Please give to The Capital Times Kids Fund.

State Debate: Board right to seek disclosure on issue ads

A 10/9 roundup of editorials in state papers

Compiled by Judie Kleinmaier  —  10/09/2008 11:01 am

Board right to seek disclosure on issue ads, says the Oshkosh Northwestern.

Kudos to Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board. It is willing to take the lead and the heat in researching and, possibly, endorsing a proposal to finally shine a brighter light on who is behind those ugly campaign issue ads infiltrating your TVs.

"I don't think we should be concerned about whether we are sued or not sued," GAB Chairman Thomas Cane said, responding to predictions of a lawsuit. "We should do what we think is right."

Amen.

"Regulation" would likely mean rules requiring full disclosure of who is paying for third-party issue ads and other information, maybe even details about the groups behind them. That's how it works in Wisconsin for ads calling for a candidate's defeat.

It gets down to a kind of consumer protection: Ad backers are free to try to dupe the electorate, but they would be required to put their names and financial sources on the message. No more hiding.

Go, GAB, go.

Pork in bailout bill hard to swallow, says the Racine Journal Times.

It's hard to believe that a bill loaded with $700 billion to stem the nation's credit crunch and stop financial markets from spinning out of control needed any "sweeteners" to attract votes.

But when the Senate had finished with this legislation, it had also bumped the price tag up by another $112 billion. The prettied up bill swept through the House and was signed into law.

The fact that Congress is so enmeshed in its pork-barrel mentality that it immediately turned to the larder instead of dealing straightforwardly with its business at hand -- rescuing the nation's financial system -- is an outrage.

Even worse is the fact that it provided no revenue offset for the baubles. The Senate just put them on the nation's charge card.

The bailout bill was tough enough for Main Street to swallow, but the addition of special-interest pork made it even more unpalatable.

Voter ID suit all politics, says the Wausau Daily Herald.

How could anyone have gotten the idea that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's voter registration lawsuit is politically motivated?

The lawsuit would require the state's city and municipal clerks to cross-check the identities of all voters registered since Jan. 1, 2006. The Republican Party of Wisconsin moved to join the suit just days after it was filed. There is consensus that the ID cross-checking Van Hollen would have courts require would hit hardest in densely populated, heavily Democratic parts of the state. The potential long lines, forced "provisional ballots" and disenfranchised legally registered voters would be disproportionately Democratic.

Does that make Van Hollen a partisan?

Actually, yes. There is not much about this lawsuit that doesn't look politically motivated. Van Hollen's claim that he is only interested in seeing existing laws enforced is simply not credible.

Compiled by Judie Kleinmaier  —  10/09/2008 11:01 am