No Runny Eggs

Steve S. over at Letters in Bottles interviewed Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson yesterday, and he fleshed out Johnson’s views on foreign policy and trade, a couple of items not exactly on the front burner of the Senate race. The interview was expansive enough that the transcript took two posts. I recommend reading them both:

– Part 1 – foreign policy

– Part 2 – trade and economics

I highly recommend reading both halves. Great job with the interview, Steve.

Revisions/extensions (6:53 pm 7/27/2010) – I forgot what day of the week this is :-)

Revisions/extensions (12:19 pm 7/21/2010) – The GAB finally got done collating Scott Walker’s report, so a look at it can now be made. That’s been appended to the bottom of the post.

The Government Accountability Board’s Campaign Finance Information System has once again proven inadequate to handle Scott Walker’s fundraising efforts, taking over 12 hours to generate the report but we can at least take a look at the other two major candidates’ finances for the first 6 months of the year.

First up, Democrat Tom Barrett. On the surface, things look rather normal, with about $1.8 million raised from individuals, another $191,000 from “conduits”, a relatively-minimal $45,000 in “in-kind” donations, and $348,000 from PACs for a total of $2,390,821.96 raised. Because, unlike Neumann and Walker, he does not face a serious challenger (just a person whose campaign Christian Schneider describes as a “crazy train”), the campaign only spent a tick over $1 million, and has $2,894,232.24 cash on hand with just under $11,000 in unspecified obligations to US Bank and no outstanding loans.

There are, however, a few “gems” in the report. With the ongoing government takeover of health care, an unusually large number of health-care providers decided to donate to Tom Barrett in what appears to be a desperate attempt to be the last private health-care provider standing. I won’t hold my breath for the media to notice that Big Med, like Big Finance, has shifted their donations to Democrats.

Speaking of Big Finance, it looks like Barrett is the official candidate of M&I Bank, at least before Walker’s report became available. A couple pages’ worth of donations (mostly in the conduit section) came from M&I employees.

Another significant donation base for Barrett is the “unemployed”. Another failing of the CFIS system is the lack of sortability, but the best I can determine, somewhere around 2 dozen “unemployed” people donated at least $100, with at least 7 topping the $1,000 donation mark, despite a lack of employment. I’d like to meet their financial planners; I can’t exactly afford to drop $1,000 on anything.

That brings me to Mark Neumann. His campaign took in $294,230 in individual donations, $1,760 in “conduit” donations and $23,181 in “in-kind” donations, and Mark loaned the campaign $2,525,070 the first 6 months of the year. Campaign expenses of $2,758,625.49, including $880,000 in loan repayments (more on that in a bit), left the campaign with $1,059,922.73 cash on hand, with $2,721,120 in personal loans still outstanding.

JR Ross of WisPolitics notes there’s a discrepancy between what Neumann’s campaign staff released and what the report has. That stems from the decision by the PR flacks to effectively not count the $880,000 in “flash cash” Neumann loaned his campaign on 12/31/2009 to make his numbers work and took back on 1/4/2010, as that $880,000 paid back was replaced by fresh personal loans.

I have to give credit to Patrick Marley and Lee Bergquist of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for twigging onto the “flash cash”, though they didn’t quite expound on it. The quick explanation:

• On 12/31/2009, the last day covered by the January 2010 continuing report, Mark Neumann loaned the campaign $970,000 to bring the total personal loan amount to $1,076,050.
• That $970,000 represented almost the entirety of the $974,177.55 cash on hand at the end of the day 12/31/2009.
• On 1/4/2010, after a minimal donation take and taking care of the expense of meeting the payroll, the campaign paid back Neumann $880,000 of that loan.

They also noted that Neumann loaned the campaign $1,000,000 on June 30, the last reporting day for this report. Once again, that represents almost the entirety of the cash on hand. However, since the campaign is in full-spending mode (as it should be), I don’t think we’ll find a “repayment” in the next report.

Finally, Scott Walker. His campaign took in just over $2.1 million in individual donations, about $222,000 in “conduits”, about $28,000 in in-kind donations, and just under $145,000 from PACs for a total of $2,589,997.95 raised. Campaign expenses of $2,016,721.81, including $101,090 in contemporary returned contributions and another $5,000 returned contribution initially made in 2005, left $2,571,774.80 cash on hand.

Speaking of those returned contributions, while the Walker campaign was the only one to specifically itemize returned contributions, the Barrett campaign noted that it returned some contributions in early July.

M&I appears to be playing both sides of the aisle, making significant donations to both Barrett and Walker. Again, the CFIS system does not allow for easy sorting of donations, so I cannot do more than a rough eyeball of the reports. The volumes of contributions are roughly equal between the two campaigns.

There is an oddity with the CFIS format of Walker’s report. Every other gubernatorial report that had multiple sources of individual donations had them in the order of monetary, conduit and in-kind (with Neumann’s loans appearing between the conduit and in-kind sections). That order on Walker’s report was reversed.

One more thing – there is exactly one active gubernatorial candidate people associated with Graef-USA donated to the past year, and it’s not Walker.

