@Scott Viar...You can't do it since it would constitute an ad hoc election, which violates state law.

I have a better idea --- no recalls except for malfeasance in office, and then the threshold will be signatures by 75% of the total who voted in the previous election.

@GearHead...Read it again. If the amendments are adopted, then no private money, union or otherwise could be used to recall a candidate or by the incumbent. The amount of money spent by all parties on the 16 recalls was atrocious.

If you want the unions out of it, then you're going to have to take the non-union donors out of it also.

How do you address like-kind services? In the current recall special interests contributed in more ways than just cash.

@Greg...As long as the like-kind services are voluntary, then they would be exempt from restrictions. If a candidate pays for services, then it would be paid through their political funds account.

So Lyle, as a multi-trillionaire that wants to do business in Wisconsin, I can start my own PAC and allow any of my employes who are willing to take extended leave time to work on a campaign?
.
.
.
By the way, all those employees will get nice bonuses because of the quality work they did during the year at their regular job.

Let's face it, it will be almost impossible to control it. Look at McCain-Feingold. Despite it's best efforts, people have found ways around it.

Wrong Lyle. What you really mean is that no matter what, the unions will find a way to funnel money secretly to their candidate, while their opponents are hobbled. This is the union way, just look at the voting irregularities in Racine County. Any way the left can cheat they will.

@Bob McBride...You want to have a recall like California?

A binding referendum on a recall. An interesting idea, Bob. Would you lower the required percent of petition signatures required to make it to the referendum stage?

No, Lyle. It would be on the recall only. There wouldn't be any candidates on the ballot. For the California recall, Arnold was on the ballot along with the 200 or so assorted fruits and nuts, D-listers and porn stars.

I don't want to have the ability to recall for no particular reason at all, but if we're going to have it, I'd prefer it get input from both sides of the equation before proceeding.

Jay, no, I think the percentages should stay the same.

@Bob McBride....I like your idea and I think it has a lot of merit. It reminds me of a "no confidence" vote in a parliamentary system. After the vote for recall, what would the next step be? Could the recalled incumbent run also?

Of course, Lyle. This step simply validates (or not) the desire on the part of voters to actually proceed with a recall.

Other than causing the timeline to drag on, through adding this additional step, what faults does the McMulligan Referendum plan exhibit?

If the recall petitions had a better OCR layout we could speed the certification.

│J│A │Y│_│S│Y│K│E│S│

@Jay Sykes....If my proposal were to be adopted, then it would certainly wind up in the courts. However, in the long progressive tradition, this should be expected. I think we'll see more and more challenges made under the 10th Amendment. Besides recall, the challenge to the 1st amendment through government financing of elections would also come up.

@Lyle Ruble... It will be enough of a challenge to change(agreement in this political environment?) the Wisconsin recall provisions for State and Local offices. I don't see anyone today that qualifies as 'Fighting Bob', at the State level, let alone, the Federal level.

Notice pople like Rubesh have very little say in how a modern society is run. They just sit up in their ivory towers and have grandiose visions.

No way. Wityh your suggestion, in this last recall, that doofus La Follette would have been the authority, and I doubt he woukld have done anything but accept all signatures. Remember how he tried to delay the publication of Act 10??

It had a reason in the end. It made this state more red than ever, Walker is Gov for as long as he wants, Obama may loose WI because of it and one day Walker may be president or at a high national office position.

How dare you bring up that topic. He and Mike Tate are the best things that ever happened to the GOP.

I agree, we need to keep Tate and Zelinski in power, but continually expose them and their party for the scumbags they are.

That's the winning spirit! You stick with that mindset champ someday you'll grow up all big and strong and win big time.

He's back. Maybe his church lady fan should read his post here and stop trying to defend Herr Schmit. What's tool !

Keith is as boiled as an owl, and it's only breakfast time.

@J.B. Schmidt...I am sorry that you took exception to the statement about the Republicans. I wasn't meant as a dig, but represented what happened when the Republican's gained the complete control of state government. There was a lot of social legislation that was passed and became law that wouldn't have occurred without the complete majority. The speed and nature of the legislation did divide the state into roughly half. If it were the Democrats that did the same thing, the net result would have been the same, dividing the state along ideological lines.

@Lyle
I disagree, "If it were the Democrats that did the same thing, the net result would have been the same". The Doyle administration was committing unconstitutional acts and the Republicans never launched an effort as witnessed within this recall.

