Wisconsin GOP Senate Candidate Ron Johnson Opposed Child Sexual Abuse Victims Act

[JI7]

I hope Russ doesn't feel he needs to be Above using this against his opponent


< As a single issue group that spans the entire political spectrum, PROTECT asks just one thing about candidates for public office: where do they stand on protecting children?

In the case of Ron Johnson, a Republican teaparty activist running for the U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, there’s not much of a public track record. Johnson, owner of a specialty plastic manufacturing business, has never held political office. His website says his “quiet, but extensive work within his community had had a deep impact,” but doesn’t go into much more detail. …

The one thing we do know about where Ron Johnson stands on child protection comes from his prominent opposition to the Wisconsin Child Victims Act, a bipartisan bill that would have extended the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.

In 2009, Johnson, a private citizen, traveled from Oshkosh to the capitol in Madison to deliver testimony (see page 27) opposing the bill. There’s not much of serious substance in his testimony, other than his argument that lawsuits by abuse victims would hurt “non-profit organizations.” Johnson then listed eight nonprofits he was involved with, including some affiliated with the Catholic church, who fought the legislation strongly (Johnson is a Lutheran).>

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/28/wisconsin-gop-senate-candidate-ron-johnson-opposed-child-sexual-abuse-victims-act/

[Dinger]

1. KRB

Kick, rec, Bookmark

[Kdillard]

2. Seriously he needs to be hit with this and hard.

[The Wizard]

3. He must answer the questions

Why does he want to protect child molesters at the expense of young innocent victims? What is Ron Johnson hiding? Would you let him baby sit your children?

[karynnj]

5. I watched his testimony on one of the links the other day

His concern was the non-profit organizations which are in this to help children. He was absolutely not defending the perverts. He was arguing to not hold their employers accountable.

This does make it a less damaging action. The fact though is that the quest for that law - I think - was set in motion by the fact that the Catholic Church moved perverts who acted out in one place to other locations, where they had the position where they could do the same thing.

So, the questions are does he feel there should be any law that acts to require anything from employers in this regard and what specifically would he want differ from the law he opposed.

[The Wizard]

6. It's a conversation that needs to happen (NT)

[karynnj]

8. Absolutely

My point is that the issue was more complicated that some posts made it appear and I thought it important to state what he testified about. The fact is that all things require a balance between competing issues. Here, he choose to give for weight to the harm to corporations if they were held accountable than to the children harmed. I have not read the law, but I assume that organizations and corporations held responsible either had to be negligent or tried to cover it up. If that is the case, this issue is important and he is on the wrong side.

[catgirl]

4. If Russ doesn't, someone will

This alone should kill his chances.

[dgibby]

7. IIRC,

he had some sort of business relationship with the Catholic Diocese at the time, but somehow forgot to mention that little conflict of interest in his testimony.

[dragonlady]

10. He was a member of the diocese Finance Council

Here is a good summary of Johnson's part in furthering the cover-up, from a Wisconsin blog that has been all over this issue. There are several postings on that blog that are well worth reading for anyone interested in all the details. Unbelievable.

Under Canon Law, the Finance Council has ultimate authority, among other things, in the settling of law suits. And what is the main kind of law suit Johnson dealt with as a member of the Finance Council? Sex abuse claims by children assaulted by priests and other clergy of the Green Bay Diocese. In other words, Johnson vary may well have been party to quietly settling law suits and protecting pedophile priests from the authorities.

Johnson even went to the Wisconsin State Senate to strongly lobby against a bill that would have removed the statute of limitations that prevents child victims of sexual assault from suing their assaulters and the institutions that enabled them. And when Johnson got down to Madison, he not only spoke out against the Child Victims Act, he categorically spoke out against ALL law suits against dioceses and other employers that get sued because they reassign instead of arresting employees they know to be pedophiles.

Here's the kicker: Johnson testified before the Wiconsin State Senate while his Green Bay Diocese Finance Council was trying to get a law suit dismissed. Not on grounds that the diocese was guilty-- they transferred predator priest John Feeney 14 times in 14 years-- but because... wait for it... the statute of limitations had expired. And here's the best part: the guy that was responsible for reassigning the predator priest, Rober Morneau, is still the auxiliary bishop at the Green Bay diocese and one of his functions is to head-up the Finance Council, which Johnson was a member!

http://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/after-years-helping-diocese-keep-secret-names-pedophile-priests

[David Zephyr]

9. Feingold should hammer this creep with this.

Go Feingold.