1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,000
Yeah. Well, she, Jesse Eben is some high-ranking person within Ashley, which is hilarious because

2
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:15,000
went on. So on the stomach.

3
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:59,700
Do you have questions about Wisconsin government and politics? If so, you are definitely not

4
00:00:59,700 --> 00:01:04,800
alone. And this week, we're going to answer a few from our audience about polarization,

5
00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:12,200
social media, and money. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics.

6
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:16,500
I'm Sean Johnson here with my colleague, Zach Schultz and Rich Kramer in Eau Claire. Hey,

7
00:01:16,500 --> 00:01:23,200
guys. Hello. Hey, Sean. So we want to say upfront that if you have questions, you should

8
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:29,700
email us at Inside Wisconsin Politics at wpr.org. But the questions we're going to talk about

9
00:01:29,700 --> 00:01:34,740
today didn't just come out of nowhere. It turns out Anthony Trigoski, a professor of political

10
00:01:34,740 --> 00:01:40,100
science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, watches our show, and he watches it with his

11
00:01:40,100 --> 00:01:46,140
students in his legislative process class. We talked to Professor Trigoski a lot. He

12
00:01:46,140 --> 00:01:51,100
suggested his students could ask us questions and he helped set that up. A couple of the

13
00:01:51,100 --> 00:01:56,280
students submitted their questions by video, including Riley Bicklehaupt, who wanted to

14
00:01:56,280 --> 00:02:01,720
know about political polarization. Hi, guys. My name is Riley. I'm a freshman at the University

15
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:05,860
of Wisconsin-La Crosse. I'm studying political science in Spanish when the minor in legal

16
00:02:05,860 --> 00:02:10,600
studies. My question for you guys today is how do you think the ongoing political polarization

17
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:16,560
in Wisconsin affects the state's ability to pass bipartisan legislation? Zach, I feel

18
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:21,080
like there are layers to this answer, which is kind of like the reason we like the question

19
00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:26,480
so where would you begin to answer Riley here? Last semester and then hope that their

20
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:30,040
time doesn't run out before summer starts. This is a huge question. It's a good question,

21
00:02:30,040 --> 00:02:35,480
Riley. The first thing that they do to define is what is bipartisan? Because technically,

22
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:39,600
one Democrat joins the Republicans. It's a bipartisan bill, even if all the rest of

23
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:45,200
them oppose it. So it can really stretch the definition. Sean, you remember back 20 years

24
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:49,160
ago under Jim Dolan at the end of the year, interviews, we'd talk about controversy in

25
00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:54,080
the Capitol and say, 90 percent of the bills we pass are bipartisan. And those statistics

26
00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:59,160
are true. Most of those bills are really minor, some technical adjustments, some of those

27
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:03,960
really aren't controversial at all. So they are overwhelmingly bipartisan, but the ones

28
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:08,240
that get our attention, the ones that we track and we follow are very contentious. And yes,

29
00:03:08,240 --> 00:03:13,480
political polarization absolutely factors into the image that your audience or their

30
00:03:13,480 --> 00:03:18,120
voters at home will view what happens if they let something pass. And that goes through

31
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:22,480
leadership all the way down. I can tell you for certain that Robin Voss, as assembly

32
00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:27,160
speaker, knew exactly which districts he had to worry about more vulnerable members. And

33
00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:31,760
he would let them vote against Republican bills, because he knew that they had to show they

34
00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:37,480
were more moderate or more bipartisan in those areas or bills that were going to pass. They

35
00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:41,520
got to be co-signers on so that they could say, I hope pass this legislation. So there's

36
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:46,400
a lot of tricks and details into what is bipartisan. But absolutely, there's only one bill that

37
00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:49,960
needs to be passed, each legislative session, and that's the budget. So Sean, my question

38
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:55,520
to you is, if only Republicans in the legislature vote for the budget, all Democrats vote against

39
00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:59,200
it. But Governor Evers signs it. Is it now bipartisan?

