State has best high court that money can buy
The wealthiest corporations in Wisconsin now have the best state Supreme Court money can buy.
How are you enjoying it so far? How do you like the Wisconsin Supreme Court giving a humongous $265 million tax refund to the richest companies in the state that you, as an ordinary taxpayer, are going to have to make up out of your own pocket? And that’s just the beginning.
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, spent about $4 million to buy the last two Supreme Court elections. More than $2 million of that was spent to elect the ethically challenged Annette Ziegler last year. Brazenly, Ziegler wrote last week’s decision granting WMC members their $265 million tax windfall.
On a court with ethical members, a Supreme Court justice whose campaign received more than $2 million in support from an organization filing a brief on one side of a case would be expected to recuse herself from participating because of the blatant conflict of interest.
But, then, no one who has followed Ziegler’s legal career would expect her to act ethically. This is the woman who, as a Washington County Judge, failed to recuse herself from presiding over 46 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank and failing to disclose that her husband was a paid member of the bank’s board of directors and that she and her husband had received a $3 million loan from the bank.
Ziegler presided over hundreds of other cases involving companies in which she owned stock, choosing neither to withdraw nor to publicly disclose her financial conflicts of interest. The $2 million the WMC spent to elect Ziegler looks like chicken feed when it immediately pays dividends of $265 million. The case involved companies challenging the state Revenue Department’s collection of sales taxes on specialized software purchased by Wisconsin companies.
When the WMC owns the Wisconsin Supreme Court, sales taxes don’t have to be paid by wealthy corporations. Sales taxes only have to be paid by ordinary saps like you.
Unbelievably, this isn’t even as bad as the Wisconsin Supreme Court is going to get. The latest justice bought and paid for by the WMC—Michael Gableman—hasn’t even taken the bench yet. The WMC defeated Butler with Gableman, a small-time judge with very meager experience and no apparent qualifications. Yet we already know exactly how he is going to rule on cases involving wealthy corporations in our state. Taxes will continue to be shifted from the wealthy in our state to those of us who do not have the financial wherewithal to purchase our own Supreme Court justices.
Buying elections has worked so well for the WMC, you can bet they’ll spend more millions to try to defeat Chief Justice Abrahamson next April. Why settle for a mere majority on the court? Why not go for the whole kit-and-caboodle—unanimous decisions to repeal all corporate taxes, pollution controls, union protections, safety standards and child labor laws?
How did we allow elections to the state Supreme Court to get so brazenly subverted by money? Elections to the court were always there for the buying. Few voters in Wisconsin have any idea who’s even on the state Supreme Court. Few know where the justices stand or whom they represent.
Even during the elections to the court, incumbents and challengers refuse to tell voters how they will rule on cases that come before them. Since they can’t be honest with the voters about where they stand, the candidates resort to code words and manipulation of images. The WMC figured out that if you put millions of dollars behind code words and inflammatory images, you could successfully manipulate a statewide election where voters know or care very little about the candidates.
We can’t force people to care about elections they don’t care about. But we can stop the sleazy buying of our court. There’s nothing democratic about elections where issues aren’t discussed and justices are openly bought.
Put the state Supreme Court above electioneering just like the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices should be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
Joel McNally is a syndicated columnist. His e-mail address is jmcnally@wi.rr.com.
Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
McNally and McNally cheerleader commenters are wrong. Voters elected the justices, not one organization. McNally must think voters, or at least a majority of them in these elections, are stupid or were duped by commercials. Not so. Very interesting that McNally and his cheerleaders never complained about 'big education' and 'big labor' and 'big Indian Gaming' support for Doyle who won re-election. Apparently, if a 'big' groups spend money for McNally's annointed candidates, they get a pass. Only 'big business' is evil and nefarious in their participation in elections. Oh wait, unless it is the big business of education or indian gaming. How transparent of McNally to call out his regular nemesis, anyone who pursues profit instead of socialism. McNally's claim that a sitting judge (Gableman) had 'no apparent qualifications' is absurd, especially since he expresses such disdain for Justice Ziegler, whose opponent had zero bench experience. Ahhh, the McNally standard: if you're not ultra liberal, you're against us. McNally's non-sensical rants that contradict his own prior writings, at least if logic or reason counts for anything, have become little more than a literary caricature of the anti-everything hippie protester. Yet another dissapointment from Joel McNally. whose scribblings over time, build justification for newspapers to reconsider publishing his agenda-riddled bologna.
Jul 15, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think that Joel read the Isthmus this week...
Anyone else?
Jul 15, 2008 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Absolutely on target!!! Thanks Joel, for saying it so succinctly.
When Citizen Action studied this a few years back they found that in 75% of the cases reaching the Supreme Court, there was a campaign contributor on one side of the issue or the other. Business leaders and attorneys both.
What is it about money do we do not understand? Cash buys favors. And even with public funding of campaigns, a judge's personal conflicts are not always aired.
First we need ethics and campaign reform, then we need a non-partisan survey to determine if a recall election is in order.
Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
Jul 14, 2008 at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Did not the big unions do likewise in support of its candidates that lost?
The last election loss by Butler is Gov. Doyle's own fault. He appointed Butler in spite of the fact that Butler had tried and failed to win election in the past. The voters have now rejected him twice. Doyle should have honored the will of the electorate and appointed someone who had not already been rejected.
McNalley is quite disingenuous in his opinion yet again. He has no problem with well funded private groups supporting their favorites as long as they happen to be his favorites as well.
Not that I agree with the supposition that the electorate that voted for Gableman et al are ignorant, but maybe if the public schools would make more effort to teach civics and other such academic subjects at the expense of all those non academic subjects they seem so fascinated with, the electorate would be less susceptible to advertised misrepresentations and voters would be more familiar with what is needed from them
Jul 14, 2008 at 8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
These Judges got elected because most people do not do their homework before going to vote.
They happen to be sitting in front of the talking picture box when a campaign commercial comes on. They believe everything they see and hear on that box because "why would the local tv stations put knowing lies on their station?".$$$$$
I have lost faith in my fellow voting public. You win big buisness......You win.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.