The Democrats have been killing the country slowly with small progressive pieces of legislation that are bringing us closer and closer to European style socialism. Not unlike in Europe where stiff austerity measures are the only thing that will save them; we to in the individual states must make the same quick movements to correct years of liberalism. So while yes, it appears drastic when looked at over the course of 16 months, when compared to decades of liberalism the change is not as radical as you expect us to believe.

Therefore, if you wish to lay blame for this recall on an aggressive administration, I must presume you are anticipating the conservatives to point out the progressive direction of the state. If we are to tone down the rhetoric, finger pointing is not the solution. This blog was just a compelling without that statement. I am not personally offended; yet, I refuse to allow liberals to claim the high ground and then insert these off hand remarks.

There was nothing uncivil about Lyle's 'dig' at the Republicans. He called no names, merely was critical of what happened.

Excuse me, didn't Obama foist socialized medicine on America when his party took control of the house and senate in 2008???? Hasn't he and his failed policies alienated half the electorate?

@J.B. Schmidt…You start out your comment claiming that Jim Doyle was doing unconstitutional acts and the Republicans never reacted like the Democrats did with the passage of ACT-10. For your information the Republicans did begin a recall on Doyle but it didn’t gain any support. Another point I want to make is that for the second Doyle term, Van Hollen was the Attorney General never brought suit or challenged the constitutionality of much of Doyle’s actions. Doyle never attempted to strip structural economic support from the Republicans such as Walker and the legislature has done against the Democrats. In short, the Democrats have been out maneuvered, out planned and involuntarily striped of their financial support.
That being said; you argue that the Progressives have been in control for so long and pushed their progressive agenda to the point that it required the dramatic action of the State Republicans to reverse the trends and substance of a century of Progressive oppression. Obviously I don’t agree with that statement and see it as pure hyperbole. No matter how you evaluate the Republican’s action, it was not only aggressive but abrupt contributing to the strong counter reaction. Also, it is yet undetermined who will win the high ground, but unless all sides begin to rationally discussing the issues, this will continue as a blood feud.

@Lyle
I never said the Republicans did not initiate a recall; I did say they did not launch one as we witnessed in this last year. Van Hollen is an empty suit.

It is however nice to see your venom still exists and that your implanting of that sentence was intentional.

Your comment "we can move beyond the petty political bickering, we can probably find some common ground", bolsters mine. You libs want to be able to attack or as Randy says being "merely was critical of what happened", then turn around and piss and moan when people object. That's rich.

I will say again, this article carried all the ideas it needed to without that sentence and as you have proven its inclusion was done out of bitterness, because the Dem have had their tax payer funded "structural economic support" has been removed. As it should have been. What would be the Republican equal to "structural economic support" be exactly?

@J.B. Schmidt -- I don't think either side holds the moral high ground when it comes to recalls. Lehman hasn't even be sworn in again yet and there's some talk of recall. On what basis, I have no idea.

Civility is civility -- not calling names or taking the low road.

"Doyle never attempted to strip structural economic support from the Republicans such as Walker and the legislature has done against the Democrats. In short, the Democrats have been out maneuvered, out planned and involuntarily striped of their financial support."

What a line of BS. The union members can voluntarily support the Democrats. Can't they?

@Randy
I am not the one calling out for people to take the high ground out of one side of mouth and then calling for blame with the other side.

@J.B. Schmidt....I fail to see you, the Republicans or the right for that matter as being victimized. Yet you continue to want to exact some kind of price for the political opposition to the political right agenda claiming that you and the right have been victimized by the progressives. For 16 months I have continually heard how the left sees themselves as victims. Yet you turn around and this is your main argument for continuing the rancor and hostility. Now I am confused; I don't feel victimized and never have been; but now you claim victimization. What gives?

Lyle, it wasn't the Republican's that started a recall on Diamond Jim Doyle. It was a small group that started the recall movement, some Republican some Tea Party and some just PO'd at the way he ran the state. It didn't get very far since he had less than a year in office and the Conservatives decided to focus on the 2010 election.

Diamond Jim did several unethical things while in office:
Using his own attorneys to campaign for him on state time during the 2002 campaign.
The Frankenstein veto.
Promising not to raise taxes, and then proceeding to raise ALL of them.
Going to Spain to shop for trains while businesses were fleeing the state.

