Amendment AA13-ASA2-AB37

AB37-ASA2-AA13, s. 15g Section 15g. 11.50 (2) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,11,7 11.50 (2) (a) Any individual who desires to qualify as an eligible candidate may file an application with the board requesting approval to participate in the fund. The application shall be filed no later than the applicable deadline for filing nomination papers under s. 8.10 (2) (a), 8.15 (1), 8.20 (8) (a) or 8.50 (3) (a), no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 7th day after the primary or date on which the primary would be held if required in the case of write-in candidates, or no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 7th day after appointment in the case of candidates appointed to fill vacancies. The application shall contain a sworn statement that the candidate and his or her authorized agents have complied with the contribution limitations prescribed in s. 11.26 and the expenditure limitations prescribed under s. 11.31 at all times to which such limitations have applied to his or her candidacy and will continue to comply with the limitations at all times to which the limitations apply to his or her candidacy for the office in contest, unless the board determines that the candidate is not eligible to receive a grant, the candidate withdraws his or her application under par. (h), or par. (i) applies.

AB37-ASA2-AA13, s. 15n Section 15n. 11.50 (2) (b) 5. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,4 11.50 (2) (b) 5. The financial reports filed by or on behalf of the candidate as of the date of the spring or September primary, or the date that the special primary is or would be held, if required, indicate that the candidate has received at least the amount provided in this subdivision, from contributions of money, other than loans, made by individuals, which have been received during the period ending on the date of the spring primary and July 1 preceding such date in the case of candidates at the spring election, or the date of the September primary and January 1 preceding such date in the case of candidates at the general election, or the date that a special primary will or would be held, if required, and 90 days preceding such date or the date a special election is ordered, whichever is earlier, in the case of special election candidates, which contributions are in the aggregate amount of $100 or less, and which are fully identified and itemized as to the exact source thereof. A contribution received from a conduit which is identified by the conduit as originating from an individual shall be considered a contribution made by the individual. Only the first $100 of an aggregate contribution of more than $100 may be counted toward the required percentage. For a candidate at the spring or general election for an office identified in s. 11.26 (1) (a) or a candidate at a special election, the required amount to qualify for a grant is 5% of the candidate's authorized expenditure limitation, as determined under s. 11.31 (1). For any other candidate at the general election, the required amount to qualify for a grant is 10% of the candidate's authorized expenditure limitation, as determined under s. 11.31 (1).

AB37-ASA2-AA13, s. 15r Section 15r. 11.50 (2) (g) of the statutes is repealed.

AB37-ASA2-AA13, s. 15w Section 15w. 11.50 (2) (h) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,13 11.50 (2) (h) An eligible candidate who files an application under par. (a) may file a written withdrawal of the application. A withdrawal of an application may be filed with the board no later than the 7th day after the day of the primary in which the person withdrawing the application is a candidate or the 7th day after the date that the primary would be held, if required. If an application is withdrawn in accordance with this paragraph, the person withdrawing the application is no longer bound by the statement filed under par. (a) after the date of the withdrawal.

AB37-ASA2-AA13, s. 15x Section 15x. 11.50 (2) (i) of the statutes is repealed.".

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,15 14. Page 10, line 11: strike through "level" and insert thereafter "limitation".

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,16 15. Page 10, line 16: after that line insert:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,17 " Section 16m. 11.50 (11) (e) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,21 11.50 (11) (e) No candidate may expend, authorize the expenditure of or incur any obligation to expend any grant if he or she violates the pledge required under sub. (2) (a) as a precondition to receipt of a grant, except as authorized in sub. (2) (h) or (i).".

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,22 16. Page 11, line 10: after that line insert:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,12,23 " Section 19m. Nonstatutory provisions; legislative findings. The legislature, drawing on its collective experience with campaigns for public office and on the independent evidence presented to it by qualified analysts, finds and declares that:

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,5 (1) Wisconsin has historically experienced a high level of civic participation in responsible government, which however is now in decline as the direct result of campaign financing arrangements that have the clear tendency to distance voters from the electoral process, and that cannot be successfully corrected under applicable rulings of the U.S. supreme court.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,10 (2) Current campaign financing arrangements, with their perceived preferential access to lawmakers for special interests that are capable of contributing sizeable sums to lawmakers' campaigns, have provoked public disaffection with elective government, as manifested by declines in voting percentages and in Wisconsin election campaign fund participation. 

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,13 (3) The Wisconsin election campaign fund system has lost popular support because it does not diminish the perceived preferential access of the special interests and is therefore judged to be ineffective.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,16 (4) Before 1976, Wisconsin in company with 33 other states had these matters under regulatory control through a system of mandatory spending limits applicable to all candidates for state elective office.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,18 (5) In 1976, the U.S. supreme court, in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, invalidated all such spending limits while approving campaign contribution limits.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,13,21 (6) Since that time campaign expenditures have risen steeply, doubling in Wisconsin legislative races since 1980. The addition has been made up principally by contributions from special interests.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,14,3 (7) Contribution limits are inadequate by themselves to check this trend. So long as spending is effectively unrestrained, contributions will find ways to protect favored candidates from being outspent.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,14,6 (8) Among such ways have been personal spending by wealthy candidates, independent expenditures that favor or oppose an identified candidate, and the use of political parties as conduits for the support of selected candidates.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,14,12 (9) Experience shows in particular that so-called "independent" support — whether by individuals, committees, or other entities — can be coordinated with a candidate's campaign, by means of informal "understandings", without losing its professedly independent character. Likewise, contributions to a political party for ostensible "party-building" purposes can be and are routed, by design, to the support of identified candidates.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,14,17 (10) Public financing cannot cure the problem so long as spending limits are so readily evadable. After 15 years of experience with the present law, and a 42% decline in Wisconsin election campaign fund designations, it has become evident that Wisconsin voters await some successful repair of the campaign finance system before they will give it their financial support.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,14,23 (11) The legislature agrees with the 1992 finding of the California commission on campaign financing, made after 8 years of study, that an effective remedy to this problem requires the reconsideration of Buckley v. Valeo. The legislature believes with that commission that it is "strongly desirable to present the [Supreme] Court with carefully researched data and arguments so that it can consider upholding reasonable spending limitations." This act is a step in that direction.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,3 (12) The supreme court based its Buckley decision on a concern that spending limits could restrict political speech, "by reducing the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." The experience of those engaged in the electoral process is otherwise. It is unlimited expenditure that can drown or distort political discourse, in a flood of distractive repetition.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,7 (13) The least distorted and most instructive channels of campaign communication are often free or inexpensive: debates, call-in programs, local interviews, and other voter connections that are not dependent on the power of money.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,11 (14) The expanded use of such low-cost channels, stimulated by the adoption of sensible spending limits, would benefit political discourse by drawing candidates out of the packaged world of media advertisements and into the real world of voter engagement and accountability.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,15 (15) Turning down the noise level of campaign communication, through reasonable spending limits, increases the opportunity for newer and quieter voices to be heard. It tends to increase the number, depth and diversity of ideas presented to the public.

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,20 (16) Finally, a reasonable limit on campaign spending relieves candidates and officeholders alike from the constant necessity of engaging in defensive fund raising, arising as this does from the continual risk of massively financed opposition challenges to everything they may say or do. The conduct both of campaigns and of office will be thereby improved.".

AB37-ASA2-AA13,15,21 (End)