>> Funding for "Here and Now" is provided, in part,
by L.E. Phillips Family Foundation
and Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.
- I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on "Here and Now,"
a congressional check-in with two Wisconsin U.S. Reps.
An UW-Madison expert on Russia weighs in
on questions of Russian computer hacking.
In the wake of one of her commissioners jumping ship
this week, the state's Ethics Commission Chair is here.
First, U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman,
Republican of Sheboygan County was re-elected in November
in a clean sweep where his party picked up wins for president
and Wisconsin's U.S. Senator.
He joins is now with his take on what's going on in Washington
on the eve of the Electoral College vote.
Congressman, thanks very much for being here.
- It's great to be on "Here and Now."
- Well, thank you.
So, as we said, the Electoral College electors vote Monday,
what's your response to any electors who will not in fact
vote for Donald Trump?
- Well, they really should, but given their margin,
I think if one or two jump, it's a minor story.
- As for President-elect Trump, he rejects the
CIA's intelligence on Russian hacking of the U.S. elections
but now the FBI is saying they concur with the CIA on this.
What is your take
on all that Russian hacking of the U.S. election?
- Well, I don't know where the information came from,
and I'm not sure how much impact it had on the campaign.
I think most people suspected that the Clintons
were making money off their charitable enterprise anyway.
I think it is not really a surprise that somebody
apparently employed by CNN was feeding Hillary questions
in advance prior to her debate.
I don't think it was particularly a surprise
when the DNC tried to act nice
to Bernie Sanders, it wasn't sincere.
But I don't think any serious political commentator thought
the DNC's neutrality was sincere and I don't think any serious,
on-the-ball person didn't think the Clintons
were personally benefiting from their foundation.
So I think it had very little effect on the race.
- You think it may have had little effect
because of those other matters you just mentioned,
but what about the idea of the Russians
and apparently Vladimir Putin himself directing this kind of
cyber alleged sabotage on the United States?
- Well, it's concerning, obviously, and I think
it's just one more reason why politicians should be honest.
Obviously there was a lot to be found there with the Clintons
and quite frankly, currently
these findings may or may not be political.
I hate to jump to a conclusion there.
I hope they aren't hacking us.
I hope they aren't trying to influence the election.
But like I said, I think most people realize the DNC was not
being honest when they said that they were impartial and I think
most people given the Clintons' past history probably suspected
already that they were make some money off their foundation.
- Would you support a congressional investigation
into Russian hacking?
- I don't think it's a bad thing to do.
I think if the Chairman Chaffetz wants to do it,
I'll certainly encourage him to.
- On the policy going forward, what do you most want
from a Trump administration?
- Well, I think first of all the big issues.
I think we have to finally take our immigration laws seriously.
I think that's one of the reasons why he won.
I think neither President Bush nor President Obama
really were serious about our immigration laws.
So I would like to see him do that.
I think he mentioned in Milwaukee the other night
or West Allis, kind of implied
that we have to get people off welfare.
I think we are becoming more and more of a welfare state.
Insofar as that is rolled back to stop discouraging people from
working, to stop discouraging people from having kids
in an old fashioned mother-father environment.
I think if Donald Trump does that, that's a good thing.
Hopefully begins to make a dent in the out-of-control regulation
that -- so much paperwork is strangling American business.
Insofar he tackles those issues, I'll be very happy.
- You say you would support him building a wall.
- Yes, I think it's something he promised
throughout the campaign.
I think it's a sign that we are going to
take our immigration laws seriously.
He made the statement again the other night in West Allis.
It will sure be shocking if he doesn't.
- What is your reaction to his cabinet picks so far?
- Obviously, I don't know a lot of them, but some I do.
I think Flynn is very good.
Tom Rice is one of my best friends
in legislature at Health.
His new Interior Secretary is somebody I know.
I think they're one of the reasons his popularity
has shot up since the election.
A lot of these scare mongers were implying I don't know what-
that he was going take people he knew
from Hollywood or something to put out there,
but instead he's taking some very well respected people
and putting together a very distinguished cabinet.