Christian Schneider absolutely disembowels a one-page press release from Gov. Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/HoChunk-For Sale) reacting to the State Supreme Court smackdown of his $200 million theft from the Patients Compensation Fund. There’s so much goodness, it’s almost impossible to choose just one morsel to tempt you with, but I’ll go with the delicious irony that is the postscript:

As a postscript to all this, there’s a hidden portion of the Justice Prosser’s majority decision in the case overturning Doyle’s raid that deserves notice. In paragraph 58 of the opinion, Prosser cites a 1995 Attorney General’s opinion that points out the “longstanding view in Wisconsin law that trust funds are to be treated differently than general revenue, and that the state has less power to regulate the use of trust funds.”

The author of that quote?

Jim Doyle.

Do read the rest, from a reminder that Doyle had his eyes on the fund the moment he got into the governor’s mansion to the threat from Doyle to punish those that exposed the theft.

Revisions/extensions (5:03 pm 7/20/2010) – After reviewing the roll call vote for the conference substitute amendment version of the budget (i.e. the version that passed the Legislature) anid finding both then-Speaker Mike Huebsch and current Minority “Leader” Jeff Fitzgerald on the aye side, I added the Assembly “Republican” “leadership” to the scorn list.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, ruled that the “transfer” of $200 million from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund by governor Jim Doyle, Assembyman (and candidate for lieutenant governor) Brett Davis, the Legislative Democrats, and what passed for Assembly “Republican” “leadership” for the purpose of allowing general spending to increase by $200 million more than it otherwise could was unconstitutional as the fund had all three elements of a trust, and as named beneficiaries, the Wisconsin Medical Society and a specific doctor who joined the lawsuit have a constitutionally-protected property interest in and an equitable title to the assets of the fund.

The end of the majority’s discussion sums things up rather well (emphasis in the original):

¶99 In sum, any removal of money from the Fund for an improper purpose is an unconstitutional taking of the health care providers’ property interest in the Fund because it infringes upon their rights to the security and integrity of the Fund, to realize the Fund’s investment earnings, and to have excess judgments paid to proper claimants. When money is improperly taken from the Fund, the health care providers are deprived of their right to have that money managed on their behalf. Furthermore, any such removal of money will almost certainly result in an increase in health care providers’ assessments. If assessments are not raised, the solvency of the Fund is jeopardized, increasing the risk that the Fund will be unable to pay excess judgments. If the Fund becomes unable to pay excess judgments, the cost of those judgments will have to be borne by either the health care providers or the proper claimants, both of whom are the express beneficiaries of the Fund….

¶101 We would be hard pressed to say that the legislature could not discontinue the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund prospectively, provided that it honored all loss liabilities created up to the date of discontinuation. The Fund is not immutable in its present form. But we are frankly taken aback by the Secretary’s position that the legislature could discontinue the Fund and seize all its assets, save only those assets necessary to pay off existing claims, and renege on the loss liabilities to existing victims whose claims are not yet perfected. This is not only the logical extension of the Secretary’s position, it is the actual articulation of the Secretary’s position, both to the circuit court and before this court. A failure on our part to recognize the property interests at stake in the Fund would be an open invitation to the legislature to take money from the Fund at will.

¶102 We are sensitive to the changing needs of state government and the basic principle that one legislature cannot bind another. But that cannot mean that anything goes, that recognized property interests evaporate when the winds shift. The legislature created a “trust” for health care providers and their patients and families, and it pronounced that trust “irrevocable.” We take the legislature at its word.

The financial situation of the fund as outlined in the “Background and Procedural History” section of the majority opinion (starting at paragraph 23) is even more devastating than the mere “transfer” of the money. At the end of FY2007 (i.e. June 30, 2007), before Davis and the Legislative Democrats approved Doyle’s “transfer” of the money, the fund had a net asset balance of +$94.4 million on total assets of $798.5 million.

At the time the first transfer of $71.5 million from the fund to another fund that had been shorted $200 million in general funds was made in October 2007, there were not enough liquid assets in the fund to allow the transfer to happen directly. The fund temporarily borrowed $51.3 million from a third state fund to make it happen, with repayments including interest charges.

The same lack of liquid assets occurred when the second transfer of $128.5 million happened in July 2008. The fund owed $76.8 million to the State Investment Fund as of June 30, 2009, and had incurred $2.5 million in interest.

Also as of June 30, 2009, the fund had assets of $645.1 million, total loss liabilities (what the fund expects to have to pay out for incidents that occured prior to June 30, 2009 whether or not claims had been filed by that date) of $675.4 million, and a net asset balance of -$109 million.

Of note, that net asset balance of -$109 million is larger than the $100 million supplemental appropriation made in the FY2008-2009 budget in case the fund couldn’t cover the judgements it was designed to cover.

That’s right – the Patient Compensation Fund did not have the cash to give, but Doyle, Davis, and the bipartisan Party-In-Government stole the money anyway.

