1
00:00:01,101 --> 00:00:03,237
>> Do you have questions
about Wisconsin government

2
00:00:03,303 --> 00:00:06,773
and politics? If so, you
are definitely not alone.

3
00:00:06,840 --> 00:00:09,710
And this week we're going
to answer a few from our

4
00:00:09,776 --> 00:00:13,347
audience about polarization,
social media, and money.

5
00:00:13,413 --> 00:00:16,750
This is inside Wisconsin
politics.

6
00:00:19,019 --> 00:00:20,220
I'm Shawn Johnson
here with my colleague Zac

7
00:00:20,287 --> 00:00:22,756
here with my colleague Zac
Schultz and Rich Kremer in

8
00:00:22,823 --> 00:00:24,424
Eau Claire. Hey, guys.
Hello.

9
00:00:24,491 --> 00:00:26,493
Hello.
>> Hey, Shawn.

10
00:00:26,827 --> 00:00:29,897
>> So we want to say up
front that if you have

11
00:00:29,963 --> 00:00:34,434
questions, you should email
us at Inside Wisconsin

12
00:00:34,501 --> 00:00:36,270
politics@wpwr.org. But the
questions we're going to

13
00:00:36,336 --> 00:00:38,372
talk about today didn't
just come out of nowhere.

14
00:00:38,438 --> 00:00:40,807
It turns out Anthony
Chergosky, a professor of

15
00:00:40,874 --> 00:00:43,577
political science at the
University of Wisconsin, La

16
00:00:43,644 --> 00:00:46,947
Crosse, watches our show,
and he watches it with his

17
00:00:47,014 --> 00:00:50,083
students in his legislative
process class. We talked to

18
00:00:50,150 --> 00:00:53,487
Professor Chergosky a lot.
He suggested his students

19
00:00:53,554 --> 00:00:56,857
could ask us questions, and
he helped set that up. A

20
00:00:56,924 --> 00:00:58,892
couple of the students
submitted their questions

21
00:00:58,959 --> 00:01:02,396
by video, including Riley
Bickelhaupt, who wanted to

22
00:01:02,462 --> 00:01:05,465
know about political
polarization.

23
00:01:05,532 --> 00:01:07,768
>> Hi guys. My name is
Riley. I'm a freshman at

24
00:01:07,835 --> 00:01:10,204
the University of Wisconsin,
La Crosse I'm studying

25
00:01:10,270 --> 00:01:12,239
political science in
Spanish with a minor in

26
00:01:12,306 --> 00:01:14,842
legal studies. My question
for you guys today is, how

27
00:01:14,908 --> 00:01:18,111
do you think the ongoing
political polarization in

28
00:01:18,178 --> 00:01:22,516
Wisconsin affects the
bipartisan legislation?

29
00:01:22,583 --> 00:01:25,052
>> Zac, I feel like there
are layers to this answer,

30
00:01:25,118 --> 00:01:27,888
which is kind of like we
the reason we like the

31
00:01:27,955 --> 00:01:29,790
question. So where would
you begin to answer Riley

32
00:01:29,857 --> 00:01:32,125
here.
>> Last semester and then

33
00:01:32,192 --> 00:01:34,261
hope that their time
doesn't run out before

34
00:01:34,328 --> 00:01:36,330
summer starts. This is a
huge question. It's a good

35
00:01:36,396 --> 00:01:39,166
question, Riley. The first
thing you have to do is

36
00:01:39,233 --> 00:01:42,035
define is what is
bipartisan. Because

37
00:01:42,102 --> 00:01:43,971
technically one Democrat
joins the Republicans. It's

38
00:01:44,037 --> 00:01:46,607
a bipartisan bill. Even if
all the rest of them oppose

39
00:01:46,673 --> 00:01:49,409
it. So it can really
stretch the definition. And

40
00:01:49,476 --> 00:01:52,112
Shawn you remember back,
you know, 20 years ago

41
00:01:52,179 --> 00:01:54,314
under Jim Doyle, at the end
of the year interviews,

42
00:01:54,381 --> 00:01:56,350
we'd talk about like
controversy in the Capitol.