And I think as he does that,
his popularity will continue to go up.
- What do you think of his Secretary of State nominee,
Rex Tillerson, and his business and personal ties to Russia
and Vladimir Putin going back to the Russian thing?
- Well, it's obviously of concern.
On the other hand he's certainly had dealings
with many countries around the globe.
He's going to come at it from a different perspective
as other people have in the past.
I'm glad that overall Donald Trump
has not picked so many academics.
I mean let's face it.
The Obama Administration I didn't think did very well.
Focused primarily in academics doing things.
Donald Trump is focusing more on the business community,
which is what people expected him to do.
That's why he won.
People felt we don't want permanent politicians.
We don't want college professors running the country.
We want people who have had a history of being successful in
business.
I don't think it should surprise the public.
- One last question about his cabinet picks.
Betsy DeVos, who champions private school vouchers,
to the Secretary of Education, what's your opinion on that?
- Well, I hope she comes at it with an attitude of we want to
get the federal government out of education.
You know, it's all fine and good to say
we respect the 10th Amendment.
We don't want the federal government involved in these
things but all of a sudden when you're part of the federal
government, you have ideas.
And I hope she is willing to get the federal government
out of education more and more,
regardless of her feeling on vouchers.
- All right. We need to leave it there.
Congressman Glenn Grothman, thanks very much.
- Glad to be on the show.
- On the opposite side of the aisle,
Congressman Mark Pocan of Dane County and how his progressive
caucus will make its way in a Republican administration.
He joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.
- Absolutely. Thank you.
- So you were elected first vice-chair
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
How will that caucus respond in the Donald Trump administration?
- Well hopefully in two different ways.
First of all, we're the largest values-based caucus
within the Democratic Party.
It's easy to say no.
And some things we just have to say no to that are bad ideas.
But I think equally important is we have to put proactive
policies out there that show the American people an alternative.
So when it comes to infrastructure,
hopefully what President-elect Trump is talking about is
investing in roads and bridges and schools and broadband.
That's good.
We'll have a package like that too.
But if it turns out he's just going to have tax breaks for
private contractors to go to public land and do things,
then that's not really an infrastructure package.
We want to show people what the alternative is.
So I think we've got to do both.
Fight the bad things, but then put together some alternatives
that, again, I think people can really see and compare
and contrast where the two policies might be different.
- Is there some kind of new energy behind all of that?
- I'll tell you.
I think we all had our period of shock with the election.
We went through grief and now we're in action.
So we're ready to do what we've got to do.
I just think too often people say,
"It's easy to say no to things," but I think it's really
important that we have a positive alternative to put out
there as well.
- So far given the President-elect's picks for
cabinet secretaries, what stands out to you?
- It stands out that this is not exactly what he promised us
when he said he was going to drain the swamp.
Instead, he's built a high-rise luxury condo on the swamp
with a bunch of billionaires and multimillionaires
and Wall Street royalty.
I saw a statistic on the first 17 picks
he's made for cabinet choices.
Their total net worth is as much as one-third of the entire
country's net worth.
So this is a very monolithic sort of group in many ways.
Not especially diverse and when you start at looking putting
Rick Perry in charge of the Department he wanted to get rid
of but couldn't remember the name of or Betsy DeVos in charge
of a program where she's never went to public schools and wants
to take money from them to put to private schools.
These are very odd picks.
And I think we're hoping that that doesn't necessarily
indicative of all of the policy choices that are going to come
out right away.
- So not really the populous message he might have carried
during the campaign.
- No, not at all.
I mean this is a very, very different cabinet.
When you look at the head of Exxon Mobil is the Secretary of
State, with the ties to Putin in Russia with everything that's
going on with the hacking, it's been very difficult.
I have to say the first day when he announced Reince Priebus,
a very mainstream establishment Republican pick and Steve
Bannon, who's a White Nationalist,
that pretty much sent the message that I think we're all
going to be very surprised at how he governs and I don't think
we really have a great idea where he's going to go.
