Walker’s choice… Wisconsin or the Koch Brothers!

Scott Walker has shunned campaign finance reform, the one issue that could guarantee his job forever.

By Jack E. Lohman

There are two ways to get elected… a lot of votes, or a lot of campaign cash that buys votes. To date Walker has embraced the latter.

No question that the pendulum has swung to the other side. The Righties had their moment with the Tea Party rallies, now it’s the Lefties’ turn. Let’s hope they spend less time protesting and more time creating a strong progressive following and new candidates for 2012.

Walker knows who has buttered his bread in the past, but thereby lies the rub. The public knows too, and the voters aren’t impressed. The polls show him significantly behind, but he can reverse that.

Cleaning up Wisconsin politics

The Occupy effort started in Madison and will continue until politics is cleaned up. Or out, whichever comes first.

Could Walker reverse the projections at the polls? Yes. And come out a master leader in the process by returning Wisconsin to the top of the clean politics list.

That would require…

Campaign finance reform: or more specifically, public funding of campaigns. But not like in 2000, when the legislature stacked the deck with a poison pill that was shot down by the courts. And not with loopholes. Legitimate (!!) reform that lets politicians opt out if they are willing to answer to the voters for so doing.

Ranked Choice Voting that would give to voters equal access to third-party candidates.

Actually fixing the warped redistricting charade and Voter ID systems he helped corrupt and which greatly benefit his party over the will of the people.

And no games. No maybes and no promises. No poison pills. The governor has control of the legislature. He can have these passed and signed into law before his recall election takes place.

But will he?

The ball is in Walker’s court. He can reduce taxes and increase jobs today, or he can face the Occupy voters even if he squeaks by in the recall election.

14 Responses to Walker’s choice… Wisconsin or the Koch Brothers!

  1. It’s mighty tough to make a clear headed choice when you’re an addict.

  2. Love the video, Steve, but I’d say that you could at any time insert a picture of either a D or R and it would ring true. They are BOTH corrupted by campaign bribes, and only public funding of campaigns will return our control of government back to the owners (the people), And unfortunately, that is going to require a massive turnover in 2012, hopefully to third parties and independents.

  3. Wrong, Jack. If you want to put it your way, the choice is between the Koch brothers (employers of thousands of Wisconsinites) and Martin Beil (pronounced “bile,”) John Matthews and the other scum who head public employee unions in this state. I will side with the employers over the tax-suckers every single time.

    • I’d have to say, Steve, that your response is blindly partisan. I agree that the Dems are no better, but I don’t want either one of them picking my pockets.

      • I believe I asked you some time ago why my tax dollars should go to (1) politicians I do not support and (2) politicians I cannot legally vote for. And I have yet to see a valid argument on either of those points from you or anyone else. I find it reprehensible beyond belief that my tax dollars go to the socialist Tammy Baldwin or the insane Gwen Moore, for instance, or for 18 long years Senator Listens-with-Left-Ear Feingold the phony maverick. But those articles touting socialism help explain your point of view, I guess. Do not assume you know mine unless you read my blog.

      • Steve, I hate to break the news to you, but your tax dollars ALREADY ARE going to politicians you don’t support and can’t vote for … through the back door when these crooks spend your money on issues you don’t support. With taxpayer-funded elections you (a) pay far less, and (b) are paying for a system of good government, just like you pay for the state police.

        IF your ideas are good for the public, you don’t shouldn’t need to pay off a politician to get them passed. Good laws do not need bribes, only bad laws do. And no, union corruption is no better than corporate corruption.

        See http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html

  4. GreggP says:

    Ah, but Scott Walker appears to be the poster child for helping others buy an election. I think the chances he adopts your recommendations are pretty slim.

    Scott’s actions (including his conversation with fake Koch) have shown he’s more apt to push an agenda that has been defined by the people (and large corporations) donating to his campaign. These donations have allowed him to run ads to defend his policies and deceive the voters. Don’t forget that large corporations have taken advertising and marketing to another level in the last 25 years. It’s a lot more sophisticated (key phrasing that appeals to viewers based on endless focus groups, etc.) and are exploiting this to help get their people elected. Sure, he’s not the only one, especially all the politicians that attend outings sponsored by ALEC. I’m sure there are some Dems equally guilty, but they don’t seem to be in the same league.

    This game they are playing is working to their advantage. They will never want to give this up. As you know with their redistricting plans and voter ID, they do NOT want a level playing field.

    • Gregg, I normally would agree, but the mood of the voters has changed against the Walker’s of the world. I think he’s toast if he doesn’t look more kindly to reform.

      • GreggP says:

        The mood of the voters has changed. I think it is a visceral response to conservative over-reach. Although, I don’t know if it is translating to campaign finance reforms. Hopefully, it will. Not sure if it has become a major issue with OWS, but am hoping that when they finally come up with some concrete demands, and campaign finance reform will be on the top of their list, even above corporate person-hood.

        I still don’t see the mainstream media talking about campaign finance. The “game” is very, very good to them and any changes that restrict spending on media is something they will fight.

  5. GreggP says:

    Steve-

    Ah yes.. when all arguments fail, just call them a socialist. That will make them run off with their tails between their legs.

    I used to have that viewpoint back when I was a libertarian. It was nice and easy, I really didn’t have to think because everything fit into well defined simple categories.

    Jack isn’t promoting left or right politics. He’s suggesting a political system that isn’t purchased by wealthy donors, so politicians will make decisions based on what they believe, not who they owe.

  6. Americans needs to come up with a plan to resolve corrupt politicians once and for all. We talk a good fight, but never get into the ring. We reelect the same people election after election, expecting different results. Sounds a like the definition of insanity to me.
    We have two choices, elect a little corrupt politician or a full blown corrupt politician, pick your poison.
    We do not have to prove a politician is corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt, we just need to not vote for him. Unfortunately we have corrupt media outlets who put these guys on a pedestal, never telling the whole story. Internet’s reality on our politicians greatly differs from TV’s perception. People are waking up all over the world on corrupt politician issues, only by way of the internet. How do we inform TV viewers your being fed a pack of lies? We need to get into the ring America, remember your fighting for your life’s, it’s time to take the gloves off.

  7. Thanks Gregg and Michael. Your comments are right on. And Michael, you are correct with regard to our media being a major part of the problem, which I wrote about here: https://moneyedpoliticians.net/2011/10/25/corporate-media-a-major-part-of-the-problem/

  8. Right on. I have a client so fed up with money in politics, he hired me to go to Maine and interview key figures over the regarding their campaign finance law. $5 contributions win the day for 80% of the Maine Legislature! See my report at http://www.cleanwisconsinpolitics.com.

  9. Thanks Steve. Indeed I’d rather pay $5 per year to pay for political campaigns, whereas they are currently costing me over $1000 in government giveaways. And to readers I’d recommend going to his web site.