Yeah. Well, she, Jesse Eben is some high-ranking person within Ashley, which is hilarious because
went on. So on the stomach.
Do you have questions about Wisconsin government and politics? If so, you are definitely not
alone. And this week, we're going to answer a few from our audience about polarization,
social media, and money. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics.
I'm Sean Johnson here with my colleague, Zach Schultz and Rich Kramer in Eau Claire. Hey,
guys. Hello. Hey, Sean. So we want to say upfront that if you have questions, you should
email us at Inside Wisconsin Politics at wpr.org. But the questions we're going to talk about
today didn't just come out of nowhere. It turns out Anthony Trigoski, a professor of political
science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, watches our show, and he watches it with his
students in his legislative process class. We talked to Professor Trigoski a lot. He
suggested his students could ask us questions and he helped set that up. A couple of the
students submitted their questions by video, including Riley Bicklehaupt, who wanted to
know about political polarization. Hi, guys. My name is Riley. I'm a freshman at the University
of Wisconsin-La Crosse. I'm studying political science in Spanish when the minor in legal
studies. My question for you guys today is how do you think the ongoing political polarization
in Wisconsin affects the state's ability to pass bipartisan legislation? Zach, I feel
like there are layers to this answer, which is kind of like the reason we like the question
so where would you begin to answer Riley here? Last semester and then hope that their
time doesn't run out before summer starts. This is a huge question. It's a good question,
Riley. The first thing that they do to define is what is bipartisan? Because technically,
one Democrat joins the Republicans. It's a bipartisan bill, even if all the rest of
them oppose it. So it can really stretch the definition. Sean, you remember back 20 years
ago under Jim Dolan at the end of the year, interviews, we'd talk about controversy in
the Capitol and say, 90 percent of the bills we pass are bipartisan. And those statistics
are true. Most of those bills are really minor, some technical adjustments, some of those
really aren't controversial at all. So they are overwhelmingly bipartisan, but the ones
that get our attention, the ones that we track and we follow are very contentious. And yes,
political polarization absolutely factors into the image that your audience or their
voters at home will view what happens if they let something pass. And that goes through
leadership all the way down. I can tell you for certain that Robin Voss, as assembly
speaker, knew exactly which districts he had to worry about more vulnerable members. And
he would let them vote against Republican bills, because he knew that they had to show they
were more moderate or more bipartisan in those areas or bills that were going to pass. They
got to be co-signers on so that they could say, I hope pass this legislation. So there's
a lot of tricks and details into what is bipartisan. But absolutely, there's only one bill that
needs to be passed, each legislative session, and that's the budget. So Sean, my question
to you is, if only Republicans in the legislature vote for the budget, all Democrats vote against
it. But Governor Evers signs it. Is it now bipartisan?
I think it is. Yes. I think that the Democratic lawmakers in that situation have the luxury
of knowing that their governor is back there to make the call that needs to be made. And
if they have issues with it, they can go to the governor and say, hey, maybe take this
out or reword this with your partial veto governor. So I think that's an example of a
bipartisan budget. And I think as you've seen the Republican margin shrink, you have seen
more Democratic votes on those budgets too, because you have some of those lawmakers
like you talked about. Under this new map, you have lawmakers that are more inclined
to represent a 50-50 district. And what do you hear from them when they are campaigning?
We want to work across the aisle. That is a go-to message. Rich, how about you when
it comes to bipartisanship and Riley's question, what stands out to you?
So I think what you've both said is totally accurate. One of the things that's a couple
of things that stick out to me is when there are these bipartisan bills that get our attention
because they are major policy issues, it seems like the compromise falls under a couple
categories. It's fear or favor. So I think of when the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal
majority struck down Republican-drawn legislative voting districts as unconstitutional, shortly
after, Republicans actually voted for maps that were drawn by Governor Tony Evers when
they were opposed to the court case, they were opposed to these maps all along. But
yet they voted for the ones from the governor. Why would they do that? Well, one of the theories
is that they feared that the Supreme Court justices' liberal majority might draw maps
that are more favorable to Democrats than what they ended up passing from Evers. And
then when it comes to favor, I think of a bill that passed and was signed into law this
past session that started out as a Republican bill banning people from purchasing soda or
candy with federal food assistance. Democrats hated the bill, but it was amended, and Democrats
wanted to get a lot of new funding and positions for the Department of Health Services so that
it can comply with federal changes to the food assistance program and avoid putting the
entire program at risk. Republicans on their own weren't interested in that, but this bill
morphed into a soda and candy ban plus $72 million for the Department of Health Services.
