WEBVTT

00:00.000 --> 00:09.000
Yeah. Well, she, Jesse Eben is some high-ranking person within Ashley, which is hilarious because

00:09.000 --> 00:15.000
went on. So on the stomach.

00:30.000 --> 00:59.700
Do you have questions about Wisconsin government and politics? If so, you are definitely not

00:59.700 --> 01:04.800
alone. And this week, we're going to answer a few from our audience about polarization,

01:04.800 --> 01:12.200
social media, and money. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics.

01:12.200 --> 01:16.500
I'm Sean Johnson here with my colleague, Zach Schultz and Rich Kramer in Eau Claire. Hey,

01:16.500 --> 01:23.200
guys. Hello. Hey, Sean. So we want to say upfront that if you have questions, you should

01:23.200 --> 01:29.700
email us at Inside Wisconsin Politics at wpr.org. But the questions we're going to talk about

01:29.700 --> 01:34.740
today didn't just come out of nowhere. It turns out Anthony Trigoski, a professor of political

01:34.740 --> 01:40.100
science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, watches our show, and he watches it with his

01:40.100 --> 01:46.140
students in his legislative process class. We talked to Professor Trigoski a lot. He

01:46.140 --> 01:51.100
suggested his students could ask us questions and he helped set that up. A couple of the

01:51.100 --> 01:56.280
students submitted their questions by video, including Riley Bicklehaupt, who wanted to

01:56.280 --> 02:01.720
know about political polarization. Hi, guys. My name is Riley. I'm a freshman at the University

02:01.720 --> 02:05.860
of Wisconsin-La Crosse. I'm studying political science in Spanish when the minor in legal

02:05.860 --> 02:10.600
studies. My question for you guys today is how do you think the ongoing political polarization

02:10.600 --> 02:16.560
in Wisconsin affects the state's ability to pass bipartisan legislation? Zach, I feel

02:16.560 --> 02:21.080
like there are layers to this answer, which is kind of like the reason we like the question

02:21.080 --> 02:26.480
so where would you begin to answer Riley here? Last semester and then hope that their

02:26.480 --> 02:30.040
time doesn't run out before summer starts. This is a huge question. It's a good question,

02:30.040 --> 02:35.480
Riley. The first thing that they do to define is what is bipartisan? Because technically,

02:35.480 --> 02:39.600
one Democrat joins the Republicans. It's a bipartisan bill, even if all the rest of

02:39.600 --> 02:45.200
them oppose it. So it can really stretch the definition. Sean, you remember back 20 years

02:45.200 --> 02:49.160
ago under Jim Dolan at the end of the year, interviews, we'd talk about controversy in

02:49.160 --> 02:54.080
the Capitol and say, 90 percent of the bills we pass are bipartisan. And those statistics

02:54.080 --> 02:59.160
are true. Most of those bills are really minor, some technical adjustments, some of those

02:59.160 --> 03:03.960
really aren't controversial at all. So they are overwhelmingly bipartisan, but the ones

03:03.960 --> 03:08.240
that get our attention, the ones that we track and we follow are very contentious. And yes,

03:08.240 --> 03:13.480
political polarization absolutely factors into the image that your audience or their

03:13.480 --> 03:18.120
voters at home will view what happens if they let something pass. And that goes through

03:18.120 --> 03:22.480
leadership all the way down. I can tell you for certain that Robin Voss, as assembly

03:22.480 --> 03:27.160
speaker, knew exactly which districts he had to worry about more vulnerable members. And

03:27.160 --> 03:31.760
he would let them vote against Republican bills, because he knew that they had to show they

03:31.760 --> 03:37.480
were more moderate or more bipartisan in those areas or bills that were going to pass. They

03:37.480 --> 03:41.520
got to be co-signers on so that they could say, I hope pass this legislation. So there's

03:41.520 --> 03:46.400
a lot of tricks and details into what is bipartisan. But absolutely, there's only one bill that

03:46.400 --> 03:49.960
needs to be passed, each legislative session, and that's the budget. So Sean, my question

03:49.960 --> 03:55.520
to you is, if only Republicans in the legislature vote for the budget, all Democrats vote against

03:55.520 --> 03:59.200
it. But Governor Evers signs it. Is it now bipartisan?