43
00:01:56,416 --> 00:01:59,620
He'd say, 90% of the bills
we pass are bipartisan. And

44
00:01:59,686 --> 00:02:02,656
those statistics are true.
Most of those bills are

45
00:02:02,723 --> 00:02:05,158
really minor. Some
technical adjustments. Some

46
00:02:05,225 --> 00:02:07,761
of those really aren't
controversial at all. So

47
00:02:07,828 --> 00:02:10,731
they are overwhelmingly
bipartisan. But the ones

48
00:02:10,797 --> 00:02:12,699
that get our attention, the
ones that we track and we

49
00:02:12,766 --> 00:02:14,801
follow, are very
contentious. And yes,

50
00:02:14,868 --> 00:02:18,372
political polarization
absolutely factors into the

51
00:02:18,438 --> 00:02:21,642
image that your audience or
their voters at home will

52
00:02:21,708 --> 00:02:24,011
view. What happens if they
let something pass. And

53
00:02:24,077 --> 00:02:26,213
that goes through
leadership all the way down.

54
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,149
I can tell you for certain
that Robin Vos, as Assembly

55
00:02:29,216 --> 00:02:31,919
speaker, knew exactly which
districts he had to worry

56
00:02:31,985 --> 00:02:34,054
about more vulnerable
members, and he would let

57
00:02:34,121 --> 00:02:36,657
them vote against
Republican bills because he

58
00:02:36,723 --> 00:02:39,326
knew that they had to show
they were more moderate or

59
00:02:39,393 --> 00:02:42,462
more bipartisan in those
areas, or bills that were

60
00:02:42,529 --> 00:02:45,532
going to pass. They got to
be cosigners on so that

61
00:02:45,599 --> 00:02:47,768
they could say, I helped
pass this legislation. So

62
00:02:47,835 --> 00:02:50,437
there's a lot of tricks and
details into what is

63
00:02:50,504 --> 00:02:52,840
bipartisan, but absolutely,
there's only one bill that

64
00:02:52,906 --> 00:02:54,641
needs to be passed each
legislative session, and

65
00:02:54,708 --> 00:02:57,177
that's the budget. So,
Shawn, my question to you

66
00:02:57,244 --> 00:03:00,047
is, if only Republicans in
the legislature vote for

67
00:03:00,113 --> 00:03:02,449
the budget, all Democrats
vote against it. But

68
00:03:02,516 --> 00:03:05,385
Governor Evers signs it. Is
it not bipartisan?

69
00:03:05,452 --> 00:03:08,856
>> I think it is, yes. I
think that the Democratic

70
00:03:08,922 --> 00:03:11,625
lawmakers in that situation
have the luxury of knowing

71
00:03:11,692 --> 00:03:14,461
that their governor's back
there to make the call that

72
00:03:14,528 --> 00:03:17,231
needs to be made. And if
they have issues with it,

73
00:03:17,297 --> 00:03:20,167
they can go to the governor
and say, hey, maybe take

74
00:03:20,234 --> 00:03:23,737
this out or reword this
with your your partial veto,

75
00:03:23,804 --> 00:03:26,673
governor. So I think that's
an example of, of a

76
00:03:26,740 --> 00:03:30,077
bipartisan budget. And I
think, as you've seen, the

77
00:03:30,143 --> 00:03:33,247
Republican margins shrink,
you have seen more

78
00:03:33,313 --> 00:03:34,948
Democratic votes on those
budgets, too, because you

79
00:03:35,015 --> 00:03:37,117
have some of those
lawmakers, like you talked

80
00:03:37,184 --> 00:03:41,188
about under this new map,
you have lawmakers that are

81
00:03:41,255 --> 00:03:44,491
more inclined to represent
a 5050 district. And what

82
00:03:44,558 --> 00:03:47,494
do you hear from them when
they are campaigning? We

83
00:03:47,561 --> 00:03:50,330
want to work across the
aisle. That is a go to

84
00:03:50,397 --> 00:03:54,635
message. Rich, how about
you? When it comes to

85
00:03:55,202 --> 00:03:57,738
bipartisanship and Riley's
question, what stands out

86
00:03:57,804 --> 00:04:00,707
to you?
>> So I think what you've

87
00:04:02,075 --> 00:04:05,279
both said is totally
accurate. One of the things

88
00:04:05,345 --> 00:04:08,315
that's a couple things that
stick out to me is when

89
00:04:08,382 --> 00:04:11,652
there are these bipartisan
bills that get our

90
00:04:11,718 --> 00:04:15,589
attention because they are
major, you know, policy

91
00:04:15,656 --> 00:04:19,159
issues. It seems like the
compromise falls under a

92
00:04:19,226 --> 00:04:22,863
couple categories. It's
fear or favor. So I think

93
00:04:22,930 --> 00:04:26,099
of when the the Wisconsin
Supreme Court's liberal

