Wisconsin: Scott Walker's "Laboratory for Conservative Ideas"

What's next for Wisconsin now that Scott Walker survived his recall election?

Out-of-state corporate and rich donors own Scott Walker now that they gave him ~66% of his $30.5 million to hoodwink the state, not to mention the more than $16 million spent by outside pro-Walker groups. And these numbers are likely to increase as the final tallies are made. Even though Walker lost his party's control of the State Senate and didn't gain many votes for his rights stripping and unlimited campaign financing, receiving nearly the same percentage of votes as he did in 2010, we know Walker will act like he got a mandate.

We should be proud of what we were able to accomplish against such odds. Walker didn't receive the mandate that he wanted with all of his money, and by losing a majority in the State Senate with recalls this past year, we were able to slow Walker's reddening of Wisconsin. However, Walker won't stop now.

Dan Bice from the Journal Sentinel told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC after the election that Walker will make "Wisconsin, as he has already, a laboratory for conservative ideas." This is what Walker wants to do, and what his corporate and super rich donors like Diane Hendricks (who pays $0 state taxes) want him to do. And now, Walker is owned by these few and has little to fear from Wisconsin.



Now that Walker has significantly reduced the unions, there'll be far less funding for any progressive candidates. This was the far-right's goal, as explained by Scott Fitzgerald last year. Unions are the only special interests that share the same interests as large swaths of people, because they're democratic organizations. Unions are just groups of people working together for their collective interest. Businesses are controlled by an individual or very small group of people but with the finances of far more. The interests of business often don't align with the overall interest of a community, but unions, being part of the community, often have interests aligned with the community.

The unions have far less funding just a year after Walker stripped their rights, and they'll have even less now that their rights won't be restored any time soon. They couldn't come close to competing with Walker's corporate money in the recall election, even though their existence depended upon it. This means unions, the only significant source of money for Democrats, won't be able to provide funding for Democrats to compete with Republicans in Wisconsin. Republicans will forever have the money advantage as long as the Democrats support union rights and the Republicans don't.

The only other large source of funding for politicians besides unions are businesses and the rich. Democrats will have to choose one of two things: small people-funded campaigns or get funding from businesses and the rich as well. We saw from the recall election that small people-funded campaigns aren't easy. So, many Democrats will begin seeking more support from corporations or perpetually lose. We've basically ensured the corporate control of our government.

So, what might our new out-of-state-controlled laboratory of far-right ideas cook up?

Walker refused to say if he would sign Right-to-Work legislation in the final debate when Tom Barrett guaranteed that he would. Diane Hendricks, Walker's biggest donor, asked for it last year on video, and Walker replied with his plan to divide-and-conquer beginning with the rights of public workers. Therefore, we can only conclude that this Tea Party wish is high on his list, even though he didn't campaign on it. Wisconsin can say good-bye to good paying jobs, and say hello to your new corporate dictators.

Right-to-Work would nearly ensure Walker's reelection in 2014 by gutting all significant funding for a Democratic challenger. It would almost certainly give Walker control of the entire legislature as well.

Wisconsin is still suffering from a budget deficit. Just like Right-to-Work, Walker has refused to deny that he would sign legislation like Michigan's financial martial law. It wouldn't be beyond Walker to spin another crisis requiring "bold" action like that law.

Walker hired a deer czar who's primary accomplishments involve privatizing deer hunting. A new private deer hunting industry would be a great way for Walker to push his far-right ideals and repay his rich donors. Get ready to pay hundreds if not thousands to hunt. It's what you voted for, even if Walker didn't say he would do it. That's the way Walker operates. While not nearly as likely as Right-to-Work, it's far from an impossibility.

Walker will surely continue to reduce funding to public education in pursuit of privatization. Expect up to a 30% slash in teacher base pay, something Walker can do without any new legislation. Walker has shown he takes the easy way out, and he won't seek legislation through the now Democratically-controlled State Senate to fix the budget this year.

With the continued bleeding of jobs, Walker may try to "stimulate" the economy again by giving more tax breaks to corporations and increasing our taxes by reducing tax cuts/credits or increasing government fees.