03:59.200 --> 04:04.640
I think it is. Yes. I think that the Democratic lawmakers in that situation have the luxury

04:04.640 --> 04:09.440
of knowing that their governor is back there to make the call that needs to be made. And

04:09.440 --> 04:13.480
if they have issues with it, they can go to the governor and say, hey, maybe take this

04:13.520 --> 04:19.640
out or reword this with your partial veto governor. So I think that's an example of a

04:19.640 --> 04:26.160
bipartisan budget. And I think as you've seen the Republican margin shrink, you have seen

04:26.160 --> 04:29.760
more Democratic votes on those budgets too, because you have some of those lawmakers

04:29.760 --> 04:35.480
like you talked about. Under this new map, you have lawmakers that are more inclined

04:35.480 --> 04:41.240
to represent a 50-50 district. And what do you hear from them when they are campaigning?

04:41.240 --> 04:46.160
We want to work across the aisle. That is a go-to message. Rich, how about you when

04:46.160 --> 04:54.520
it comes to bipartisanship and Riley's question, what stands out to you?

04:54.520 --> 04:59.560
So I think what you've both said is totally accurate. One of the things that's a couple

04:59.560 --> 05:05.400
of things that stick out to me is when there are these bipartisan bills that get our attention

05:05.400 --> 05:13.040
because they are major policy issues, it seems like the compromise falls under a couple

05:13.040 --> 05:19.680
categories. It's fear or favor. So I think of when the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal

05:19.680 --> 05:25.960
majority struck down Republican-drawn legislative voting districts as unconstitutional, shortly

05:25.960 --> 05:31.920
after, Republicans actually voted for maps that were drawn by Governor Tony Evers when

05:31.920 --> 05:38.360
they were opposed to the court case, they were opposed to these maps all along. But

05:38.360 --> 05:44.000
yet they voted for the ones from the governor. Why would they do that? Well, one of the theories

05:44.000 --> 05:50.360
is that they feared that the Supreme Court justices' liberal majority might draw maps

05:50.360 --> 05:57.400
that are more favorable to Democrats than what they ended up passing from Evers. And

05:57.440 --> 06:01.880
then when it comes to favor, I think of a bill that passed and was signed into law this

06:01.880 --> 06:10.120
past session that started out as a Republican bill banning people from purchasing soda or

06:10.120 --> 06:17.800
candy with federal food assistance. Democrats hated the bill, but it was amended, and Democrats

06:17.800 --> 06:23.960
wanted to get a lot of new funding and positions for the Department of Health Services so that

06:24.000 --> 06:29.520
it can comply with federal changes to the food assistance program and avoid putting the

06:29.520 --> 06:35.480
entire program at risk. Republicans on their own weren't interested in that, but this bill

06:35.480 --> 06:42.920
morphed into a soda and candy ban plus $72 million for the Department of Health Services.

06:42.920 --> 06:48.760
So that's one of those favor for favor kind of bills. I think the one thing that I would

06:48.760 --> 06:53.640
like to impart upon people who feel like you look around the politics today and it feels

06:53.640 --> 06:59.800
extremely polarized. I think that, yes, some Democrats and some Republicans legitimately hate

06:59.800 --> 07:07.320
the other party and no uncertain terms. I think the Wisconsin legislature has a lot of moments,

07:07.320 --> 07:14.520
though, of actual bipartisanship. I think about the local government funding bill that they passed,

07:14.520 --> 07:20.600
shared revenue, we'd call it. I mean, I cannot believe that they did that Republicans and Democrats

07:21.560 --> 07:25.240
that raised sales taxes in Milwaukee. It's something that you never could have imagined

07:25.240 --> 07:30.600
the Republican party doing years ago, but in either second term, it seems like he's been able to

07:30.600 --> 07:35.560
cut those deals, and particularly since he got these new maps, he's been able to cut those deals.

07:35.560 --> 07:41.240
And as you alluded to, Zach, Robin Voss sometimes quotes this too, 95%, I think, is the number he

07:41.240 --> 07:45.960
gives of the bills that they pass in the Wisconsin legislature are bipartisan because

07:45.960 --> 07:51.720
yeah, the legislature passes a lot of bills that are incremental, and we don't write about them.