94
00:04:26,166 --> 00:04:28,569
majority struck down
Republican drawn

95
00:04:28,635 --> 00:04:31,071
legislative voting
districts as

96
00:04:31,138 --> 00:04:34,608
unconstitutional. Shortly
after Republicans actually

97
00:04:34,675 --> 00:04:37,411
voted for maps that were
drawn by Governor Tony

98
00:04:37,477 --> 00:04:40,113
Evers when they were
opposed to the the the

99
00:04:40,180 --> 00:04:43,317
court case. I mean, they
were opposed to these maps

100
00:04:43,383 --> 00:04:47,654
all along, but yet they
voted for the ones from the

101
00:04:47,721 --> 00:04:50,123
governor. Why would they do
that? Well, one of the

102
00:04:50,190 --> 00:04:53,360
theories is that they
feared that the Supreme

103
00:04:53,427 --> 00:04:57,030
Court justices, liberal
majority, might draw maps

104
00:04:57,097 --> 00:05:00,667
that are more favorable to
Democrats than what they

105
00:05:00,734 --> 00:05:04,338
ended up passing from Evers.
So and then when it comes

106
00:05:04,404 --> 00:05:07,274
to favor, I think of a bill
that passed in and was

107
00:05:07,341 --> 00:05:11,144
signed into law this past
session that started out as

108
00:05:11,211 --> 00:05:15,516
a Republican bill banning
people, getting people from

109
00:05:15,582 --> 00:05:18,519
purchasing soda or candy
with federal food

110
00:05:18,585 --> 00:05:22,489
assistance. Democrats hated
the bill, but it was

111
00:05:22,556 --> 00:05:27,294
amended, and Democrats
wanted to get a lot of new

112
00:05:27,361 --> 00:05:29,863
funding and positions for
the Department of Health

113
00:05:29,930 --> 00:05:32,332
Services so that it can
comply with federal changes

114
00:05:32,399 --> 00:05:35,702
to the Food assistance
program and avoid putting

115
00:05:35,769 --> 00:05:40,240
the entire program at risk.
Republicans on their own

116
00:05:40,307 --> 00:05:43,010
weren't interested in that,
but this bill morphed into

117
00:05:43,076 --> 00:05:47,614
a soda and candy ban, plus
$72 million for the

118
00:05:47,681 --> 00:05:50,450
Department of Health
Services. So that's one of

119
00:05:50,517 --> 00:05:53,554
those favor for favor kind
of bills.

120
00:05:53,620 --> 00:05:56,490
>> I think the one thing
that I would like to impart

121
00:05:56,557 --> 00:05:58,992
upon people who feel like
you look around the

122
00:05:59,059 --> 00:06:01,628
politics today and it feels
extremely polarized. I

123
00:06:01,695 --> 00:06:04,298
think that, yes, some
Democrats and some

124
00:06:04,364 --> 00:06:08,101
Republicans legitimately
hate the other party. And

125
00:06:08,168 --> 00:06:12,339
in no uncertain terms, I
think the Wisconsin

126
00:06:12,406 --> 00:06:17,211
legislature has a lot of
moments, though, of actual

127
00:06:17,277 --> 00:06:19,313
bipartisanship. I think
about the local government

128
00:06:19,379 --> 00:06:21,915
funding bill that they
passed shared revenue Weid

129
00:06:21,982 --> 00:06:25,953
call it. I mean, I cannot
believe that they did that.

130
00:06:26,019 --> 00:06:29,857
Republicans and Democrats
that raised sales taxes in

131
00:06:29,923 --> 00:06:31,391
Milwaukee. That's something
that you never could have

132
00:06:31,458 --> 00:06:33,727
imagined the Republican
Party doing years ago. But

133
00:06:33,794 --> 00:06:36,597
in Evers second term, it
seems like he's been able

134
00:06:36,663 --> 00:06:39,533
to cut those deals. And
particularly since he got

135
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:41,935
these new maps, he's been
able to to cut those deals.

136
00:06:42,002 --> 00:06:44,938
And as you alluded to, Zac
Rothman Vos sometimes

137
00:06:45,005 --> 00:06:48,909
quotes this to 95%, I think
is the number he gives of

138
00:06:48,976 --> 00:06:51,111
the bills that they pass in
the Wisconsin legislature

139
00:06:51,178 --> 00:06:53,213
are bipartisan because,
yeah, the legislature

140
00:06:53,280 --> 00:06:57,551
passes a lot of bills that
are incremental, and we

141
00:06:57,618 --> 00:07:00,153
don't write about them. We
don't talk about them as

142
00:07:00,220 --> 00:07:02,256
much, but they're there.
They do pass a lot of stuff

143
00:07:02,322 --> 00:07:05,192
that is not a knock down,
drag out fight.