40
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:04,640
I think it is. Yes. I think that the Democratic lawmakers in that situation have the luxury

41
00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:09,440
of knowing that their governor is back there to make the call that needs to be made. And

42
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:13,480
if they have issues with it, they can go to the governor and say, hey, maybe take this

43
00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:19,640
out or reword this with your partial veto governor. So I think that's an example of a

44
00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:26,160
bipartisan budget. And I think as you've seen the Republican margin shrink, you have seen

45
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:29,760
more Democratic votes on those budgets too, because you have some of those lawmakers

46
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:35,480
like you talked about. Under this new map, you have lawmakers that are more inclined

47
00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:41,240
to represent a 50-50 district. And what do you hear from them when they are campaigning?

48
00:04:41,240 --> 00:04:46,160
We want to work across the aisle. That is a go-to message. Rich, how about you when

49
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:54,520
it comes to bipartisanship and Riley's question, what stands out to you?

50
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:59,560
So I think what you've both said is totally accurate. One of the things that's a couple

51
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:05,400
of things that stick out to me is when there are these bipartisan bills that get our attention

52
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:13,040
because they are major policy issues, it seems like the compromise falls under a couple

53
00:05:13,040 --> 00:05:19,680
categories. It's fear or favor. So I think of when the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal

54
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:25,960
majority struck down Republican-drawn legislative voting districts as unconstitutional, shortly

55
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:31,920
after, Republicans actually voted for maps that were drawn by Governor Tony Evers when

56
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:38,360
they were opposed to the court case, they were opposed to these maps all along. But

57
00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:44,000
yet they voted for the ones from the governor. Why would they do that? Well, one of the theories

58
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:50,360
is that they feared that the Supreme Court justices' liberal majority might draw maps

59
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:57,400
that are more favorable to Democrats than what they ended up passing from Evers. And

60
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:01,880
then when it comes to favor, I think of a bill that passed and was signed into law this

61
00:06:01,880 --> 00:06:10,120
past session that started out as a Republican bill banning people from purchasing soda or

62
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:17,800
candy with federal food assistance. Democrats hated the bill, but it was amended, and Democrats

63
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:23,960
wanted to get a lot of new funding and positions for the Department of Health Services so that

64
00:06:24,000 --> 00:06:29,520
it can comply with federal changes to the food assistance program and avoid putting the

65
00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:35,480
entire program at risk. Republicans on their own weren't interested in that, but this bill

66
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:42,920
morphed into a soda and candy ban plus $72 million for the Department of Health Services.

67
00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:48,760
So that's one of those favor for favor kind of bills. I think the one thing that I would

68
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:53,640
like to impart upon people who feel like you look around the politics today and it feels

69
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:59,800
extremely polarized. I think that, yes, some Democrats and some Republicans legitimately hate

70
00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:07,320
the other party and no uncertain terms. I think the Wisconsin legislature has a lot of moments,

71
00:07:07,320 --> 00:07:14,520
though, of actual bipartisanship. I think about the local government funding bill that they passed,

72
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:20,600
shared revenue, we'd call it. I mean, I cannot believe that they did that Republicans and Democrats

73
00:07:21,560 --> 00:07:25,240
that raised sales taxes in Milwaukee. It's something that you never could have imagined

74
00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:30,600
the Republican party doing years ago, but in either second term, it seems like he's been able to

75
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:35,560
cut those deals, and particularly since he got these new maps, he's been able to cut those deals.

76
00:07:35,560 --> 00:07:41,240
And as you alluded to, Zach, Robin Voss sometimes quotes this too, 95%, I think, is the number he

77
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:45,960
gives of the bills that they pass in the Wisconsin legislature are bipartisan because

78
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:51,720
yeah, the legislature passes a lot of bills that are incremental, and we don't write about them.

79
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:55,800
We don't talk about them as much, but they're there. They do pass a lot of stuff that is not

80
00:07:56,360 --> 00:08:01,800
a knockdown drag-out fight. And I think we saw two milestone shifts that have occurred over

81
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:05,400
Governor Evers' time in office, where this really came to the head where Republican

82
00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:09,720
legislature had to work with the Democratic governor. In the first term, Republicans were

83
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:13,560
bound determined to give the governor nothing. They sent him a budget and said,

84
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:18,600
we dare you to sign this. And over and over, Democrats could not get their bills to come to

85
00:08:18,600 --> 00:08:22,600
committee, couldn't get a hearing, never got to the floor. In fact, if Democrats wanted to

86
00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:26,440
build a pass, they would go find a Republican they could work with, and they would have them

87
00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:30,600
become the sponsor. So they had to give the Republican credit in order to get it somewhere.

