November, 1998
Table of Contents
Let’s End Legalized Bribery
Northeast Wis. Candidates Who Signed the Clean Money PledgeWisconsin Legislature 1997-98 Environmental Voting Record
Assembly Candidates
Money Matters
State Senators from Northeast Wisconsin (Table)Donation Correction
State Representatives from Northeast Wisconsin (Table)
Let’s End Legalized Bribery
Wisconsin Citizen Action last week organized a tour to call attention
to the need for Campaign Finance Reform.
The tour unveiled the results of a pledge campaign among state candidates
regarding support of a “Clean Money, Clean Elections” plan for reform.
The plan has previously been praised by eight daily newspapers and endorsed
by 28 organizations. The plan calls for full public funding of candidates
who agree to accept no private funding and to strictly adhere to spending
limits.
A February, 1997 poll showed that 84% of Wisconsin citizens favor “sweeping
and fundamental” reform.
Democrats, Republicans and independent candidates alike have signed
the pledge in support of the Clean Money plan.
Northeast Wis. Candidates Who Signed the Clean Money Pledge
Assembly Candidates:
Mark Heller (2nd Dist.), Mark McQuate (4th), Donald DeGroot (5th),
Lee Meyerhofer (5th), Len Pubanz (6th), Richard Moore (34th), Pete Krolow
(36th), James Murphy (42nd), Lew Rosser (52nd), Polly Briley (54th), Arron
Haase (71st), Richard Kealiher (71st)j, Lori Nelson (88th), and Kenneth
Simons (90th).
Senate Candidates: James Baumgart (9th Dist.), and Michael Meyer (19th)
Statewide Candidates: Edward Garvey (Gov.), Michael Mangan (Gov.), Barbara Lawton (Lt. Gov.), Vida Harley Bridges (Lt. Gov.), Douglass LaFollette (Secy. of State), Dawn Sass (Treas.) and Jeffrey Peterson (Treas.)
90% of better-funded candidates win, so money does matter. Superior fund-raising can often pre-empt the action election.
In 1996, 40% of the money for legislative candidates came from 2/10 of 1% of the voters.
Special interest money is pouring in at record levels, both in terms of direct donations and independent expenditures,often disguised as sham “issue ads.”
Incumbents have a huge advantage: in Wisconsin they won 104 of 107 races in 1996. In 1998, incumbents had a $64 to $1 advantage in the Assembly, and a $25 to $1 advantage on the Senate side as of June 30. For Governor, the incumbent had an $11.4 to $1 advantage over challengers, as of Sept. 24.
PLEASE VOTE on Tuesday NOVEMBER 3rd
Wisconsin Legislature 1997-98 Environmental Voting Record
Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade has released their environmental record for the 1997-98 Legislative Session. Listed below is a brief description of votes used to create the record. Specific amendment votes were used to pinpoint legislators’ positions on several of the issues. For more information, call the Decade at 1-608-251-7020.
1. Mining Moratorium --- Senate Amendment 1 to Assembly
Amendment 4. This amendment fixed the previously gutted mining moratorium,
by defining a “polluting mine” as a mine that had been observed polluting
ground or surface waters (rather than one which had actually been fined
in court).
2. Mining Moratorium --- Assembly Amendment 4, which was
known as the “gutting amendment” because it defeated the real purpose of
the mining moratorium bill. It defined a “polluting mine” as one
that had been fined in court. If this version of the bill had passed, a
mining company could refer to one of its projects as a healthy mine, even
if it had polluted, merely by showing a lack of court fines imposed on
the project.
3. Mining Moratorium --- SB3 prohibits the DNR from issuing a permit for metallic mining until the applicant has provided an example of another similar mine which has operated for 10 years and which has been reclaimed for 10 years without significant ground or surface water pollution. (This is the Assembly vote to concur, or agree, with the bill as amended (strengthened) by the Senate. This vote sent the bill to the Governor for his signature.)
4. Great Lakes Drilling --- AB350 would have prohibited drilling beneath the Great Lakes, or any of their bays or harbors, to explore for oil or gas, or to produce oil or gas. (Senate vote for final passage.)
5. Animal Waste --- SJR46. This joint resolution will memorialize Congress to oppose the U.S. EPA’s proposed rules on animal waste. This resolution speaks out against some of the strongest EPA rulemaking to deal with the largest unregulated sources of water pollution. (This is a Senate vote on adoption.)
6. Atrazine -- AB5 would have suspended portions of the Dept. of Agri., Trade & Consumer Protection’s rule relating to the use of the carcinogenic pesticide Atrazine. The bill would have provided that DATCP could not prohibit the use of the pesticide in a specified area in the town of North Lancaster in Grant County. (This was an Assembly vote on passage.)
7. Fish and Hunting Fees --- AB61 increased the fees for fishing and hunting licenses which generated more funding for fish and wildlife management and habitat protection. The bill benefits both game and nongame species of wildlife. (Assembly and Senate votes on passage.)