The only thing standing in Walker's way is the Democratic majority in the State Senate, and that may not be easy to hold without any significant source of money. The middle class doesn't stand a chance against the rich in a war with money.

Unfortunately, it seems our only way to stop the corporate takeover of our government is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that negates the Citizens United ruling. People clearly don't realize when they are voting for politicians primarily supported by out-of-state interests, probably because those interests are able to frame the debate. We *could* get behind a few nationwide PACs setup to compete with corporate donations, especially if people donate what they were paying in union dues to the PACs. It's simply very difficult for candidates primarily supported by middle class grassroots to compete with candidates primarily supported by big business and the rich.

Wisconsin Was Hoodwinked by Out-of-State Money

This is a really sad graph.

Walker with his unlimited campaign fundraising and outside groups spent more than $36 million of out-of-state money defending him in the recall election, while Barrett and unions spent about $10 million in total. Nearly all of Tom Barrett's money came from Wisconsin donors, but Barrett didn't win. Walker's cash advantage is clearly what gave him the win, and the Senate recalls are evidence. Before Barrett announced his candidacy, Walker and pro-Walker groups were running anti-Barrett attack ads. And before that, they were running pro-Walker ads with lies such as positive job creation before Walker ever cooked up his numbers. Walker was able to frame the debate before it even began, and there are so many lies covering up what's been done, it's nearly impossible for voters to keep up.

Voters are confused. Just listen to Wisconsin right-wing talk radio or talk to your friend who voted for Walker. They rarely have their facts straight and often contradict themselves when they're simply explaining their view to a sympathetic host. Even Barrett supporters believe some of these lies, because many are complicated and convoluted, making it difficult for anyone to discern fact from fiction.

We're all used to spin and the occasional lie, but the far-right has redefined lies as spin. There's simply no comparison between Democratic spin and Republican spin, and the media often doesn't clarify the facts, instead simply regurgitating each side's talking points. So, most of Wisconsin still thinks the Republican party is a fairly reputable group of people, and voters aren't expecting everything (or almost everything) from one party to be a lie.

First, the far-right got people to believe that a recall is only meant for when a politician commits a crime. The exit polls showed over 60% of voters believed no one should be recalled unless they commit a crime. However, recalls were created in order to hold politicians accountable to the public, no matter what that reason may be. There is no stipulation in the Wisconsin Constitution regarding the motivation behind a recall. The number of required signatures to get a recall and the subsequent recall election ensure there are no frivolous recalls and politicians aren't removed from office unless the majority believes he should.

That was the fundamental right that we never fully explained to the voters of Wisconsin. The constitutional right to recall a Wisconsin politician for whatever reason we deem necessary, if we get enough other concerned citizens to agree. A recall has nothing to do with criminal acts. If our governor commits a criminal act, it shouldn't take a recall to remove him from office. The exit polls also showed that many who voted for Walker plan to vote for Obama in November. If we had fully explained the recall to Wisconsin voters, many of those voters may not have voted for Walker in protest of the recall, and Tom Barrett would very likely have won.

Instead of fully explaining the significance of this recall and the right of a recall and hammering it home, we had to focus on the many lies that we thought were far more important. Lies like unverified jobs, balanced budget, decreased spending, stripping rights saves money, etc. were the focus of our efforts, not the recall itself. The right of a recall and the significance of this one seemed so clear (tens of thousands of protesters don't assemble around the Capitol everyday), that I didn't realize it was that misunderstood. Putting more effort into explaining a recall instead of repeated busting of the same myths may have provided more return on investment.

However, the money for immersing Wisconsinites in ads was given mostly to Scott Walker, and the Republican Senators up for recall over the past year received far less. Where there wasn't a significant imbalance of money or an over abundance of conservatives, the recalled Republican senator was removed from office. Three Republican senators were removed, and the Democrats gained a majority in the State Senate. The Senate recalls showed that money really matters in a tight race, and that's what saved Walker.

Walker gained about 1% more than he had in the 2010 election, but he spent more than double Barrett. How do you think the election would have turned out if Barrett had the same amount of money as Walker?

