Wisconsin
Related: About this forumWisconsin: State Supreme Court Justice Caught Taking Money From Out-of-State Voucher backers
Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/httpwwwonewisconsinnoworgfilesroggensack20doesnt20report20voucher20cashpdf.htmlThe 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 Roggensacks 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 shes 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.
left is right
(1,665 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)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.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)ewagner
(18,964 posts)...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...
DreWId
(78 posts)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?
ewagner
(18,964 posts)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.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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.