07:51.720 --> 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

07:56.360 --> 08:01.800
a knockdown drag-out fight. And I think we saw two milestone shifts that have occurred over

08:01.800 --> 08:05.400
Governor Evers' time in office, where this really came to the head where Republican

08:05.400 --> 08:09.720
legislature had to work with the Democratic governor. In the first term, Republicans were

08:09.720 --> 08:13.560
bound determined to give the governor nothing. They sent him a budget and said,

08:13.640 --> 08:18.600
we dare you to sign this. And over and over, Democrats could not get their bills to come to

08:18.600 --> 08:22.600
committee, couldn't get a hearing, never got to the floor. In fact, if Democrats wanted to

08:22.600 --> 08:26.440
build a pass, they would go find a Republican they could work with, and they would have them

08:26.440 --> 08:30.600
become the sponsor. So they had to give the Republican credit in order to get it somewhere.

08:31.400 --> 08:34.680
And that was in order to make Governor Evers look bad, to weaken him for reelection.

08:34.680 --> 08:39.000
But then when he won in 22, Republicans realized, well, we still have another four years,

08:39.000 --> 08:43.000
so it doesn't make sense to keep spiting ourselves. Let's see what we can get done.

08:43.000 --> 08:46.360
And so there was a change there. And then the other thing that Rich pointed out is when the

08:46.360 --> 08:52.200
maps changed, we saw the electorate change underneath these politicians. And we saw more people running

08:52.200 --> 08:56.360
to the middle because they needed to if they wanted to keep their majority and keep that seat.

08:56.360 --> 09:00.200
And so we saw more effort to bring things to the floor. And the question that kind of gets back

09:00.200 --> 09:06.360
to the heart of what Riley's been looking at is there's a federal image of polarization.

09:06.360 --> 09:10.280
There's the theater that comes out of press releases that we see from politicians.

09:10.280 --> 09:13.800
And then there's the reality of what it looks like at the end of the day in the chamber

09:13.800 --> 09:17.400
when they all walk off the floor, back into the assembly parlor, where the cameras aren't,

09:17.400 --> 09:20.920
and we're allowed to get a little glimpse of them laughing, drinking coffee together,

09:20.920 --> 09:24.680
shaking hands. They're nowhere near the old days where they would go drink beer afterwards at the

09:24.680 --> 09:32.440
bars. But they still do communicate. A lot of the anger is theater for their voters or for the media.

09:32.440 --> 09:37.000
There is they are actually people. It turns out who talk to each other sometimes,

09:37.080 --> 09:41.320
especially back in that chamber, as you mentioned. Riley had kind of a, we'll call it a part two to

09:41.320 --> 09:45.880
that. It's a follow-up question. This was submitted by email. Riley asks, how would you describe the

09:45.880 --> 09:50.920
effects of social media and misinformation on the political environment in Wisconsin?

09:51.640 --> 09:57.800
Rich, let's go to you first in this one. How are social media and misinformation affecting

09:58.440 --> 10:01.080
everything in Wisconsin, but especially our politics?

10:01.560 --> 10:09.160
Well, in a big way. I mean, the immediate example that comes to mind is President Donald Trump's,

10:09.160 --> 10:16.760
you know, false claims about the 2020 election being stolen from him through massive fraud in

10:16.760 --> 10:24.600
states like Wisconsin. So he began tweeting about that and has kept it up essentially ever since.

10:24.600 --> 10:30.840
So one of those tweets was a direct threat to assembly speaker Robin Vass, where he said,

10:30.840 --> 10:37.400
look, de-certify the election or else, you know, someone's going to run a primary against you.

10:37.400 --> 10:42.360
And that ended up happening. You know, Vass said that it's impossible to de-certify the election.

10:42.360 --> 10:48.920
Eventually, there was a recall effort. And the challenger to Vass was endorsed by President

10:48.920 --> 10:57.640
Donald Trump. And almost one. I mean, Vass, Vass's victory was less than 300 votes. So that would

10:57.720 --> 11:04.600
have had a really big impact on just the business of the assembly and the legislature as a whole.

11:04.600 --> 11:09.720
So that's one concrete example. But there's all sorts of others. You know, I also,

11:09.720 --> 11:14.280
I spent a lot of time on social media, ex Twitter, whatever you want to call it.

11:14.280 --> 11:16.040
You got the question first for a reason, buddy.