Those were alot better reasons for a recall than the "We want a recall because Governor Walker... uh...balanced the budget without raising taxes???"

I adamantly oppose campaign finance limits, as money doesn't vote, only people do. Why do you feel that people are stupid and need protection from their own stupidity? Electors should do their homework before they vote, pure and simple. And with the availability of the internet, there's no reason that they can't do this if they so desire. If they want to be influenced by a barrage of advertisements, well, that's their right as Americans. But the rights of others shouldn't be arbitrarily limited.

I honestly don't care where a campaign gets its money from, only that the source be disclosed, as I judge a candidate based upon their actions, not on wild conspiracy theories. If when in office the government is cutting large checks to campaign bundlers, such as Obama did for Solyndra, then the quid pro quo is exposed and the wise will either impeach, recall, or vote out in the next election cycle, or, if the majority of the people support such activity, then they will get what they apparently want and/or deserve - welcome to our republic!

Mr. Hoffa, polls (and logic) indicate that candidates with higher name recognition get ahead, Hari Travedi being a recent example. Citizens United buys name recognition and top-of-mind awareness. In another election cycle Mitt Romney probably would have emerged much sooner in the primaries if not for CU and billionaire patrons who probably 1) didn't want a Mormon in office and/or 2) have interest in lunar real estate opportunities.

CU certainly played a part in the recent recall campaign, casting doubt, throwing out b.s. like "we balanced the budget without massive public employee layoffs, etc." Read back on some of the comments here and determine for yourself that this extended barrage didn't stick in some people's minds.

I would also think, correctly done, that public campaign financing could give poor Hari a more level playing field in 2014.

I also think re-districting should be a bipartisan or nonpartisan task. If elected officials' ears are buzzing so hard from their political benefactors' demands that they have forgotten that they were elected to represent voters, not special interests, take the job away from them and give it to adults.

Oh Bren, how are how you going to restrict financing campaigns without stifling free speech?
The problem isn't the money coming in, it's that it is being used for negative campaigning, lies and innuendo. Look at the Barret campaign continually referring to the outdated and inaccurate jobs number in all those May and June ads.

Ideally a candidate would just need to state their positions and let the voters decide. Unfortunately the "win at any cost" mentality brings out the worst in campaigns. Limiting monies will not change it. It hasn't changed it.

Perhaps it is time to stop messing with campaign finance reform and start holding candidates responsible for their ads.

And as far as "unbiased redistricting", you will not change the bias in the process as long as the criteria is so broad. Stricter guidelines would need to be put in place in order to achieve that. And I really don't see either side doing that right now.

Anti, Citizens United reversed 50 years of campaign finance law. I would say the entire system is diseased, and CU is accelerating its progress. As long as there is big money to be had from defense contracts, earmarks, etc., there will always be special interests trying to influence. As long as we keep voting in greedy, opportunistic and/or gullible representatives, the problem will continue to fester (in both parties).

How do we fix this? There has to be a baseline of decent behavior with which every moderate, conservative, and liberal can agree. The nether fringes will always remain so, but I'm convinced most of us "live" within a degree or two of center.

Here's my "baseline:"

-Qualified for the job, through education and/or significant experience.
-Understands the job and has passion for the job, which is representing the people of your district--not to "lead" not solely to try to make a name for yourself, advance your career, and make money.
-Baggage-free zone. Individuals "owned" by special interests need not apply. Public campaign financing would help here.
-Love of country/patriotism. Your job is to preserve and protect what makes our country great--its people, resources, and democracy. Again, if money and power are most important to you, this job is not for you.

There are my fundamental points for a good elected official.

No Bren, the Citizen United decision levelled the playing field. Unions had free reign on campaigns and that put the Republicans at a sharp disadvantage. Now that we have seen CU in action, both are receiving closer to equal amounts of contributions.

The days are ending that unions can freely campaign and spend money as they wish. If you want real campaign reform, you must limit campaign contributions to individual donors, with a cap on the amounts they donate. No more PACS, no more special interest money; period.

Brian Dey, the playing field was more level prior to Citizens United. Dollar for dollar, short and long-term, the diminishing donation power of unions cannot compete with that of corporate multinationals. If the financial situation were reversed I am certain you would appreciate the danger of a permanently lopsided political power structure to our democracy.