144
00:07:05,259 --> 00:07:07,628
>> And I think we saw two
milestone shifts that have

145
00:07:07,694 --> 00:07:10,063
occurred over Governor
Evers time in office, where

146
00:07:10,130 --> 00:07:12,199
this really came to the
head, where Republican

147
00:07:12,266 --> 00:07:13,734
legislature had to work
with the Democratic

148
00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,637
governor in the first term,
Republicans were bound,

149
00:07:16,703 --> 00:07:19,106
determined to give the
governor nothing. They sent

150
00:07:19,173 --> 00:07:22,075
him a budget and said, we
dare you to sign this. And

151
00:07:22,142 --> 00:07:24,511
over and over, Democrats
could not get their bills

152
00:07:24,578 --> 00:07:26,480
to come to committee,
couldn't get a hearing,

153
00:07:26,547 --> 00:07:29,216
never got to the floor. In
fact, if Democrats wanted a

154
00:07:29,283 --> 00:07:31,518
bill to pass, they would go
find a Republican they

155
00:07:31,585 --> 00:07:34,221
could work with, and they
would have them become the

156
00:07:34,288 --> 00:07:36,456
sponsor. So they had to,
like, give the Republican

157
00:07:36,523 --> 00:07:39,259
credit in order to get it
somewhere. And that was in

158
00:07:39,326 --> 00:07:41,361
order to make Governor
Evers look bad, to weaken

159
00:07:41,428 --> 00:07:44,231
him for reelection. But
then when he won in 2022,

160
00:07:44,298 --> 00:07:47,234
Republicans realized, well,
years. So it doesn't make

161
00:07:47,301 --> 00:07:49,303
sense to keep spiting
ourselves. Let's see if we

162
00:07:49,369 --> 00:07:52,272
can get done. And so there
was a change there. And

163
00:07:52,339 --> 00:07:54,341
then the other thing that
Rich pointed out is when

164
00:07:54,408 --> 00:07:57,311
the maps changed, we saw
the electorate change

165
00:07:57,377 --> 00:07:59,379
politicians, and we saw
more people running to the

166
00:07:59,446 --> 00:08:02,149
middle because they needed
to, if they wanted to keep

167
00:08:02,216 --> 00:08:04,318
their majority and keep
that seat. And so we saw

168
00:08:04,384 --> 00:08:07,221
more effort to bring things
to the floor. And the

169
00:08:07,287 --> 00:08:09,456
question that kind of gets
back to the heart of what

170
00:08:09,523 --> 00:08:12,492
Riley's been looking at is
there's a federal image of

171
00:08:12,559 --> 00:08:14,561
polarization. There's the
theater that comes out of

172
00:08:14,628 --> 00:08:17,231
press releases that we see
from politicians. And then

173
00:08:17,297 --> 00:08:19,867
there's the reality of what
it looks like at the end of

174
00:08:19,933 --> 00:08:22,703
the day in the chamber,
when they all walk off the

175
00:08:22,769 --> 00:08:24,771
floor back into the
assembly parlor where the

176
00:08:24,838 --> 00:08:26,907
cameras aren't, and we're
allowed to get a little

177
00:08:26,974 --> 00:08:28,909
glimpse of them laughing,
drinking coffee together,

178
00:08:28,976 --> 00:08:30,911
shaking hands. It's nowhere
near the old days where

179
00:08:30,978 --> 00:08:33,647
they would go drink beer
afterwards at the bars, but

180
00:08:33,714 --> 00:08:36,116
they still do communicate.
A lot of the anger is

181
00:08:36,183 --> 00:08:39,386
theater for their voters or
for the media.

182
00:08:39,453 --> 00:08:41,622
>> There is. They are
actually people, it turns

183
00:08:41,688 --> 00:08:44,124
out, who talk to each other
sometimes, especially back

184
00:08:44,191 --> 00:08:46,059
in that chamber. As you
mentioned, Riley had kind

185
00:08:46,126 --> 00:08:49,796
of a we'll call it a part
two to that. It's a follow

186
00:08:49,863 --> 00:08:51,698
up question. This was
submitted by email. Riley

187
00:08:51,765 --> 00:08:53,634
asks, how would you
describe the effects of

188
00:08:53,700 --> 00:08:55,636
social media and
misinformation on the

189
00:08:55,702 --> 00:08:58,805
political environment in
Wisconsin? Rich, let's go

190
00:08:58,872 --> 00:09:03,110
to you first on this one.
How are social media and