11:17.960 --> 11:25.640
Yeah. So, I mean, it's not real life compared to people you meet on the street or, you know,

11:25.640 --> 11:32.760
but also it bleeds into it. And one example is, you know, these young conservatives turning

11:32.760 --> 11:38.520
point, they're very, very focused on social media. That's how they get the message out about

11:38.520 --> 11:44.280
candidates. That's how they get their gentle threats against lawmakers or party officials

11:44.840 --> 11:49.560
that aren't doing what they think they should do. So it does bleed over into real life. But also,

11:49.640 --> 11:55.560
there's an aspect of it being totally online and in its own universe.

11:57.240 --> 12:01.480
We had another question from Anthony Trigowski's class. This one came from Kylie

12:01.480 --> 12:06.200
Scannador, a junior studying political science and criminal justice. She asks,

12:06.200 --> 12:12.680
do you think more ideologically extreme candidates hurt their party in a state like Wisconsin?

12:12.680 --> 12:18.040
Or do these candidates help their party win? Zach, will we get an answer to this one once

12:18.040 --> 12:24.920
and for all this November? Yes and no. And the reason for that is once somebody wins,

12:24.920 --> 12:29.880
they are the definition of their party and certainly for governor. At one point in time,

12:29.880 --> 12:35.320
Tom Tiffany was one of the more right-leaning, more, you could label him extreme. He was one

12:35.320 --> 12:40.840
of the early ones to cozy up to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. He was on the far right

12:40.840 --> 12:45.640
of the Republican congressional delegation and certainly Republicans within the state.

12:45.640 --> 12:50.600
Now he is likely the front-runner to be the Republican nominee for governor and if he wins,

12:50.600 --> 12:54.680
he will be the face of the Republican party. And so that shift that occurs

12:55.400 --> 12:59.320
means it's no longer about what is extremism because the voters will vote for whoever they think

13:00.200 --> 13:06.600
favors them and politicians redefine their own image all the time. We saw another Democrat

13:06.600 --> 13:12.360
enter the field for governor, Kirk Bankstead, who has a pretty tawdry history with Democrats

13:12.440 --> 13:17.240
themselves, starting Monocua and lawsuits and I think he was arrested and he's on the outs with

13:17.240 --> 13:21.000
a lot of these candidates and he decided recently he was going to run for governor enter the field

13:21.000 --> 13:26.760
and he did not get the same cordial welcome that the other Democrats did when they announced last year

13:26.760 --> 13:31.720
and he would definitely be considered on the left in a little more of an extreme candidate by most

13:31.720 --> 13:37.560
people's views of what is a centrist moderate or even a far left Democrat today. That doesn't

13:37.560 --> 13:41.240
mean Republicans won't try and use it against the whole field the same way that Democrats are

13:41.320 --> 13:45.960
going to use Donald Trump and his connections to Tom Tiffany against him but it will be how will

13:45.960 --> 13:50.360
the candidate that emerges be able to redefine themselves as the face of the Democratic party

13:50.360 --> 13:56.200
or the Republican party. And he now is for governor of shortly after he was visited by federal agents

13:56.840 --> 14:03.720
after promising among other things to offer free beer when Donald Trump dies. This was after the

14:03.720 --> 14:08.040
most recent assassination attempt. So a perfect example of what Rich is talking about in social

14:08.040 --> 14:13.080
media being a little bit of a toxic place and going right back to Riley's first question

14:13.080 --> 14:18.200
about political polarization it occurs in social media and it does bleed over into the real world.

14:19.160 --> 14:24.440
To me I think this question really kind of boils down to that the word extreme which is always in

14:24.440 --> 14:30.200
the eye of the beholder you know like you mentioned once somebody wins they're they've come normal

14:30.200 --> 14:37.000
you know you just become accustomed to that but I think in 2016 a lot of Democrats a lot of Republicans

14:37.000 --> 14:42.840
certainly considered Donald Trump to be on the extreme end of things it worked for him you know

14:42.840 --> 14:47.880
it continues to work for him and when he's not on the ballot now Republican suffer because

14:48.920 --> 14:55.320
that's what his voters are looking for. So there's an example where even in a 50-50 state like

14:55.320 --> 15:03.160
Wisconsin where you imagine somebody kind of you know wanting to aim for that middle the more extreme

15:03.160 --> 15:09.320
candidate you know sometimes is the the one who carries the day. Rich real quick on this one.