- What is your response speaking of the Russian hacking, to that?
- I think that issue needs to be elevated as how we look at it
because there's a couple fronts to it.
One, if another country legitimately hacked emails
and put them out to try to influence our elections,
we have to respond.
And President Obama did say that he's going to have a response.
Not laying out exactly what it is yet,
because you don't need to show the cards so to speak.
But we need to respond to something like that.
Even Julian Assange from WikiLeaks has said
clearly some of this did come from Russia.
So we just need to know was the Russian government involved?
And then if we find out anyone in the U.S.
was involved as well, those are all things we're going to have
to figure out because it will affect the legitimacy of the
election ultimately.
I just hope the Republicans take it more serious.
So far in Congress they said they're not going to do hearings
other than people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham--
to be fair-- have been very strong on this.
But most of them have rolled over like puppies
to get their bellies rubbed.
And instead we should be worried about another country trying to
influence our elections.
- Another thing that's coming up, of course,
is the repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act.
What are you telling your constituents about what to
expect and what kind of changes they might see?
- This is one where I think we really have no idea, right?
Because all of a sudden -- everyone said they wanted to get
rid of it on the Republican side.
But now they're like, "But wait.
We to want keep the fact if you have a pre-existing condition
you can get insurance.
We want to keep adult children on their policies." Those are
the parts that cost money.
If you get rid of other parts that brought in the revenue,
I don't know how they're going to do that yet.
We have to see if they're going to stay true to their word and
keep those important aspects of the Affordable Care Act or how
they're going to do it.
The other thing we're hearing is the Tea Party is saying,
"We'll repeal it, but we don't want to replace it" and they
need those votes to repeal it.
It could be a wild and woolly issue when we first get back.
That's one of the first things they want to do.
My guess is they may sunset getting rid of it down the road
and deal with a replacement farther down the road,
which they may or may not ever get to because I don't know how
politically they can get it done within their own party.
- Following the election, there's been a lot of reflection
about how and why Hillary Clinton lost,
particularly Wisconsin.
Why do you think she did?
- Well, I think anyone who looks at that campaign,
it's easy to look backwards, first of all, when you say that.
But she didn't come to Wisconsin.
She took Wisconsin for granted.
I saw a statistic that more money was spent by the Clinton
campaign in Omaha, Nebraska for one Electoral College vote that
they split out than Wisconsin and Michigan combined.
She was down in Texas and Arizona and all these places.
I think they thought they were going to have this big blow out
and they forgot their base.
And quite honestly their message was not that core economic
message that Donald Trump, I think, gave very simple answers to.
He didn't have a lot of policies.
But when my home town of Kenosha went from 13 points Obama to one
point Trump, I understand that.
Three decades ago they made $20 an hour making cars and now you
can make $13 an hour distribution centers down there.
If your kids aren't making as much as your parents,
they feel like no one's had their back.
I think we needed to have a more clear economic message
than we did.
You can't just say I'm not somebody.
You actually have to offer something.
- Representative Mark Pocan, thanks very much.
- Yeah. Thank you.
- Is what's being described as cyber sabotage
on the part of the Russians bad CIA intelligence
or even Democrats looking for a scapegoat in a losing election
or is it serious and nefarious?
We wanted to check in with an expert on Russia.
He's UW-Madison's Sociology Professor Ted Gerber
who's traveling right now but agreed to join us by phone.
He's in Amsterdam.
And professor, thanks for joining us.
- Thank you. It's my pleasure.
- As an expert on Russia, what's been your reaction to
this cyber intrusion or hacking during the 2016 election that
the CIA attributes to Russia and now directly to Vladimir Putin?
- My own view is that it's a very serious threat and I'm not
at all surprised that the Russians would take this step.
They've been known to have tried to manipulate elections in other
countries all over the world, but particularly in their own
neighborhood in places like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia.
They've invested a lot of resources in manipulating their
own elections, so the ruling party in Russia is quite adept
at the whole concept of interfering in election results.