So that's one of those favor for favor kind of bills. I think the one thing that I would
like to impart upon people who feel like you look around the politics today and it feels
extremely polarized. I think that, yes, some Democrats and some Republicans legitimately hate
the other party and no uncertain terms. I think the Wisconsin legislature has a lot of moments,
though, of actual bipartisanship. I think about the local government funding bill that they passed,
shared revenue, we'd call it. I mean, I cannot believe that they did that Republicans and Democrats
that raised sales taxes in Milwaukee. It's something that you never could have imagined
the Republican party doing years ago, but in either second term, it seems like he's been able to
cut those deals, and particularly since he got these new maps, he's been able to cut those deals.
And as you alluded to, Zach, Robin Voss sometimes quotes this too, 95%, I think, is the number he
gives of the bills that they pass in the Wisconsin legislature are bipartisan because
yeah, the legislature passes a lot of bills that are incremental, and we don't write about them.
We don't talk about them as much, but they're there. They do pass a lot of stuff that is not
a knockdown drag-out fight. And I think we saw two milestone shifts that have occurred over
Governor Evers' time in office, where this really came to the head where Republican
legislature had to work with the Democratic governor. In the first term, Republicans were
bound determined to give the governor nothing. They sent him a budget and said,
we dare you to sign this. And over and over, Democrats could not get their bills to come to
committee, couldn't get a hearing, never got to the floor. In fact, if Democrats wanted to
build a pass, they would go find a Republican they could work with, and they would have them
become the sponsor. So they had to give the Republican credit in order to get it somewhere.
And that was in order to make Governor Evers look bad, to weaken him for reelection.
But then when he won in 22, Republicans realized, well, we still have another four years,
so it doesn't make sense to keep spiting ourselves. Let's see what we can get done.
And so there was a change there. And then the other thing that Rich pointed out is when the
maps changed, we saw the electorate change underneath these politicians. And we saw more people running
to the middle because they needed to if they wanted to keep their majority and keep that seat.
And so we saw more effort to bring things to the floor. And the question that kind of gets back
to the heart of what Riley's been looking at is there's a federal image of polarization.
There's the theater that comes out of press releases that we see from politicians.
And then there's the reality of what it looks like at the end of the day in the chamber
when they all walk off the floor, back into the assembly parlor, where the cameras aren't,
and we're allowed to get a little glimpse of them laughing, drinking coffee together,
shaking hands. They're nowhere near the old days where they would go drink beer afterwards at the
bars. But they still do communicate. A lot of the anger is theater for their voters or for the media.
There is they are actually people. It turns out who talk to each other sometimes,
especially back in that chamber, as you mentioned. Riley had kind of a, we'll call it a part two to
that. It's a follow-up question. This was submitted by email. Riley asks, how would you describe the
effects of social media and misinformation on the political environment in Wisconsin?
Rich, let's go to you first in this one. How are social media and misinformation affecting
everything in Wisconsin, but especially our politics?
Well, in a big way. I mean, the immediate example that comes to mind is President Donald Trump's,
you know, false claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him through massive fraud in
states like Wisconsin. So he began tweeting about that and has kept it up essentially ever since.
So one of those tweets was a direct threat to assembly speaker Robin Vass, where he said,
look, de-certify the election or else, you know, someone's going to run a primary against you.
And that ended up happening. You know, Vass said that it's impossible to de-certify the election.
Eventually, there was a recall effort. And the challenger to Vass was endorsed by President
Donald Trump. And almost one. I mean, Vass, Vass's victory was less than 300 votes. So that would
have had a really big impact on just the business of the assembly and the legislature as a whole.
So that's one concrete example. But there's all sorts of others. You know, I also,
I spent a lot of time on social media, ex Twitter, whatever you want to call it.
You got the question first for a reason, buddy.
Yeah. So, I mean, it's not real life compared to people you meet on the street or, you know,
but also it bleeds into it. And one example is, you know, these young conservatives turning
point, they're very, very focused on social media. That's how they get the message out about
candidates. That's how they get their gentle threats against lawmakers or party officials
that aren't doing what they think they should do. So it does bleed over into real life. But also,
there's an aspect of it being totally online and in its own universe.
We had another question from Anthony Trigowski's class. This one came from Kylie
Scannador, a junior studying political science and criminal justice. She asks,
do you think more ideologically extreme candidates hurt their party in a state like Wisconsin?
Or do these candidates help their party win? Zach, will we get an answer to this one once
and for all this November? Yes and no. And the reason for that is once somebody wins,
they are the definition of their party and certainly for governor. At one point in time,
Tom Tiffany was one of the more right-leaning, more, you could label him extreme. He was one
of the early ones to cozy up to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. He was on the far right
of the Republican congressional delegation and certainly Republicans within the state.
