HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Wisconsin (Group) » Wisconsin: State Supreme...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 08:43 AM

Wisconsin: State Supreme Court Justice Caught Taking Money From Out-of-State Voucher backers

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/httpwwwonewisconsinnoworgfilesroggensack20doesnt20report20voucher20cashpdf.html


The Case of the Missing Contributions: Roggensack Fails to Report Big Money From Out-of-State Private School Voucher Backers in Latest Campaign Finance Report


Madison -- A review of campaign finance reports by One Wisconsin Now has uncovered that State Supreme Court candidate Patience Roggensack failed to disclose $20,550 in campaign contributions bundled by backers of the private school voucher program on her latest campaign finance report. While Roggensack’s campaign failed to report the contribution, a separate report filed by the group Fund for Parent Choice shows they made a contribution of $20,550 to Roggensack on December 27, 2012, several days before the close of the reporting period.

One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross commented, “While the right-wing boasts that Patience Roggensack will, as a member of the court, vote to protect the program that gives parents a government voucher to send their child to private schools, her campaign fails to disclose tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that she’s received in return from the out-of-state billionaire ideologues that back the voucher program experiment.”

This week, all candidates for public office with active campaign accounts, and other groups like conduits that bundle campaign contributions to candidates, were required to file campaign finance reports with the state Government Accountability Board detailing their activity through the end of 2012. The report filed by the “Fund for Parent Choice” reports $20,550 in campaign cash bundled as a conduit contribution from wealthy ideologues in California, Michigan, Arkansas, Texas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on December 27, 2012.

Private school voucher advocates from out-of-state have consistently larded the campaigns of politicians voting to support and expand the program with big contributions, and their front groups have spent huge sums on television advertising in recent years. A top leader of the pro-voucher group active in state legislative campaigns was employed by a candidate in a previous State Supreme Court race in which the largest fine in state history was levied against his candidate for illegally coordinating with an “independent” expenditure group.




On edit: Roggensack is a Republican.

11 replies, 1919 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wisconsin: State Supreme Court Justice Caught Taking Money From Out-of-State Voucher backers (Original post)
Scuba Feb 2013 OP
left is right Feb 2013 #1
Scuba Feb 2013 #2
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #6
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #3
ewagner Feb 2013 #4
DreWId Feb 2013 #7
ewagner Feb 2013 #11
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #5
DreWId Feb 2013 #8
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #9
freshwest Feb 2013 #10

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:13 AM

1. Why does the so called liberal news media make it so difficult to find out the party affiliation

of corrupt politicians? Googling just her name and doing a quick scan of the first 6 or 7 items did not reveal that she is a republican. Because i was hoping that she was a republican, I added that word to the search, low and behold, she is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left is right (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:15 AM

2. Thanks. I edited the post to add that important fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left is right (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:59 PM

6. Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan.


In fact, all judicial elections are supposedly nonpartisan in WI.

Theoretically, so are the candidates. Since they aren't running on a partisan ticket, the press typically doesn't report political affiliations, if any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:42 AM

3. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:38 AM

4. K&R ...and add

...this method of choosing Supreme Court justices lends itself to having candidates put up a sign that says "FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER"

there has to be a better way to select Supreme Court Justices...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ewagner (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:51 PM

7. By majority consensus of the lower court?

As it is, the Supreme Court justices are nominated by the people (unless appointed by Waukesha county's surprise extra votes or by voting machine tampering) in a state-wide race.
Would you rather the Circuit Court Judges be the ones to vote in a Supreme Court justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreWId (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:17 PM

11. No....not that...

in fact the alternatives are wrought with danger of partisan influence also..but maybe...maybe an election in which all campaign -is disallowed except for public funding AND the candidates are graded by out-of-state law school deans based on review of their recent decisions...

I know..that's not very democratic...

but allowing the FOR SALE sign isn't working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:37 PM

5. Did she commit a crime? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:53 PM

8. Depends

Depends on whether or not disclosing of said contributions is a criminal offense or just a faux pas. It also depends on whether she may be facing any conflict of interest cases were the school voucher system be brought to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreWId (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:55 PM

9. It would have been nice if the article would have elaborated a little. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 05:59 PM

10. Is this enough to get her removed from office? This is a conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread