Strategic Blueprints, Views on News • April 4th, 2008

Enjoy the peace and quiet while it lasts, Wisconsin…

by Chris Lato

And you thought you would get a break…

After enjoying a couple nights of Supreme Court ad-free TV, the specter of 2009 has suddenly materialized.

74-year-old Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson faces re-election. Conservatives, emboldened by their victory this week, are already sharpening the blades in anticipation of next year’s contest.

It remains to be seen who will step up to take on Abrahamson, who is considered the high court’s most liberal justice. But after decades on the court, she has amassed a massive history of decisions that would make a political hitman giggle with delight. With a little bit of research, the ads will practically write themselves.

Is Abrahamson vulnerable? Before Tuesday, I would have said no. But now…

It depends, to a certain degree, on who is recruited and how soon. However, Michael Gableman jumped in fairly late and comes from far northern Wisconsin, with no support base to speak of, while his opponent, Louis Butler, was a sitting justice from populous Milwaukee County.

So what am I saying? Throw out the conventional wisdom book. Expect a slugfest. Anything can happen. Get ready to be blitzed by millions of dollars in TV ads.

The question then becomes: will there be a successful effort to re-write the rules of high court elections? Louis Butler supporters and the left-wing ‘independent’ groups that supported him are mad as hell, and some of them have the power to push a change in the rules. We’ll see if it actually happens.

One other thought: WMC is singled out as the Great Satan of this week’s high court race, but those same critics are virtually mum when it comes to WEAC’s pro-Butler work. Would the shoe be on the other foot if Gableman lost? Just wonderin’.

I know, it stinks to lose, it’s hard to deal with. But to try to comprehensively re-write the rules now will smack of the kind of partisanship that everyone claims they’re trying to avoid. Maybe if everyone just acknowledged their partisan colorings in this whole debate, we can have an honest, straight-up discussion. Until that happens, expect nothing to change. There is no such thing as a non-partisan Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Messaging, wispundits • March 27th, 2008

Issue ads in the crosshairs

by Chris Lato

The new Government Accountability Board is flexing its muscle, rolling up its sleeves and planning to start cracking down on those horrid issue ads that will be the downfall of our democracy. That darn Gableman-Butler Supreme Court race ruined it for everybody.

The Wisconsin State Journal breaks it down here. But here is the passage that should raise a few eyebrows:

Deborah Goldberg, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center who urged the board Wednesday to regulate issue ads, said the board could consider:

- Requiring disclosure of all individuals, corporations and groups that fund issue ads.

- Declaring that ads discussing the character and qualifications of a candidate don’t fit the definition of issue ads and instead advocate for or against a candidate.

- Declaring all ads in state Supreme Court races are advocacy ads, thus requiring the disclosure of donors for ads in those races only.

OK, I’m no legal expert, but here are a few questions:

· Who determines the definition of an issue ad? I thought those rules were written already?

· Literally, how will the disclosure thing work? Will the end of each ad have an announcer that rattles off names like he’s reading the rules and regulations at the end of one of those Wisconsin Lottery ads?

· Why declare that only Supreme Court ads are advocacy ads? Isn’t that kind of arbitrary?

I have no idea how the GAB plans to negotiate through the minefield of existing state and federal court rulings on this very topic. But it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

The GAB issues crackdown potentially runs afoul of the law. The self-appointed good government types either hail it as a step in the right direction or damn it for not going far enough. A court challenge ensues. It drags on for many months, if not years. Wash, rinse, repeat if necessary.

Here’s what gnaws at me about this. All this hand-wringing condescendingly assumes that voters are dolts who do no homework on their own, and can be led by the nose by some negative ad. Sure, maybe that’s true for some people, but I’d rather believe voters are generally smart and engaged enough to pay attention, do a little digging if necessary, and come to their own reasoned conclusions…especially if they’re going to bother to vote in a spring election. I mean, all this talk is generating a lot of attention on a race, and that may help drive turnout, and that’s a good thing…right?

And, yes, plenty of folks will be voting along ‘partisan’ lines in Tuesday’s Supreme Court race, even though the races are officially non-partisan (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Also, candidates sweat about losing control of their campaign, but they can use this as an opportunity. Decry the ads, pass on the opportunity to comment, turn the reporter’s question about those evil issue ads immediately back to your campaign, your platform, your agenda. You can still steer things back to your campaign and gain control. Put things in perspective and enforce strict internal message discipline, and all will be right with the world.

Comment (1) »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Messaging, Views on News, public relations, wispundits • February 27th, 2008

Hijacked: Third-parties rising?

by Chris Lato

I haven’t written anything yet about the state Supreme Court race, but this article serves as a timely reminder of the sway that independent, third-party groups can hold over elections.

In the upcoming spring election, Judge Michael Gableman faces Justice Louis Butler, a Gov. Doyle appointee.

(Disclosure: Gableman’s key advisor, Darrin Schmitz, was the guy who hired me at the state GOP back in Preview »2001.)

Let’s face it – the high court races are pretty much non-partisan in name only, and the overall tone seems to be getting nastier with each election. It has been trending this way for a long time. It is fair to ask the degree to which independent groups are ramping up the rhetoric and driving the debate.

more »

No Comments »