88
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:34,680
And that was in order to make Governor Evers look bad, to weaken him for reelection.

89
00:08:34,680 --> 00:08:39,000
But then when he won in 22, Republicans realized, well, we still have another four years,

90
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:43,000
so it doesn't make sense to keep spiting ourselves. Let's see what we can get done.

91
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:46,360
And so there was a change there. And then the other thing that Rich pointed out is when the

92
00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:52,200
maps changed, we saw the electorate change underneath these politicians. And we saw more people running

93
00:08:52,200 --> 00:08:56,360
to the middle because they needed to if they wanted to keep their majority and keep that seat.

94
00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:00,200
And so we saw more effort to bring things to the floor. And the question that kind of gets back

95
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:06,360
to the heart of what Riley's been looking at is there's a federal image of polarization.

96
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:10,280
There's the theater that comes out of press releases that we see from politicians.

97
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:13,800
And then there's the reality of what it looks like at the end of the day in the chamber

98
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:17,400
when they all walk off the floor, back into the assembly parlor, where the cameras aren't,

99
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:20,920
and we're allowed to get a little glimpse of them laughing, drinking coffee together,

100
00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:24,680
shaking hands. They're nowhere near the old days where they would go drink beer afterwards at the

101
00:09:24,680 --> 00:09:32,440
bars. But they still do communicate. A lot of the anger is theater for their voters or for the media.

102
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:37,000
There is they are actually people. It turns out who talk to each other sometimes,

103
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:41,320
especially back in that chamber, as you mentioned. Riley had kind of a, we'll call it a part two to

104
00:09:41,320 --> 00:09:45,880
that. It's a follow-up question. This was submitted by email. Riley asks, how would you describe the

105
00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:50,920
effects of social media and misinformation on the political environment in Wisconsin?

106
00:09:51,640 --> 00:09:57,800
Rich, let's go to you first in this one. How are social media and misinformation affecting

107
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:01,080
everything in Wisconsin, but especially our politics?

108
00:10:01,560 --> 00:10:09,160
Well, in a big way. I mean, the immediate example that comes to mind is President Donald Trump's,

109
00:10:09,160 --> 00:10:16,760
you know, false claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him through massive fraud in

110
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:24,600
states like Wisconsin. So he began tweeting about that and has kept it up essentially ever since.

111
00:10:24,600 --> 00:10:30,840
So one of those tweets was a direct threat to assembly speaker Robin Vass, where he said,

112
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:37,400
look, de-certify the election or else, you know, someone's going to run a primary against you.

113
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:42,360
And that ended up happening. You know, Vass said that it's impossible to de-certify the election.

114
00:10:42,360 --> 00:10:48,920
Eventually, there was a recall effort. And the challenger to Vass was endorsed by President

115
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:57,640
Donald Trump. And almost one. I mean, Vass, Vass's victory was less than 300 votes. So that would

116
00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:04,600
have had a really big impact on just the business of the assembly and the legislature as a whole.

117
00:11:04,600 --> 00:11:09,720
So that's one concrete example. But there's all sorts of others. You know, I also,

118
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:14,280
I spent a lot of time on social media, ex Twitter, whatever you want to call it.

119
00:11:14,280 --> 00:11:16,040
You got the question first for a reason, buddy.

120
00:11:17,960 --> 00:11:25,640
Yeah. So, I mean, it's not real life compared to people you meet on the street or, you know,

121
00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:32,760
but also it bleeds into it. And one example is, you know, these young conservatives turning

122
00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:38,520
point, they're very, very focused on social media. That's how they get the message out about

123
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:44,280
candidates. That's how they get their gentle threats against lawmakers or party officials

124
00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:49,560
that aren't doing what they think they should do. So it does bleed over into real life. But also,

125
00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:55,560
there's an aspect of it being totally online and in its own universe.

126
00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:01,480
We had another question from Anthony Trigowski's class. This one came from Kylie

127
00:12:01,480 --> 00:12:06,200
Scannador, a junior studying political science and criminal justice. She asks,

128
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:12,680
do you think more ideologically extreme candidates hurt their party in a state like Wisconsin?