15:11.320 --> 15:16.040
Yeah I wanted to point to you know we've got a Republican congressman Derek Van Ordon he's

15:16.040 --> 15:21.560
said a lot of inflammatory things he's on social media a lot thousands and thousands of tweets

15:21.560 --> 15:29.880
probably and Democrats call him extreme but he's won reelection and some conservatives in the third

15:29.880 --> 15:34.920
congressional district like that they like that about him they like that about Trump they they

15:34.920 --> 15:39.800
feel that that means they're authentic and that they're not listening to the consultant class in

15:39.800 --> 15:44.680
crafting their messaging. All right I think we need to move on we're going to shift gears a bit

15:44.680 --> 15:49.160
with our last question this week which comes to us on video it's about political spending.

15:50.280 --> 15:56.440
Hi I'm Alex Thessen. I'm studying political science and public administration at UW across.

15:57.080 --> 16:02.440
My question today is with concerns about campaign spending in recent Wisconsin state

16:02.440 --> 16:08.760
Supreme Court elections how would stricter recusal rules change judicial elections when new rules

16:08.760 --> 16:15.240
reduce direct campaign contributions to candidates or would they shift spending towards outside groups

16:15.240 --> 16:22.440
such as PACs or political action committees. So recusal the idea that when you've got a stake

16:22.440 --> 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

16:27.960 --> 16:35.560
a theoretical question Supreme Court justices might consider it soon right. That's right there's a

16:35.560 --> 16:41.800
rule petition proposal before the Supreme Court brought by a group of retired judges and essentially

16:41.800 --> 16:49.640
it would mandate that justices recuse themselves if there are reasonable concerns about donations

16:49.640 --> 16:57.480
they got during their campaigns affecting cases essentially if those donations come from parties

16:57.480 --> 17:03.960
to the case lawyers what have you. But the twist is is that it's still up to the individual judge

17:03.960 --> 17:09.880
or justice themselves to decide whether or not to recuse and this rule proposal doesn't include

17:09.880 --> 17:17.080
any set dollar limits that was attempted in a 2017 rule proposal that was rejected by the

17:17.080 --> 17:21.240
Supreme Court's former conservative majority but now we've got a liberal majority and they've

17:21.240 --> 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

17:27.880 --> 17:32.520
very similar to what exists right now on the books. Zach for somebody out there that's just

17:32.520 --> 17:38.520
kind of wondering like why don't justices just adopt a strong recusal rule put a set dollar amount

17:38.520 --> 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

17:43.800 --> 17:48.360
first is simply inflation I mean a reasonable number that we all could have agreed on 10 years

17:48.360 --> 17:53.160
ago would be pennies today when you're talking about 50 and 100 million dollar races which is not

17:53.160 --> 17:57.880
this one but the last two and the other one is we now have a loophole in place for fundraising for

17:57.880 --> 18:02.440
these judicial candidates that did not exist 20 years ago it was actually passed by Scott Walker

18:02.440 --> 18:07.400
and the Republicans but it allows anyone to give as much money as they want to the political party

18:07.400 --> 18:12.760
who can then donate that money as much as they want to the candidate and the reason why giving

18:12.840 --> 18:17.240
money to the candidate is better than an outside pack which is part of the question is the candidate

18:17.240 --> 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

18:23.880 --> 18:28.440
much more effective for them to keep doing it that way and finding what is the actual number

18:28.440 --> 18:33.320
especially if it gets funneled through a party is a really difficult question to ask and it brings

18:33.320 --> 18:38.840
up the idea of what a group trying donate to their opposite opposing person in the hopes of spiking

18:38.920 --> 18:42.920
them off a future case that's what the justices say who are skeptical this like we can't do that

18:42.920 --> 18:48.440
they'll play games yeah so it really is a thorny question there's not a simple answer and unfortunately

18:48.440 --> 18:53.400
well it comes down to the integrity of the justice and that's where historically it always rested

18:53.400 --> 18:58.760
do we see a lot of recusals on this though once in a great while but not on funding all right

18:59.480 --> 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

19:04.040 --> 19:11.560
a future show just email us at inside wisconsin politics at wpr.org give us your first and last name

19:11.560 --> 19:16.040
and let us know what you want to know about Wisconsin politics Wisconsin politics and government

19:16.920 --> 19:22.120
thanks for joining us this has been inside wisconsin politics our colleague Anya van wagtendank will

19:22.120 --> 19:29.160
be back in a couple weeks be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org wpr.org youtube or wherever you get

19:29.160 --> 19:30.760
your podcasts