would be... Renee Sousha. No, I don't know. I think... I mean, the last elections, I mean, Zemple was a... He was very good. Zemple did a real... I mean, he really worked the district. I don't know if he stopped and pwned in my door. He's a former student of mine. And he was the first time around. And I thought... He ran a great campaign. He ran a great campaign. And I thought he was very, very competitive. Very competitive. I'm surprised the Republican Party has yet to... They're going to find somebody who's reasonably energetic. But July 11th is the filing deadline if I'm not mistaken. So it's... And it is interesting. I mean, that Van Akron-Zemple matchup was 55, 45%. Now that's a very healthy win. But Zemple was brand new. Was that my brand new? And in a Democratic, presumably mostly Democratic district, although Liebham had come out of that district, and it's certainly a very conservative Republican. So it'll be interesting to see if anybody comes up there. And so it promises to be a long campaign season and one of great interests. Just any closing thoughts on the state of the state? Well, I think, Ken's observation, there's going to be a dirty gubernatorial campaign. I think it will be. I think just this whole issue on the Thompson situation. You could just see how it's being handled already. I mean, she's... At this time we're airing is she's contending that her conviction was really based on insufficient evidence. And she's appealing to the court for that point of view. It did seem to be insufficient. Well, she was. She came out of the Thompson administration. She wasn't even a Doyle director pointy. And she had a lot of leeway in making such decisions. And so maybe indeed she made a decision on her own and really got caught in the fan here. But she's going to be taken for a ride all the way through this campaign, I'm afraid. Well, we'll check in from time to time. Thanks, it's been a great discussion.