191
00:09:03,177 --> 00:09:06,213
misinformation affecting
everything in Wisconsin,

192
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:11,185
but especially our politics?
>> In a big way? I mean,

193
00:09:11,251 --> 00:09:14,254
the the immediate example
that comes to mind is

194
00:09:14,321 --> 00:09:17,524
President Donald Trump's,
you know, false claims

195
00:09:17,591 --> 00:09:20,761
about the 2020 election
being stolen from him

196
00:09:20,827 --> 00:09:25,399
through massive fraud in
states like Wisconsin. So

197
00:09:25,465 --> 00:09:29,803
he began tweeting about
that and has kept it up

198
00:09:29,870 --> 00:09:33,407
essentially ever since. So
one of those tweets was a

199
00:09:33,473 --> 00:09:37,010
direct threat to Assembly
Speaker Robin Vos, where he

200
00:09:37,077 --> 00:09:41,615
said, look, decertify the
election or else, you know,

201
00:09:41,682 --> 00:09:44,117
someone's going to run a
primary against you. And

202
00:09:44,184 --> 00:09:45,919
that ended up happening.
You know, Vos said that

203
00:09:45,986 --> 00:09:49,189
it's impossible to
decertify the election.

204
00:09:49,256 --> 00:09:53,093
Eventually, there was a
recall effort, and the the

205
00:09:53,160 --> 00:09:55,495
challenger to Vos was
endorsed by President

206
00:09:55,562 --> 00:10:00,767
Donald Trump and almost won.
I mean, Vos Vos victory was

207
00:10:00,834 --> 00:10:04,638
less than 300 votes. So
that would have had a

208
00:10:04,705 --> 00:10:08,842
really big impact on just
the business of the

209
00:10:08,909 --> 00:10:11,278
Assembly and the
legislature as a whole. So

210
00:10:11,345 --> 00:10:14,748
that's one concrete example.
But there's all sorts of

211
00:10:14,815 --> 00:10:18,452
others. You know, I also I
spent a lot of time on

212
00:10:18,519 --> 00:10:20,320
social media X Twitter,
whatever you want to call

213
00:10:20,387 --> 00:10:23,190
it.
first for a reason, buddy.

214
00:10:24,558 --> 00:10:29,496
>> Yeah. So I mean, it's,
it's not real life compared

215
00:10:29,563 --> 00:10:32,466
to people you meet on the
street or, you know, but

216
00:10:32,533 --> 00:10:37,237
also it bleeds into it. And
one example is, you know,

217
00:10:37,304 --> 00:10:40,707
these young conservatives
turning point, they're very,

218
00:10:40,774 --> 00:10:43,644
very focused on social
media. That's how they get

219
00:10:43,710 --> 00:10:46,547
the message out about
candidates. That's how they

220
00:10:46,613 --> 00:10:50,851
get their gentle threats
against lawmakers or party

221
00:10:50,918 --> 00:10:53,420
officials that aren't doing
what they think they should

222
00:10:53,487 --> 00:10:56,290
do. So it does bleed over
into real life. But also

223
00:10:56,356 --> 00:11:00,694
there's an aspect of it
being totally online and in

224
00:11:00,761 --> 00:11:04,831
its own universe.
>> We had another question

225
00:11:04,898 --> 00:11:08,468
from Anthony Chergosky
class. This one came from

226
00:11:08,535 --> 00:11:10,037
Kiley Skenandore, a junior
studying political science

227
00:11:10,103 --> 00:11:14,608
and criminal justice. She
asks, do you think more

228
00:11:14,675 --> 00:11:17,611
ideologically extreme
candidates hurt their party

229
00:11:17,678 --> 00:11:21,148
in a state like Wisconsin,
or do these candidates help

230
00:11:21,215 --> 00:11:24,117
their party win? Zac, will
we get an answer to this

231
00:11:24,184 --> 00:11:26,687
one once and for all this
November?

232
00:11:26,753 --> 00:11:30,824
>> Yes and no. And the
reason for that is once

233
00:11:30,891 --> 00:11:33,160
somebody wins, they are the
definition of their party.

234
00:11:33,227 --> 00:11:36,530
And certainly for governor.
At one point in time, Tom

235
00:11:36,597 --> 00:11:39,733
Tiffany was one of the more
right leaning Moore. You

236
00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:42,336
could label him an extreme.
He was one of the early

237
00:11:42,402 --> 00:11:44,872
ones to cozy up to Donald
Trump and the Maga movement.

