Off the Green

The Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin, Mark "not that one" Green, has been ordered to give back half a million dollars in donations he had reeled in while running for Congress. State law allows Green to use the money, but the partisan Wisconsin election board passed a rule… well, just read it.

Wednesday's actions were in response to a complaint brought by the
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which alleged Green should be subject to
an "emergency rule" the board passed prohibiting candidates for state
office from converting funds from prior federal campaigns if the donors
are not registered in Wisconsin or the gifts exceed state limits.

The
Elections Board, which is dominated by Democrats, first adopted the
rule in 2005, one day after Green transferred his federal money to his
state account.

The rule was quickly suspended by a committee of
the Republican-controlled Legislature. But the full Legislature never
adopted the required follow-up legislation to permanently kill the rule
before lawmakers went home July 12.

Anyone care to explain why the election board's Libertarian member voted to screw Green?

Comments

[ChicagoTom]

I found this statement from the libertarian on the board, if anyone is interested:
------------------

Contact:

Jacob Burns; [phone]

Libertarian State Elections Board member Jacob Burns releases the following statement:

During the hours following yesterday's Wisconsin State Elections Board meeting, I read and heard allegations that I was just taking a particular partisan side, regarding Congressman Mark Green's transfer of federal PAC money to his state campaign, for the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.

These allegations are simply untrue. I have no grudge with Congressman Green. I have in the past met Congressman Green. It was due to his assistance, that my family was able to have closure regarding my deceased uncle, Warren Olson. His work in helping find the missing fishing boat, Linda E, is something my family wil! l never forget.

At the State Elections Board meeting, it was frankly a matter of obvious law as to why I voted in favor of having Congressman Green rid his campaign of the illegal PAC money. As a candidate for state office, Congressman Green is required to follow all state election laws, even the laws he was exclusively exempted from when he ran for national office.

Wisconsin campaign laws were created to limit the influence of special interests and big business on Wisconsin politicians. PACs that were not registered in Wisconsin tainted the money transferred by Congressman Green. The money from these unregistered PACs is in violation of state law.

An allowance of money raised for federal office, then transferred to a campaign for state office, when it would have otherwise violated Wisconsin law, would create an abusive evasion of the Wisconsin campaign laws. Likewise, I believe the Board was wrong to allow it in the 2001/2002 election cycle, which is prior to a Libertarian representative on the Board.

Wisconsin elections should not be unduly influenced. The people of Wisconsin deserve a State Elections Board that keeps our elections fair, clean, and honest. With a Libertarian on the Board, providing a unique, non-partisan perspective, these goals are attainable. Additionally, the inclusion of all parties with ballot access would make a more positive impact on the Board and for Wisconsin.??

Jacob Burns
Oshkosh, Wis.
Libertarian Representative on the Wisconsin State Elections Board

[Paul]

ChicagoTom

Forgive me if I skimmed too quickly here, but I'm getting a disconnect between:

The Elections Board, which is dominated by Democrats, first adopted the [emergency] rule in 2005, one day after Green transferred his federal money to his state account.

and this:

Wisconsin campaign laws were created to limit the influence of special interests and big business on Wisconsin politicians. PACs that were not registered in Wisconsin tainted the money transferred by Congressman Green. The money from these unregistered PACs is in violation of state law.

If the rule didn't exist when Congressman Green transferred the campaign funds, then I would estimate that Green isn't subject to the rule.

The rest of Burns' statement seems to be a set of talking points about campaign finance reform, getting the the money out of politics, etc. etc.

[joshua corning]

what the fuck!!

LINO = libertarian in name only

Jacob Burns you are an asshole.

[R C Dean]

The rest of Burns' statement seems to be a set of talking points about campaign finance reform, getting the the money out of politics, etc. etc.

Proof positive that whatever he is, he isn't a libertarian.

[John Doe]

Examine this when considering Burns' stance:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0011.pdf
11.03 Nonapplicability.
...
(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this chapter does
not apply to any candidate for national office acting exclusively
in support of the candidate?s own campaign, with respect to such
activities only.
(3) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this chapter does
not apply to any individual or committee acting exclusively in
support of or in opposition to any of the following:
(a) Candidates for national office.
(b) Other individuals and committees exclusively supporting
or opposing candidates for national office.

http://www.jsonline.com/election2000/nov00/camp30112900.asp
"...George Dunst, board legal counsel, warned that he believed candidates using the money would have to follow state law in moving the funds from federal to state campaigns." - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 11/29/2000 in regards to Barrett transfer.

[kevrob]

Mark Green is fighting to keep the dough.

I dropped out of the LPWI scene about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure what is going on in the head of young Mr. Jacob Burns, whom I've never met.

Kevin