And finally, they've accused the U.S., the United States
government, of taking measures to try to interfere in the
electoral processes in other countries.
So from their perspective, it's a sort of a fair game,
tit-for-tat type of message to send to the United States.
So I certainly think there's the claims that the CIA and others
have made are very credible.
I don't think those who are skeptical of those claims
really have much grounds for their skepticism
other than their own partisan self-interest.
- What does Russia get out of this?
- Well, I think Russia-- a number of things.
So I actually think that probably going into this
process, I doubt that the Russians actually thought they
could alter the outcome of the election.
My suspicion is that going into this,
they calculated that Clinton would most likely win,
but they could give her some problems.
They could cause some concerns.
They could undermine her legitimacy and they could raise
questions about the legitimacy of the American electoral
process.
I think they're absolutely delighted by -- so those would
have been legitimate goals from their perspective in and of
themselves because from their standpoint part of their
argument in recent years has been that the west is corrupt.
It's hypocritical.
The United States is an aggressive power
seeking world domination, and it uses notions such as
democracy and human rights and civic freedoms as an excuse
to pursue its own political and economic interest.
And so by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the American
electoral process, the Russians figured that they could further
that argument in the court of world public opinion.
- Now, you know, just back to kind of our elections,
it's reported that a super PAC tied to Speaker Paul Ryan used
leaked material from hacks in political ads in congressional
race, any yet his spokesperson he says he finds foreign
intervention in our elections unacceptable.
What kind of position does this put leaders in in the U.S.?
- Well it does put them in a difficult position.
I think without question the partisan interest of those who
have benefited from the Russian hacking; that is, Donald Trump,
the president-elect, and also various Republicans who have
used this information to their advantage,
it puts those partisan interests in conflict with the interests
of the country.
And so I think the media, I think other politicians,
I think public leaders need to really ask those who use this
material where their loyalties lie, first and foremost.
I think, you know, naturally in our hyper-partisan political
environment in the United States,
politicians have a tendency to frame everything through the
question of whether it's going to help their electoral
interests and those of their party.
But one would hope, anyway, that at some point the interests of
the country and the interests of protecting the country's
institutions would come first.
So I think this does raise some very awkward questions for
Speaker Ryan and for others, including the President-elect,
who has been very dismissive of the possibility that Russia has
actively intervened to benefit him in the election.
But it does raise serious questions.
And I really hope that our social institutions,
including the mass media, are up to the task of pushing this
issue hard and not letting it dwindle or disappear,
because I think it raises fundamental questions about--
poses fundamental challenges to our country
and our political system.
- All right.
Professor Ted Gerber, we need to leave it there.
Thanks very much for taking time out to join us.
- Thank you.
- Donald Trump's presidential victory was reaffirmed in
Wisconsin Tuesday as the state wrapped up
12 days of ballot counting.
He defeated Hillary Clinton by more than
22, 000 votes in Wisconsin and picked up 162 votes
during the recount.
Former Green Party Candidate Jill Stein's campaign
requested this recount and
recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan as well.
A blow this week to the state's new Ethics Commission
with the announcement that a member resigned,
saying its partisan makeup and the requirement it operate
in secret makes it a quote a hopeless situation.
Reserve judge Robert Kinney was a democratic appointee who said
in his resignation statement, quote,
at a time when public confidence in elected officials has been
deeply eroded, we should be doubling down on our efforts to
enforce campaign finance ethics and lobbying laws when charges
of financial or ethical improprieties are leveled,
or allegations of quid pro quo corruption are made,
they must be thoroughly and timely investigated and if
warranted, aggressively prosecuted.
Sadly, he says, it appears we have created a system which
almost guarantees that this will not occur.
Republicans created the commission last year to replace
the Government Accountability Board, which they criticized
for its role in the John Doe investigation.
So one member down and a scathing resignation letter
leaving the chair of the Ethics Commission one member short.
Former Democratic Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager
joins us tonight. Thanks for being here.
- Pleased to be with you, Fred.
