The Restoration of Representative Democracy
Fred Wade would work to restore representative democracy by:
- Stopping Abuses of the Partial Veto Power
- Seeking a Federal Constitutional Amendment to Make Clear that Corporations Are Not Among the "Persons" Who Are Entitled to First Amendment Rights
- Taking Additional Steps to Limit Corporate Spending on Campaigns;
- Enacting Campaign Finance Reforms; and
- Reforming the Way Legislative Districts Are Drawn.
Stopping Abuses of the Partial Veto Power
It has become routine for governors to use the partial veto power as a means of creating laws that the Legislature did not approve. Governors have spent billions of dollars that the Legislature did not authorize them to spend, imposed tax and fee increases “without representation,” increased caps on borrowing authority by $860 million, gutted the enforcement provisions of other legislation, and even outlawed an entire industry with the stroke of a pen. To see how governors are able to create laws without legislative approval, see “abuses of the veto power” below.
In the face of these repeated assaults on the very idea of representative democracy, we need a representative in the progressive tradition of Robert LaFollette, who will make the integrity of democratic self-government his highest priority. While I believe that governors should have the power to veto separate items of appropriation bills, as originally intended (see my article in the 2008 Wisconsin Lawyer magazine), they should have no power to create new laws, without legislative approval, from vetoed remnants of a bill.
Neither the framers of the 1930 Amendment that created the partial veto, nor the voters who ratified it, had any intention of giving governors a unilateral executive power to create laws that the Legislature did not approve. Instead, they sought to assure that each separate item of legislation that might become law as part of an appropriation bill would have the approval of the Governor in addition to that of the Senate and the Assembly.
That intent could still be realized. If governors were required to veto separate items of an appropriation bill in their entirety, as originally intended, each item or appropriation that remains would have the concurrent approval of the Legislature on behalf of “the people of the State of Wisconsin,” and of the Governor as well. A constitutional amendment could provide that, “In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor shall approve separate items or appropriations in their entirety.”
If this were done, governors would retain the power to veto separate items that the Legislature may include in an appropriation bill. But they would no longer have any power to create laws that the Legislature did not approve in the first instance.
How governors create laws without Legislative approval
1. TO SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT AUTHORIZE THEM TO SPEND
a. Section 2135t of 1991 Wisconsin Act 39 created an annual appropriation of $319,305,000. It reads: "School tax credit. the appropriations under s. 20.835 (3) (b) is $319,305,000. For a larger version, click here.
|
 |
|
|
 |
2. TO IMPOSE TAX AND FEE INCREASES “WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”
a. Section 2m of 1999 Wisconsin Act 10 (A $234 million increase in income taxes that the Legislature did not approve; Governor Thompson engaged in a unilateral “repeal” of the Property Tax Rent Credit by making the formula for computation of the credit read “8.4% of the first $0 of property taxes . . . .”) For larger version click here
|
 |
3. TO INCREASE A CAP ON BORROWING AUTHORITY BY $860 MILLION
a.Section 683d of 2003 Wisconsin Act 33 (The increase was fashioned by vetoing repeal
of the “$1" and a “0" in the existing law, and vetoing the “$1" in the amendment that
the Legislature approved, so that the remnant reads “S1,000,000,000.” For a larger version, click here.
|
 |
4. TO GUT THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF IMPORTANT LEGISLATION
a. Section 2446f of 2001 Wisconsin Act 16 (Fines for certain violations of the Do Not Call list were reduced from up to “$10,000 for each violation” to a maximum of “$100.” For a larger version, click here
|
 |
5. TO OUTLAW AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN
a. Section 14m of 2009 Wisconsin Act 405 (Created a prohibition of title loans, when the bill had provided for regulation of such loans).
For a larger version, click here.
|
 |
Seeking a Federal Constitutional Amendment to Make Clear that Corporations Are Not Among the "Persons" Who Are Entitled to First Amendment Rights
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that corporations are "persons," who have the same rights to freedom of speech as an individual, and therefore, may spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections. In response, I would support a federal constitutional amendment to make clear that corporations are not entitled to the First Amendment rights of individual citizens. I believe the Supreme Court's decision has effectively given the individuals who control corporate funds a megaphone to amplify their own speech, and because corporations are created and chartered under State law, that result amounts to state-sponsored discrimination in favor of those who are able to control the disposition of any corporate funds that may be used to influence an election.
Taking Additional Steps to Limit Corporate Spending on Campaigns
I would also support registration, reporting and advertising disclaimer requirements for corporate election spending. In addition, I would review the Wisconsin Corporation Law to determine whether the State's power to grant a corporate charter includes the power to define the extent to which corporations may be treated as "persons" if they are incorporated in the State of Wisconsin. Finally, I would support legislation that would require Wisconsin corporations to notify their shareholders about plans to engage in election spending, and to obtain the explicit permission of their shareholders to engage in election spending before a single penny is spent for that purpose.
Enacting Campaign Finance Reforms
I support a system of public financing for all state elections similar to the system that the Impartial Justice Act has created for elections to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This Act provides that candidates may qualify for public financing by collecting a threshold amount of contributions in small amounts, and also provides for supplemental public funding if an opponent of a qualifying candidate does not accept public financing, and spends more than the original grant of public funds to a candidate who qualified. I believe such an approach could reduce the influence of money and special interests, encourage more candidates to run, stimulate debate on public policy issues, and give voters a wider range of choices when they vote.
Reforming the Way Legislative Districts Are Drawn
The current system for redrawing legislative districts calls for redistricting by the Legislature, with the possibilty of judicial review that may lead to redistricting by a court. This system has led to increasingly partisan districts that protect incumbents, discourage credible opponents, and contribute to dysfunctional partisanship in the legislative process. Accordingly, I would consider support for reforms that would call for district lines to be drawn by a nonpartisan legislative service agency, by an independent citizen commission, or initially by the Legislature, with provisions authorizing the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board to determine whether the proposal meets defined criteria, and empowering the Board to implement a different plan if the Legislature’s proposal does not meet those criteria. I would want any reform plan to include safeguards to assure that partisans are not able to subvert the ideal of nonpartisan redistricting.
Authorized and paid for Wade for Assembly, Marilyn Townsend, Treasurer
|
|
|