238
00:11:44,938 --> 00:11:48,742
He was on the far right of
the Republican

239
00:11:48,809 --> 00:11:50,944
congressional delegation
and certainly Republicans

240
00:11:51,011 --> 00:11:54,147
within the state. Now, he
is likely the frontrunner

241
00:11:54,214 --> 00:11:55,983
to be the Republican
nominee for governor. And

242
00:11:56,049 --> 00:11:59,119
if he wins, he will be the
face of the Republican

243
00:11:59,186 --> 00:12:02,222
Party. And so that shift
that occurs means it's no

244
00:12:02,289 --> 00:12:04,157
longer about what is
extremism, because the

245
00:12:04,224 --> 00:12:06,560
voters will vote for
whoever they think you know,

246
00:12:06,627 --> 00:12:09,363
favors them. And
politicians redefine their

247
00:12:09,429 --> 00:12:13,300
own image all the time. We
saw another Democrat enter

248
00:12:13,367 --> 00:12:17,104
the field for Governor Kirk
Bangstad, who has a pretty

249
00:12:17,171 --> 00:12:19,673
tawdry history with with
Democrats themselves

250
00:12:19,740 --> 00:12:22,176
starting Minocqua and
lawsuits. And I think he

251
00:12:22,242 --> 00:12:25,145
was arrested and he's on
the outs with a lot of

252
00:12:25,212 --> 00:12:27,281
these candidates. And he
decided recently he was

253
00:12:27,347 --> 00:12:29,316
going to run for governor,
enter the field. And he did

254
00:12:29,383 --> 00:12:32,219
not get the same cordial
welcome that the other

255
00:12:32,286 --> 00:12:34,254
Democrats did when they
announced last year. And he

256
00:12:34,321 --> 00:12:36,323
would definitely be
considered on the left and

257
00:12:36,390 --> 00:12:38,825
a little more of an extreme
candidate by most people's

258
00:12:38,892 --> 00:12:41,595
views of what is a centrist,
moderate, or even a far

259
00:12:41,662 --> 00:12:44,631
left Democrat today. That
doesn't mean Republicans

260
00:12:44,698 --> 00:12:47,000
won't try and use it
against the whole field,

261
00:12:47,067 --> 00:12:49,169
the same way that Democrats
are going to use Donald

262
00:12:49,236 --> 00:12:51,271
Trump and his connections
to Tom Tiffany against him.

263
00:12:51,338 --> 00:12:53,974
But it will be. How will
the candidate that emerges

264
00:12:54,041 --> 00:12:55,976
be able to redefine
themselves as the face of

265
00:12:56,043 --> 00:12:58,512
the Democratic Party or the
Republican Party?

266
00:12:58,579 --> 00:13:00,614
>> And he announced for
governor shortly after he

267
00:13:00,681 --> 00:13:04,751
was visited by federal
agents after promising,

268
00:13:04,818 --> 00:13:08,488
among other things, to
offer free beer when Donald

269
00:13:08,555 --> 00:13:10,791
Trump dies. This was after
the most recent

270
00:13:10,858 --> 00:13:12,960
assassination attempt.
>> So a perfect example of

271
00:13:13,026 --> 00:13:16,230
what Rick is talking about
in social media, being a

272
00:13:16,296 --> 00:13:18,665
little bit of a toxic place,
and going right back to

273
00:13:18,732 --> 00:13:20,868
Riley's first question
about political

274
00:13:20,934 --> 00:13:22,669
polarization. It occurs in
social media, and it does

275
00:13:22,736 --> 00:13:25,472
bleed over into the real
world.

276
00:13:25,539 --> 00:13:27,708
>> To me, I think this
question really kind of

277
00:13:27,774 --> 00:13:30,811
boils down to the word
extreme, which is always in

278
00:13:30,878 --> 00:13:33,914
the eye of the beholder.
You know, like you

279
00:13:33,981 --> 00:13:35,649
mentioned, once somebody
wins, they're they've

280
00:13:35,716 --> 00:13:37,918
become normal. You know,
you just become accustomed

281
00:13:37,985 --> 00:13:42,322
to that. But I think in
2016, a lot of Democrats, a

282
00:13:42,389 --> 00:13:44,992
lot of Republicans
certainly considered Donald

283
00:13:45,058 --> 00:13:48,328
Trump to be on the extreme
end of things. It worked

284
00:13:48,395 --> 00:13:51,131
for him. You know, it
continues to work for him.

285
00:13:51,198 --> 00:13:53,667
And when he's not on the
ballot now, Republicans

286
00:13:53,734 --> 00:13:58,405
suffer because that's what
his voters are looking for.