Over time, more of Wisconsin will learn of Walker's lies. We'll learn that Walker's jobs numbers contain errors. Walker had nothing to fear, the error will be called a bureaucratic mistake, and he can't be recalled again. Walker will also confirm that he is under investigation by the FBI as now widely reported. The budget deficit will rear its ugly head sooner than later, and more poor and middle class people will realize they are paying more in taxes. It's just very unfortunate that out-of-state money prevented more from learning these things before the recall election.

No Special Interests: A Grassroots Viral Movement to Rid Politics of Special Interest Money

That may be a bit grandiose, but that's the goal of No Special Interests.com, the website that I created over the weekend. One of the biggest problems in politics today is the influence of various special interests from corporations to unions and everything in between. It's only gotten worse with the Citizens United ruling, and both sides of the aisle agree. Yet, nearly every politician says that they don't cater to special interests. So, the only way we can rid our politics of special interest influence is to find and elect candidates who truly aren't supported by special interests. No Special Interests.com was created to assist Wisconsinites with that effort and to hopefully start a nonpartisan grassroots movement to rid politics of special interest money.

Candidates who refuse money from special interests really need the support of Wisconsinites to win, and they need to win for us to take Wisconsin back for the people. They're already at a disadvantage by refusing support from special interests. They get less press and less advertising. Yet, they're the type of candidates we should support with the confidence to stand on their own for the people of Wisconsin. We must make an effort to support them if we want to have any chance at success. That means spreading the word about these candidates and why they're better for the people of Wisconsin.

The first step is getting people to realize the significance of special interest money in our politics and the candidates who accept it. Then, we need to encourage support for candidates who refuse support from special interests and put pressure on candidates who accept support from special interests. If we're loud enough, they will listen or stand the chance of losing, and the movement will grow exponentially stronger with each candidate who refuses special interest support.

The lack of support from special interests can be the one differentiating factor in the upcoming elections for candidates on both sides of the aisle. With enough volume, we can make it impossible for candidates to accept money from special interests. We attain success by using our voices and support to elect candidates who are people-funded.

With the historic recall elections approaching and political energy on both sides, we can make significant progress towards our goal quickly. Especially, if we elect a governor who refused special interest support. Everyone agrees this is the time we can really bring about change, and this is the only way we can do it.

On No Special Interests.com you'll find more information on why we need to get special interest money out of politics, how a little effort from each of us can make this happen, and why this movement can work here in Wisconsin right now.

Most importantly, you'll find information on where Wisconsin candidates stand on special interest support. So, you can see who is running a people-funded campaign and who is running a campaign on special interest money. Over the next few days I'll be adding all of the candidates for the races in the upcoming recall elections and the November election. I welcome all constructive feedback and greatly appreciate it!

However, the website is nothing without you. All it takes is a tweet, an email, or just talking to friends. We need to do this all ourselves, and we can do this all ourselves. Lets get this movement started.

We can take Wisconsin back for the people!

I'll soon be tweeting about No Special Interests.com and this effort with the hash tag #NoSpecialInterests and #tincup for short. You can also join the movement on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NoSpecialInterests.

I hope you'll join us!

The Definition of a Super PAC

Super PAC: a frothy mix of lube and campaign funding that is sometimes the byproduct of politics.

You hear the term thrown around a lot, Super PAC or SuperPAC. But many people ask what is a Super PAC? A great visionary in Super PAC development, Stephen Colbert, provided this simple definition. He gave us this definition during his television program, The Colbert Report, on Thursday. A Super PAC is a frothy mix of lube and campaign funding that is sometimes the byproduct of politics.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

If you want to help change this, support the DISCLOSE Act.

In case you're interested, here's the real definition on Wikipedia.

The Story of Citizens United v. FEC

This is a great video that explains a little history of corporations and the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC. More money was spent by independent groups during the 2010 elections than all of the other midterm elections since 1990 combined, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spending the most. This, at a time when 85% of Americans believe corporations have too much power in our democracy. We need to stop supporting politicians who primarily support the desires of corporations over individuals, and hopefully the precedent from the Citizens United case will be overturned sooner than later.



Here's an equally great, but much shorter, video on the same topic from Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry's Homemade, Inc.