I don’t know how many times I’ve told you to read 4-Block World, but it’s time to tell you again. Today’s 4-Block deals with the two Democrats running at the top of the ballot in Wisconsin and just one of their “do as I say” moments:

Once again, I’ve made the executive decision to shut down comments here.

I wonder if semi-retired pro Bill Christopherson will continue to claim Rasmussen Reports is a Republican outfit after reading the mid-July Rasmussen update (Who am I kidding? Rasmussen could have Barrett up 20 points against both opponents and he’d still bash Rasmussen for being a Republican outfit.)

This round is quite a bit more favorable to Tom Barrett, who is looking to serve Jim Doyle’s third term. Barrett’s favorables improved from 42% favorable/44% unfavorable/-1 “Passion” Index (the very favorable percentage minus the very unfavorable percentage, and the favorability analogue to Rasmussen’s Approval Index) to 49% favorable/42% unfavorable/+1 “Passion” Index, and Doyle’s job approval rating improved from 35% approve/64% disapprove/-30 Approval Index to 40% approve/59% disapprove/-26 Approval Index.

The big loser was Mark Neumann, whose negative campaign is backfiring specactularly. His favorables slipped from 49% favorable/37% unfavorable/-3 “Passion” Index to 47% favorable/38% unfavorable/-5 “Passion” Index. That caused the head-to-head matchup against Barrett to flip from a 47%-39% Neumann advantage to a 45%-43% Barrett advantage, which represents both Neumann’s lowest support total and his first disadvantage in the campaign (the two were tied in late-April).

Neumann’s main target, Scott Walker, was relatively unscathed by the attacks the past few weeks. While his own 8-point lead against Barrett (49%-41%) was halved to 48%-44%, most of the movement was Barrett increasing his percentage from the pool of those who hadn’t made up their mind. Walker’s favorables were a mixed bag; while the favorable/unfavorable split improved from 51% favorable/35% unfavorable to 55% favorable/32% unfavorable, the “Passion” Index slipped from +14 to +11.

I am rather hesitant to talk about the latest Badger Poll on the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races (#30 for those coming here after the next one comes out) for several methodology reasons, but since polling is the spice of political life, I’ll do it. The big problem with the poll is the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, which conducted the poll, took 31 days, between June 9 and July 10, to get to 500 adults (466 registered voters and 297 likely voters). 31 days is a couple of eternities in politics. This effect is especially pronounced in the Senate race, where Ron Johnson, the Republican candidate the pollsters asked about, had just started a major ad campaign. This is borne out through Rasmussen’s polling, where 32% of those surveyed at the end of May had not heard enough about Johnson to form an opinion. That number dropped to 24% at the end of June and 18% this week.

Related to that, the UW crew did not attempt to force anybody who did not express an immediate preference to choose a candidate, though they do promise to do so in the next poll. In the Senate race, a full 55% of all those surveyed, 51% of registered voters, and 38% of likely voters (the last representing a plurality) did not express an immediate preference. On the gubernatorial side, 52% of those surveyed, 48% of registered voters, and 37% of likely voters did not express an immediate preference.

The last major flaw is that the UW crew did not even attempt to separate Scott Walker and Mark Neumann in the head-to-head against Tom Barrett. Instead, the second half of the “who would you vote for” question used “one of the Republican candidates”.

Related to that, the while the actual head-to-head question did randomly rotate between the Republican and the Democrat, and the favorability question was similarly rotated among the people asked about, the Democrat was always named first in the lead-up to the head-to-head question.

I suppose I should start with the biggest bit of news – the partisan split. The difference between the overall split of 40% independent/other, 31% Democrat, 29% Republican and the the likely-voter split of 40% independent/other, 36% Republican, 24% Democrat (mentioned in the gubernatorial poll release) can only be good news for Republicans and bad news for Democrats. Indeed, a very-quick look back through the archives did not find a previous mention of the demographics of who the pollsters determined to be likely voters.

Among those relatively-few likely voters, Russ Feingold leads Ron Johnson 33%-28%. However, beyond the caution flags of the high undecided percentage and the lengthy time of the poll at a point where one of the candidates was still in the process of introducing himself, there is a third item – that lead is still within the 5.7% margin of error for the small sample size. Further, 87% of those surveyed and 80% of likely voters didn’t know enough about Johnson to form an opinion.

What can be inferred from the overwhelming preference for a Republican versus Tom Barrett for governor (overall 32%-15%, and 43%-19% among likely voters) is that Wisconsin simply does not want a third Jim Doyle term. It also shows that the anti-Milwaukee factor in Northern Wisconsin (defined by UW as pretty much everything north of Highway 33) is pretty much overrated, though most of those in Norther Wisconsin haven’t heard of any of the candidates. Walker’s favorability split in Southern Wisconsin is 33% favorable/20% unfavorable, and his favorability split in Northern Wisconsin is 17% favorable/7% unfavorable. Mark Neumann’s favorability split in the south is 18% favorable/16% unfavorable, and his favorability split in the north is 15% favorable/7% unfavorable. Tom Barrett’s favorability split in the south is 33% favorable/25% unfavorable, and his favorability split in the north is 23% favorable/13% unfavorable.