287
00:13:58,472 --> 00:14:01,808
So there's an example where
even in a 5050 state like

288
00:14:01,875 --> 00:14:05,579
Wisconsin, where you
imagine somebody kind of,

289
00:14:05,646 --> 00:14:09,183
you know, wanting to aim
for that middle, the more

290
00:14:09,249 --> 00:14:12,586
extreme candidate, you know,
sometimes is the one who

291
00:14:12,653 --> 00:14:16,790
carries the day. Rich real
quick on this one.

292
00:14:17,824 --> 00:14:20,127
>> Yeah. I wanted to point
to, you know, we've got

293
00:14:20,194 --> 00:14:22,396
Republican Congressman
Derrick Van Orden. He's

294
00:14:22,462 --> 00:14:25,232
said a lot of inflammatory
things. He's on social

295
00:14:25,299 --> 00:14:28,202
media a lot. Thousands and
thousands of tweets

296
00:14:28,268 --> 00:14:32,706
probably, and Democrats
call him extreme, but he's

297
00:14:32,773 --> 00:14:36,610
won reelection. And some
conservatives in the third

298
00:14:36,677 --> 00:14:39,479
Congressional District like
that. They like that about

299
00:14:39,546 --> 00:14:41,815
him. They like that about
Trump. They they feel that

300
00:14:41,882 --> 00:14:43,851
that means they're
authentic and that they're

301
00:14:43,917 --> 00:14:46,553
not listening to the
consultant class in

302
00:14:46,620 --> 00:14:49,556
crafting their messaging.
>> All right. I think we

303
00:14:49,623 --> 00:14:52,559
need to move on. We're
going to shift gears a bit

304
00:14:52,626 --> 00:14:55,229
with our last question this
week, which comes to us on

305
00:14:55,295 --> 00:14:58,665
video. It's about political
spending.

306
00:14:58,732 --> 00:15:01,368
I'm studying political
science and public

307
00:15:01,435 --> 00:15:05,239
administration at UW La
Crosse my question today is

308
00:15:05,305 --> 00:15:08,408
with concerns about
campaign spending in recent

309
00:15:08,475 --> 00:15:10,978
Wisconsin state Supreme
Court elections, how a

310
00:15:11,044 --> 00:15:14,014
stricter recusal rules
change judicial elections

311
00:15:14,081 --> 00:15:17,117
when new rules reduce
direct campaign

312
00:15:17,184 --> 00:15:20,320
contributions to candidates,
or would they shift

313
00:15:20,387 --> 00:15:22,589
spending towards outside
groups such as PACs or

314
00:15:22,656 --> 00:15:27,127
political action committees?
>> So recusal, the idea

315
00:15:27,194 --> 00:15:29,830
that when you've got a
stake in the case and

316
00:15:29,897 --> 00:15:32,633
you're a judge, you step
out of that case. Rich,

317
00:15:32,699 --> 00:15:35,135
that's just a theoretical
<u>%</u>

318
00:15:35,202 --> 00:15:38,105
question. Supreme Court
justices might consider it

319
00:15:38,172 --> 00:15:41,942
soon. Right?
>> That's right. There's a

320
00:15:42,009 --> 00:15:44,378
rule petition proposal
before the Supreme Court

321
00:15:44,444 --> 00:15:47,981
brought by a group of
retired judges. And

322
00:15:48,048 --> 00:15:50,651
essentially, it would
mandate that justices

323
00:15:50,717 --> 00:15:54,855
recuse themselves if there
are reasonable concerns

324
00:15:54,922 --> 00:15:58,358
about donations they got
during their campaigns

325
00:15:58,425 --> 00:16:01,895
affecting cases.
Essentially, if those

326
00:16:01,962 --> 00:16:04,998
donations come from parties
to the case, lawyers, what

327
00:16:05,065 --> 00:16:08,702
have you. But the the the
twist is, is that it's

328
00:16:08,769 --> 00:16:11,872
still up to the individual
judge or justice themselves

329
00:16:11,939 --> 00:16:15,142
to decide whether or not to
recuse. And this rule

330
00:16:15,209 --> 00:16:18,712
proposal doesn't include
any set dollar limits that

331
00:16:18,779 --> 00:16:22,349
was attempted in a 2017
rule proposal that was

332
00:16:22,416 --> 00:16:25,252
rejected by the Supreme
Court's former conservative

333
00:16:25,319 --> 00:16:27,354
majority. But now we've got
a Liberal majority, and

334
00:16:27,421 --> 00:16:30,190
they've been more open to
the idea of some sort of