@Bren -

Mr. Trivedi was known, was on the ballot, had a website, and received votes in the recall election in every county in the state. The fact of the matter is that he was weak on platform, although, his was much more developed than Barrett's. Honestly, Walker was the only person on the ballot that appealed to conservatives. However, Mr. Trivedi was positioned as a slightly left of center moderate. Thus, it's the liberals that should have been turning out for him had they done their homework. But for some reason, I noticed that you and other anti-Walkerites that post here were only ever backing no platform Barrett. Why is that Bren? Is a law degree so much better than a medical degree? Hari's platform was 10 times more developed than Barrett's, and he was just as educated and qualified to lead as Barrett, plus he didn't have the baggage of Barrett's negative record in Milwaukee. And, in an issue driven recall, as you claimed it was, shouldn't you have been backing the issue driven man, Trivedi?

You're so hypocritical and full of spin that everytime I read one of your recent posts, I get dizzy ;-)

@mau - you're right but many Republs on here won't agree. they can't handle a messy democracy.

Would have failed, just like the election. You are in the minority and it is time you face the facts that Act 10 is here to stay so stop whining.

Drive to 24, I would agree with the signature petition law used in Ohio. Kasich, that state's ALEC governor, was properly chastened when more than one million citizens signed the petition to countermand his version of the ALEC union-stripping bill. Ohio still has its issues--it's a recession--but Kasich had to admit, "The People Have Spoken." Obvious message to Kasich, your job is to represent your constituents, not your special interest of choice.

Paul Ryan also has this idea that he is elected to "lead and the votes will follow." He could not be more wrong.

@Bren -

I'm really confused here! First you chastise Walker and the CU decision which allowed him to allegedly outspend his political opponent and supporters by a large margin, while completely ignoring the fact that the Issue 2 campaign against Kasich's SB5 outspent the support side by a 4:1 margin, and actually raised and spent more money than Walker did in the recall campaign, with one lefty group in OH raising and spending more than $30M alone! I guess that elections bought with CU money are indeed acceptable to Bren, that is, so long as it's the side that Bren supports coming up with more money, right? Sorry, but that just seems a bit hypocritical to Hoffa for some reason or another.

http://news.yahoo.com/unsustainable-spending-habits-prompt-more-layoffs-ohio-schools-211700762.html

As this article shows, Ohio voters have consistently voted against higher taxes during the economic recession, but then vote in favor of allowing the public sector employees to have their way with the state and local governments. That's an extremely mixed message, isn't it? Thus, the only solution in OH was en mass waves of public employee layoffs. So, I guess that means that Ohians essentially voted to fire many of their public sector neighbors during an economic recession.

And yet, the left likes to rip on Romney for saying that he likes to fire people (when they're not providing you with effective and efficient service). I don't know, this seems hypocritical to me Bren. Why didn't they vote to raise taxes so that their neighbors could keep their jobs? In reality, looks like nothing more than a selfish power play that went on here - we with seniority want to keep ours, screw everyone else, even our so-called brothers and sisters in solidarity!

What a great and consistent 'movement' you're supporting!

Mr. Hoffa, I believe you are not quite clear on the original point, that being the opportunity by citizen petition to undo unwelcome legislation, as opposed to recalling the elected official. That method in Wisconsin would effectively pull ALEC's teeth and keep the multi-state, cookie-cutter legislation out of Wisconsin (such as the ludicrous directive to force public union employees to "pay their fair share" for a "0" liability pension plan, for example).

A special interest group may spend as much as they wish to collect signatures, as long as the rules are followed. It's up to each citizen to make up their mind to sign, and, if they believe they were coerced, report it.

@Bren -

"That method in Wisconsin would effectively pull ALEC's teeth and keep the multi-state, cookie-cutter legislation out of Wisconsin…."

If that was true, then how come Walker and most of the GOP legislators retained their seats? After all, this was in fact a recall on the issues, wasn't it? I know that the Barrett campaign tried to make it about the man, but if that were indeed true, then why the recalls against all the GOP senators? In reality Bren, not all ALEC legislation is bad / evil as you seem to think it is. After all, the people that comprise ALEC are Americans - they live here, work here, raise children here, etc. So why do you honestly think that ALEC wants to turn America into a third world waste land?

Add to that, there wasn't a single piece of ALEC cookie cutter legislation that was passed under the Walker administration, was there?