129
00:12:12,680 --> 00:12:18,040
Or do these candidates help their party win? Zach, will we get an answer to this one once

130
00:12:18,040 --> 00:12:24,920
and for all this November? Yes and no. And the reason for that is once somebody wins,

131
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:29,880
they are the definition of their party and certainly for governor. At one point in time,

132
00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:35,320
Tom Tiffany was one of the more right-leaning, more, you could label him extreme. He was one

133
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:40,840
of the early ones to cozy up to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. He was on the far right

134
00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:45,640
of the Republican congressional delegation and certainly Republicans within the state.

135
00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:50,600
Now he is likely the front-runner to be the Republican nominee for governor and if he wins,

136
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:54,680
he will be the face of the Republican party. And so that shift that occurs

137
00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:59,320
means it's no longer about what is extremism because the voters will vote for whoever they think

138
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:06,600
favors them and politicians redefine their own image all the time. We saw another Democrat

139
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:12,360
enter the field for governor, Kirk Bankstead, who has a pretty tawdry history with Democrats

140
00:13:12,440 --> 00:13:17,240
themselves, starting Monocua and lawsuits and I think he was arrested and he's on the outs with

141
00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:21,000
a lot of these candidates and he decided recently he was going to run for governor enter the field

142
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:26,760
and he did not get the same cordial welcome that the other Democrats did when they announced last year

143
00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:31,720
and he would definitely be considered on the left in a little more of an extreme candidate by most

144
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:37,560
people's views of what is a centrist moderate or even a far left Democrat today. That doesn't

145
00:13:37,560 --> 00:13:41,240
mean Republicans won't try and use it against the whole field the same way that Democrats are

146
00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:45,960
going to use Donald Trump and his connections to Tom Tiffany against him but it will be how will

147
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:50,360
the candidate that emerges be able to redefine themselves as the face of the Democratic party

148
00:13:50,360 --> 00:13:56,200
or the Republican party. And he now is for governor of shortly after he was visited by federal agents

149
00:13:56,840 --> 00:14:03,720
after promising among other things to offer free beer when Donald Trump dies. This was after the

150
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:08,040
most recent assassination attempt. So a perfect example of what Rich is talking about in social

151
00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:13,080
media being a little bit of a toxic place and going right back to Riley's first question

152
00:14:13,080 --> 00:14:18,200
about political polarization it occurs in social media and it does bleed over into the real world.

153
00:14:19,160 --> 00:14:24,440
To me I think this question really kind of boils down to that the word extreme which is always in

154
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:30,200
the eye of the beholder you know like you mentioned once somebody wins they're they've come normal

155
00:14:30,200 --> 00:14:37,000
you know you just become accustomed to that but I think in 2016 a lot of Democrats a lot of Republicans

156
00:14:37,000 --> 00:14:42,840
certainly considered Donald Trump to be on the extreme end of things it worked for him you know

157
00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:47,880
it continues to work for him and when he's not on the ballot now Republican suffer because

158
00:14:48,920 --> 00:14:55,320
that's what his voters are looking for. So there's an example where even in a 50-50 state like

159
00:14:55,320 --> 00:15:03,160
Wisconsin where you imagine somebody kind of you know wanting to aim for that middle the more extreme

160
00:15:03,160 --> 00:15:09,320
candidate you know sometimes is the the one who carries the day. Rich real quick on this one.

161
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:16,040
Yeah I wanted to point to you know we've got a Republican congressman Derek Van Ordon he's

162
00:15:16,040 --> 00:15:21,560
said a lot of inflammatory things he's on social media a lot thousands and thousands of tweets

163
00:15:21,560 --> 00:15:29,880
probably and Democrats call him extreme but he's won reelection and some conservatives in the third

164
00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:34,920
congressional district like that they like that about him they like that about Trump they they

165
00:15:34,920 --> 00:15:39,800
feel that that means they're authentic and that they're not listening to the consultant class in

166
00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:44,680
crafting their messaging. All right I think we need to move on we're going to shift gears a bit

167
00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:49,160
with our last question this week which comes to us on video it's about political spending.