335
00:16:30,257 --> 00:16:33,961
change. But in a lot of
ways, this current rule

336
00:16:34,027 --> 00:16:36,196
would be very similar to
what exists right now on

337
00:16:36,263 --> 00:16:38,465
the books.
>> Zac, for somebody out

338
00:16:38,532 --> 00:16:40,701
there that's just kind of
wondering like, why don't

339
00:16:40,767 --> 00:16:44,071
justices just adopt a
strong recusal rule, put a

340
00:16:44,137 --> 00:16:46,874
set dollar amount on it and
say, I'm out? If we get

341
00:16:46,940 --> 00:16:49,042
above that.
>> There are so many

342
00:16:49,109 --> 00:16:51,812
reasons why that does not
work. The first is simply

343
00:16:51,879 --> 00:16:53,814
inflation. I mean, a
reasonable number that we

344
00:16:53,881 --> 00:16:56,116
all could have agreed on
ten years ago would be

345
00:16:56,183 --> 00:16:58,585
pennies. Today, when you're
talking about 50 and $100

346
00:16:58,652 --> 00:17:01,088
million races, which is not
this one, but the last two

347
00:17:01,154 --> 00:17:04,024
and the other one is we now
have a loophole in place

348
00:17:04,091 --> 00:17:06,059
for fundraising for these
judicial candidates that

349
00:17:06,126 --> 00:17:08,795
did not exist 20 years ago.
It was actually passed by

350
00:17:08,862 --> 00:17:10,864
Scott Walker and the
Republicans. But it allows

351
00:17:10,931 --> 00:17:13,100
anyone to give as much
money as they want to the

352
00:17:13,166 --> 00:17:15,936
political party who can
then donate that money as

353
00:17:16,003 --> 00:17:18,639
much as they want to the
candidate. And the reason

354
00:17:18,705 --> 00:17:21,175
why giving money to the
candidate is better than an

355
00:17:21,241 --> 00:17:23,544
outside PAC, which is part
of the question is the

356
00:17:23,610 --> 00:17:26,847
candidate gets a better ad
rate so they can buy more

357
00:17:26,914 --> 00:17:30,083
TV ads, more online ads for
their for their dollar. So

358
00:17:30,150 --> 00:17:32,653
it's much more effective
for them to keep doing it

359
00:17:32,719 --> 00:17:34,955
that way and finding what
is the actual number,

360
00:17:35,022 --> 00:17:36,924
especially if it gets
funneled through a party,

361
00:17:36,990 --> 00:17:39,426
is a really difficult
question to ask. And it

362
00:17:39,493 --> 00:17:42,162
brings up the idea of what
a group try and donate to

363
00:17:42,229 --> 00:17:44,831
their opposite opposing
person in the hopes of

364
00:17:44,898 --> 00:17:47,701
spiking them off a future
case.

365
00:17:47,768 --> 00:17:50,470
say who are skeptical of
this. Like, we can't do

366
00:17:50,537 --> 00:17:52,606
that. They'll play games.
>> Yeah. So it really is a

367
00:17:52,673 --> 00:17:54,808
thorny question. There's
not a simple answer. And

368
00:17:54,875 --> 00:17:56,710
unfortunately, well, it
comes down to the integrity

369
00:17:56,777 --> 00:17:59,913
of the justice. And that's
where historically it

370
00:17:59,980 --> 00:18:02,549
>> Do we see a lot of
recusals on this though?

371
00:18:02,616 --> 00:18:04,852
>> Once in a great while,
but not on funding.

372
00:18:04,918 --> 00:18:07,688
>> All right. That's all
the time we have for today.

373
00:18:07,754 --> 00:18:10,624
But we would love to hear
from you. If you have

374
00:18:10,691 --> 00:18:15,495
questions for a future show,
just email us at Inside

375
00:18:16,230 --> 00:18:19,132
Wisconsin politics@wnpr.org.
name and let us know what

376
00:18:19,199 --> 00:18:21,335
you want to know about
Wisconsin politics,

377
00:18:21,401 --> 00:18:23,670
Wisconsin politics and
government. Thanks for

378
00:18:23,737 --> 00:18:28,509
joining us. This has been
inside Wisconsin politics.

379
00:18:28,575 --> 00:18:31,311
Wagtendonk will be back in
a couple of weeks. Be sure

380
00:18:31,378 --> 00:18:34,348
to follow us on PBS
wisconsin.org. WPR.org,

381
00:18:34,414 --> 00:18:38,552
YouTube, or wherever you
get your podcasts.