8. Conservation Restoration --- The Governor’s 1995-97 Budget Bill moved the Public Intervenor’s Office to the DNR (essentially destroying the Intervenors), and gave the Governor control over the DNR Secretary. This bill would have restored the Intervenor Office to its original status at the Dept. of Justice, and would have also restored the authority of the Natural Resources Board to appoint the Secretary of the DNR. (Assembly vote to table motion to withdraw bill from the Joint Committee on Finance.)
9. Wetlands --- AB 492 would have allowed the DNR to create a wetlands mitigation program. Such a program, if not structured properly, could lead to the development of wetlands, rather than their preservation. In general, one could argue that giving the DNR authority to allow mitigation will result in less, more or the same acreage of wetlands preserved depending on the details. As written, this bill would not have allowed a mitigation program more protective than the federal program which is not especially strong. (Two votes being considered for inclusion are Assembly votes; one on final passage and one on an amendment which would have emphasized “restoration” and “enhancement” of wetlands, as opposed to “creation” of new wetlands.)
10. Oil Filters --- AB 701 prohibits the disposal and/or incineration of used automobile oil filters in waste disposal facilities. Instead, facilities are required to develop and implement a recycling program for these filters. (Senate vote on a substitute amendment which would have restored bill to its original form, including the prohibition. An Assembly amendment had eliminated the prohibition in favor of a study.)
11. Takings --- AB807 would have required town zoning committees to hold public hearings and give specific notice of such hearings to every affected person before making recommendations on zoning boundaries or changes. (Assembly vote on final passage.)
12. Takings --- AB 809 would have eliminated compliance with any local master plan as a requirement for plat approval. Would have potentially strong negative land use impacts. (Assembly vote which prevented it from reaching a final passage vote.)
13. Cost Benefit --- AB842 requires all state agencies to submit a cost/benefit analysis of all proposed rules submitted to the legislature. The existing law required a fiscal note on costs to state and local governments with rule proposals. In theory, this is environmentally neutral, but environmental groups opposed the bill because they felt it was unnecessary and created potential for abuse. (Assembly vote on final passage.)
14. Cost Benefit --- SSA1 to AB842 This Senate amendment to the cost-benefits bill restored the “benefits” language that had been removed in the Assembly. (Senate vote on amendment adoption.)
15. Cost Benefit --- Final Senate vote on the cost-benefit bill. In passing this bill as amended, they made rule promulgation more difficult for state agencies like DNR. (Senate vote on passage.)
16. Utility Siting --- AB940, the “electric reliability bill” mainly dealt with increasing electric energy generation and transmission capability. It contained environmental tradeoffs: reducing certain utility planning requirements and requiring construction of certain types of electric generation plants. On the balance, environmental groups supported it because it requireed utilities to have 50 megawatts of renewable generating capacity in place by the year 2000. (Both Senate and Assembly votes for passage.)
17. Mning Fees --- AB 488 required mining companies to pay DNR fees for reviewing and regulating operations on a more timely basis. DNR will annually compare fees paid to costs incurred and require companies to pay differences if costs exceed payments. (Assembly vote on passage.)
18. Mining Inspection --- AB586 would have required DNR to inspect all construction and operation activities at a mine site, required companies to pay fees to cover inspection costs, prohibited the use of the net worth method of proof of financial responsibility for mining wastes, required DNR to collect data on conditions in the area affected by the proposed mine, and required DNR to identify mining operations that have caused environmental harm in other states and countries. (Assembly vote on passage.)
19. Mining Enforcement --- AB447 eliminated the 30 day time limit for Dept. of Justice to initiate enforcement actions against a company which has violated a mine regulation. (Assembly vote on final passage.)
20. Bluff Protection --- SB373 would have created a bluff land protection program and allowed the DNR to use Stewardship Fund dollars to award matching grants to acquire bluff land for environmental protection or management. This bill was amended in the Senate to only require that the DNR% conduct a study on the damage, destruction and protection of bluffs and the feasibility of establishing a bluff protection program. (Senate vote on passage of the study bill.
21. Stormwater Fees --- AB 187 allows municipalities to establish user fees to cover costs associated with stormwater and surface water sewerage systems. (Assembly vote on passage.)
State Senators from Northeast Wisconsin
State Reprsentative from Northeast Wisconsin
In the money box titled “Crandon Mine Shareholders” in DNR Watch #3,
we incorrectly lumped the contributions from Phillip C, Phillip H. and
Phillip Prange as one contribution. Later, we learned they were not
the same person, though we are not sure which Prange is on the Governor’s
campaign staff. Therefore, the donation quantity
from the Governor’s staff person is less, but still substantial. All three
Phillip Pranges gave money to the Governor.
In fact, the quantities listed in all the money boxes are greatly understated,
because we were careful to list only those donations clearly linked to
mining. We found many suggestive donations from relatives, spouses,
and lobbying groups, but didn’t have time to hunt down all the connections.
|
|
|
|
|