Now he is likely the front-runner to be the Republican nominee for governor and if he wins,
he will be the face of the Republican party. And so that shift that occurs
means it's no longer about what is extremism because the voters will vote for whoever they think
favors them and politicians redefine their own image all the time. We saw another Democrat
enter the field for governor, Kirk Bankstead, who has a pretty tawdry history with Democrats
themselves, starting Monocua and lawsuits and I think he was arrested and he's on the outs with
a lot of these candidates and he decided recently he was going to run for governor enter the field
and he did not get the same cordial welcome that the other Democrats did when they announced last year
and he would definitely be considered on the left in a little more of an extreme candidate by most
people's views of what is a centrist moderate or even a far left Democrat today. That doesn't
mean Republicans won't try and use it against the whole field the same way that Democrats are
going to use Donald Trump and his connections to Tom Tiffany against him but it will be how will
the candidate that emerges be able to redefine themselves as the face of the Democratic party
or the Republican party. And he now is for governor of shortly after he was visited by federal agents
after promising among other things to offer free beer when Donald Trump dies. This was after the
most recent assassination attempt. So a perfect example of what Rich is talking about in social
media being a little bit of a toxic place and going right back to Riley's first question
about political polarization it occurs in social media and it does bleed over into the real world.
To me I think this question really kind of boils down to that the word extreme which is always in
the eye of the beholder you know like you mentioned once somebody wins they're they've come normal
you know you just become accustomed to that but I think in 2016 a lot of Democrats a lot of Republicans
certainly considered Donald Trump to be on the extreme end of things it worked for him you know
it continues to work for him and when he's not on the ballot now Republican suffer because
that's what his voters are looking for. So there's an example where even in a 50-50 state like
Wisconsin where you imagine somebody kind of you know wanting to aim for that middle the more extreme
candidate you know sometimes is the the one who carries the day. Rich real quick on this one.
Yeah I wanted to point to you know we've got a Republican congressman Derek Van Ordon he's
said a lot of inflammatory things he's on social media a lot thousands and thousands of tweets
probably and Democrats call him extreme but he's won reelection and some conservatives in the third
congressional district like that they like that about him they like that about Trump they they
feel that that means they're authentic and that they're not listening to the consultant class in
crafting their messaging. All right I think we need to move on we're going to shift gears a bit
with our last question this week which comes to us on video it's about political spending.
Hi I'm Alex Thessen. I'm studying political science and public administration at UW across.
My question today is with concerns about campaign spending in recent Wisconsin state
Supreme Court elections how would stricter recusal rules change judicial elections when new rules
reduce direct campaign contributions to candidates or would they shift spending towards outside groups
such as PACs or political action committees. So recusal the idea that when you've got a stake
in the case you're in your judge you step out of that case rich this is not something that's just
a theoretical question Supreme Court justices might consider it soon right. That's right there's a
rule petition proposal before the Supreme Court brought by a group of retired judges and essentially
it would mandate that justices recuse themselves if there are reasonable concerns about donations
they got during their campaigns affecting cases essentially if those donations come from parties
to the case lawyers what have you. But the twist is is that it's still up to the individual judge
or justice themselves to decide whether or not to recuse and this rule proposal doesn't include
any set dollar limits that was attempted in a 2017 rule proposal that was rejected by the
Supreme Court's former conservative majority but now we've got a liberal majority and they've
been more open to the idea of some sort of change but in a lot of ways this current rule would be
very similar to what exists right now on the books. Zach for somebody out there that's just
kind of wondering like why don't justices just adopt a strong recusal rule put a set dollar amount
on it and say I'm out if we get above that. There are so many reasons why that does not work the
first is simply inflation I mean a reasonable number that we all could have agreed on 10 years
ago would be pennies today when you're talking about 50 and 100 million dollar races which is not
this one but the last two and the other one is we now have a loophole in place for fundraising for
these judicial candidates that did not exist 20 years ago it was actually passed by Scott Walker
and the Republicans but it allows anyone to give as much money as they want to the political party
who can then donate that money as much as they want to the candidate and the reason why giving
money to the candidate is better than an outside pack which is part of the question is the candidate
gets a better ad rate so they can buy more TV ads more online ads for their for their dollar so it's
much more effective for them to keep doing it that way and finding what is the actual number
especially if it gets funneled through a party is a really difficult question to ask and it brings
up the idea of what a group trying donate to their opposite opposing person in the hopes of spiking
them off a future case that's what the justices say who are skeptical this like we can't do that
they'll play games yeah so it really is a thorny question there's not a simple answer and unfortunately
well it comes down to the integrity of the justice and that's where historically it always rested
do we see a lot of recusals on this though once in a great while but not on funding all right
it's all the time we have for today but we would love to hear from you if you have questions for
a future show just email us at inside wisconsin politics at wpr.org give us your first and last name
and let us know what you want to know about Wisconsin politics Wisconsin politics and government
thanks for joining us this has been inside wisconsin politics our colleague Anya van wagtendank will
be back in a couple weeks be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org wpr.org youtube or wherever you get
your podcasts