BTW - Once again, nice execution of the shifting the subject strategy / tactic when you've been called out - you're getting quite good at it ;-)

Anti, I don't think it's disingenuous to assign Citizens United its fair share of blame (or more appropriately, for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts for, in highly partisan activism, re-arguing the state-level case Michigan v. Citizens United). I like Mr. Ruble's suggestions because as I wrote above, I believe the entire system is out of alignment.

The baseline is not specifically a set of job requirements but rather a guide. If the voting public an informal standard on which to measure candidates we would all be better served. For example, if someone does not have a degree (Scott Walker) or an unrelated degree (Kleefisch) it should not preclude their candidacy but they should be prepared to present the case for why they are more qualified than their degreed challenger. I think you would agree that this is appropriate. We have had recent situations where candidates' qualifications are questionable (for example, Sarah Palin's appearance on the GOP presidential ticket with then one-year's experience as a governor and an undergrad degree in journalism). Several GOP acquaintances shared Palin was the reason they voted for Obama, they felt she did not represent the best of their party.

I understand that union-stripping legislation in some form was almost immediately re-introduced in Ohio. It's a recession so financial challenges remain, everywhere.

@Bren -

"I think you would agree that this is appropriate."

Actually, I couldn't disagree more! Where in the Constitution does it state that a candidate for public office has to have a college degree, and even then, only degrees in areas that Bren feels is appropriately indicative of being able to provide solid governmental leadership? In fact, our Constitution expressly does the exact opposite, with only three qualifiers being present - citizenship, minimum age, and continuous residency. Don't you think that if our founders had intended that only formally educated people in certain disciplines should qualify for an executive level candidacy / position, that they would have expressly inserted such an additional qualifier(s) into Article II, Section I? After, all, these were pretty sharp guys, weren't they?

Personally, I had originally intended to vote third party / independent in 2008 until Palin joined the McCain ticket - and I know several others with a similar sentiment. I found her to be an aptly qualified leader. Just because she didn't know everything about every issue didn't mean that she was incapable of researching an issue and coming to a well reasoned conclusion, does it?

Obviously, Obama doesn't understand how global economies of scale work, but I don't see you criticizing his lack of understanding as a detriment. I'd take 100 Palins over 1 Obama!

Drop the intellectual elitism crap Bren - it's a failing argument and makes you look conceited!

Lyle, while seniority should be a measure, since as you stated it displays a measure of loyalty to an employer, it should be a lesser criteria. Too often in the desired union model where seniority is the ONLY factor, the longer the seniority the less work is done.

My children experienced this recently with a teacher 5 years from retirement. In my oldest child's class she only spent 20 minutes in front of the class and the rest of the time reading magazines. By the time my youngest went through, just a couple years later, she just handed out the assignment and then began to read her magazines.
I will temper that example with the other end. The year after my oldest had that particular teacher, they had an outstanding teacher who was eligible to retire the previous year. I wish she had stuck around until my youngest had her, but she retired the year before.
I was also told by other parents that the first teacher was always in a bad mood, annoyed easily and just not a good person to be around. I got along great with the second. I suspect it was because she knew she was doing a quality job and was happy with what she was accomplishing at work.
AND, there are state and federal laws that protect older workers from being unjustly laid off.

The problem Lyle is that once one employee starts slacking, others follow. No not all do as I mentioned above, but way too many, especially in the schools.

@The Anti-Alinsky....It sounds as if it is a problem of proper supervision. Punishing all for the sins of the few is both antiquated and ineffective. I would deal selectively with individuals who are not performing. What you and others are proposing are straw man arguments.

Does any of this have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Lyle, how is eliminating seniority "Punishing all for the sins of the few"? You seem to be arguing the concept, but then talk about dealing with problem employees on a case by case basis. How is eliminating seniority preventing this?

@Chris...I don't follow what your saying.

I'm completely lost here.

Did you upset someone Lyle ;-)

@Chris....That's completely unconstitutional! Who would give up their constitutional rights for a job?

@JRH...This came completely out of left field.

@Lyle -

I hope you had a chance to see my proposed amendment to the recall provision regarding redistricting in my original comment to your blog.

@Chris....Constitutionality is determined by interpretation of the 10th Amendment and whether it isolates one group over another. If everyone is limited to the same degree without prejudice, then I think it would pass the test of constitutionality. McCain-Feingold is a good example. Also, since it only affects the State of Wisconsin, then the question would be answered in the State Supreme Court.