|
Fox Valley Sierra Group
|
|
PRESENTATION TO STATE SENATE JUDICIARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM April 19, 2001
My name is John Berge and I am currently the Conservation Chair for the Southeast Gateway Group of the Sierra Club; for three years I was the Chair of the John Muir Chapter whose over 10,000 members cover the entire state of Wisconsin; and I am a member of the Sierra Club’s national Clean Election Team. I am here to speak in favor of the Impartial Justice Bill (SB 115) and the Clean Money Bill (SB 137).
The Sierra Club is convinced that Campaign Finance Reform is a fundamental and imperative environmental issue. Without it, we probably will never be able to meet on equal footing those who take the opposite side from us on important environmental questions. Until the field is made more nearly level and environmental issues are settled on the basis of the best available facts rather than the largest available contributions, we see our efforts as a losing battle.
The Executive Committee of the John Muir Chapter has repeatedly voted to support the Impartial Justice Bill as it has evolved and improved over recent years and looks forward to expanding the principle of public financing to all other state-wide elections. There have been those that support only partial public financing, but I say that a "partial" Impartial Justice Bill is an oxymoron by its very name.
I should add that nationally the Sierra Club Board of Directors has gone on record in support of Campaign Finance Reform on both national and state levels, although not these specific bills. These bills, however, fit within the parameters of the policy on Campaign Finance Reform which the Board has adopted.
There have been those that state most vociferously that they are opposed to any bill which gives a pittance of their tax money to those with whom they disagree. Yet legislators and governors authorize much greater expenditures to those with whom we, and possibly they, disagree and which give the appearance, at least, of being based on campaign contributions rather than the good of the environment and the people of Wisconsin.
I am sure that no one on this Committee would ever vote for or against a particular piece of legislation based on the contributions they have received for their election campaigns. But somehow, highway builders make big contributions and more highways are built or enlarged; resort and casino owners make big contributions and those highways lead up to their doors; developers make big contributions and their rules are changed; bankers make big contributions and bills to limit ATM fees are bottled up in committee; furniture makers make big contributions and a permit to fill a wetland is included in the budget; large agribusinesses make big contributiions and their confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) receive low interest state loans. I urge you to get rid of even the perception of quid pro quo government.
We do not want to put our Supreme Court Justices in the position where their decisions might be construed to be based on the contributions to their election campaigns. Yet the current system shows a very disproportionate amount of their contributions come from lawyers and clients who may soon appear before the Supreme Court. Lawyers and lobbyists provided over 36% of all contributions of $100 or more. Less than 2% of the voters contributed over 50% of the money for the last Supreme Court race. And the costs of those races have been skyrocketing, much of it due to the availability of those big contributions and the increasing number of TV ads, many of which have been negative and add nothing to our making an educated choice. This legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation which will slow, if not stop, those accelerated costs and the dependence on a few well-to-do contributors. I urge this committee to report out favorably SB 115 and SB 137.
I thank you, the Sierra Club thanks you, and the people of Wisconsin,
who overwhelmingly support the idea of Impartial Justice, will thank
you.
|
Map |
Home |
Mail |