168
00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:56,440
Hi I'm Alex Thessen. I'm studying political science and public administration at UW across.

169
00:15:57,080 --> 00:16:02,440
My question today is with concerns about campaign spending in recent Wisconsin state

170
00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:08,760
Supreme Court elections how would stricter recusal rules change judicial elections when new rules

171
00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:15,240
reduce direct campaign contributions to candidates or would they shift spending towards outside groups

172
00:16:15,240 --> 00:16:22,440
such as PACs or political action committees. So recusal the idea that when you've got a stake

173
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:27,960
in the case you're in your judge you step out of that case rich this is not something that's just

174
00:16:27,960 --> 00:16:35,560
a theoretical question Supreme Court justices might consider it soon right. That's right there's a

175
00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:41,800
rule petition proposal before the Supreme Court brought by a group of retired judges and essentially

176
00:16:41,800 --> 00:16:49,640
it would mandate that justices recuse themselves if there are reasonable concerns about donations

177
00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:57,480
they got during their campaigns affecting cases essentially if those donations come from parties

178
00:16:57,480 --> 00:17:03,960
to the case lawyers what have you. But the twist is is that it's still up to the individual judge

179
00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:09,880
or justice themselves to decide whether or not to recuse and this rule proposal doesn't include

180
00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:17,080
any set dollar limits that was attempted in a 2017 rule proposal that was rejected by the

181
00:17:17,080 --> 00:17:21,240
Supreme Court's former conservative majority but now we've got a liberal majority and they've

182
00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:27,880
been more open to the idea of some sort of change but in a lot of ways this current rule would be

183
00:17:27,880 --> 00:17:32,520
very similar to what exists right now on the books. Zach for somebody out there that's just

184
00:17:32,520 --> 00:17:38,520
kind of wondering like why don't justices just adopt a strong recusal rule put a set dollar amount

185
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:43,800
on it and say I'm out if we get above that. There are so many reasons why that does not work the

186
00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:48,360
first is simply inflation I mean a reasonable number that we all could have agreed on 10 years

187
00:17:48,360 --> 00:17:53,160
ago would be pennies today when you're talking about 50 and 100 million dollar races which is not

188
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:57,880
this one but the last two and the other one is we now have a loophole in place for fundraising for

189
00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:02,440
these judicial candidates that did not exist 20 years ago it was actually passed by Scott Walker

190
00:18:02,440 --> 00:18:07,400
and the Republicans but it allows anyone to give as much money as they want to the political party

191
00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:12,760
who can then donate that money as much as they want to the candidate and the reason why giving

192
00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:17,240
money to the candidate is better than an outside pack which is part of the question is the candidate

193
00:18:17,240 --> 00:18:23,880
gets a better ad rate so they can buy more TV ads more online ads for their for their dollar so it's

194
00:18:23,880 --> 00:18:28,440
much more effective for them to keep doing it that way and finding what is the actual number

195
00:18:28,440 --> 00:18:33,320
especially if it gets funneled through a party is a really difficult question to ask and it brings

196
00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:38,840
up the idea of what a group trying donate to their opposite opposing person in the hopes of spiking

197
00:18:38,920 --> 00:18:42,920
them off a future case that's what the justices say who are skeptical this like we can't do that

198
00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:48,440
they'll play games yeah so it really is a thorny question there's not a simple answer and unfortunately

199
00:18:48,440 --> 00:18:53,400
well it comes down to the integrity of the justice and that's where historically it always rested

200
00:18:53,400 --> 00:18:58,760
do we see a lot of recusals on this though once in a great while but not on funding all right

201
00:18:59,480 --> 00:19:04,040
it's all the time we have for today but we would love to hear from you if you have questions for

202
00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:11,560
a future show just email us at inside wisconsin politics at wpr.org give us your first and last name

203
00:19:11,560 --> 00:19:16,040
and let us know what you want to know about Wisconsin politics Wisconsin politics and government

204
00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:22,120
thanks for joining us this has been inside wisconsin politics our colleague Anya van wagtendank will

205
00:19:22,120 --> 00:19:29,160
be back in a couple weeks be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org wpr.org youtube or wherever you get

206
00:19:29,160 --> 00:19:30,760
your podcasts