- So what is your reaction to judge Kinney's resignation and
his statement that the commission you chair is,
in his words, a hopeless situation?
- Well, I'm sorry to see Judge Kinney go.
He was a valuable member of the commission and I think that as
to the reasons he resigned, as he's articulated in his public
statement, I agree with some of them.
I disagree with some.
From my perspective, as somebody who's been in the legislature,
who's been in the executive branch of state and federal
government, I think the challenge is to take--
to try to make the commission work institutionally.
I will be the first to admit that if I had been
in the legislature at the creation of this commission,
I think I would have designed it differently.
It's clearly partisan.
It's clearly got the 3-3 split.
But I don't-- but I think that the challenges is for those of
us who are on the commission to rise up above the structural
limitations of the institution and try to deal with matters on
an issue-by-issue basis and seek some consensus so that we know
that moving forward we have made decisions based on what best
fits in with people with a wide array of kind of political
backgrounds and political perspectives.
- So the partisan nature of it is something that you agree with
Judge Kinney about as being a problem,
but what do you disagree with him that he has said
that forced him to resign?
- I think we've had a number of issues where we've been able to
find consensus and move forward.
One -- and sometimes we move forward in a way that doesn't
have the partisan divide.
One of the items he talks about is a motion by Commissioner
Davis to pull out part of the mission statement.
- Let me actually explain that a little bit more.
In fact, Commissioner Davis wanted to strike the words
"furthering Wisconsin's tradition of clean and open
government," and that was kind of a split decision.
- Right. But the decision wasn't split along partisan lines
is my point.
Commissioner Strachota, former Majority Leader for the
Wisconsin Assembly, voted with Commissioner Kinney and me to
keep that language intact.
And so Commissioner Davis' vote, which did get the vote of one of
the three Democrats on the committee,
failed for lack of getting four votes.
That's one example.
We've had a couple unanimous decisions
that have been significant.
One of them was the interpretation of a statute
having to do with what you need to follow in terms of
filing for exemption from campaign reporting
if you're under $2,000.
And we decided to take what had been the practice of the GAB
last year when the law came into being.
And we had a unanimous vote saying, no,
we must follow the statutory language.
We had another vote as well regarding whether or not people
who are on boards and commissions can accept gifts or
something like that from organizations
that come before those boards.
We found unanimity on that.
So there are some things in which we find that agreement.
- So are you suggesting that Judge Kinney's resignation and
the kind of scathingly public method in which he did it
was overstated?
- No, I don't think that.
I'm just saying that I think there are ways we have been able
to work through things sometimes and get results.
Whether or not we're always going to be able to do that,
I don't know.
I wish I had the prescience in order to be able to predict.
But I do think it is going to be a tough--
it's going to be a challenge
for the commission to work in a bipartisan way.
We are trying to do it using what I would call baby steps.
We have -- I think 60 of our votes have been unanimous.
Needless to say,
those that have not have been generally about bigger issues.
So trying to find that consensus is where we've been going.
And...
whether or not we'll reach that, I don't know.
I mean, I think Judge -- I would say Judge Kinney's skepticism,
as he's pronounced it in his public statements,
is greater than mine, but I'm always somebody who holds out
hope for something better.
- One of the votes that this commission took had to do with
whether or not commissioners could give political donations.
- Right.
- And you were one of those who voted in a way
that made that okay. - Right.
- How is it -- how can you enforce ethics violations
against people you're giving donations to?
- Well, from my perspective, the board was set up in this
partisan fashion, and the legislature made it very clear
that it didn't want us to do policy.
It wanted us to follow the law as it has created it.
And there has not been a prohibition.
They didn't want us to be prohibited
from political activity.
In fact, not only was I the treasurer of our political
party, Democratic Party in Fond du Lac when I was appointed,
I did resign as treasurer from that party because I didn't
think as an individual I could be brought before the board
and that would be silly.
But Katie McCallum is secretary of the state Republican Party.
We went into there knowing we were partisan activists.
For us then to say we're going to be smarter than the
legislature and even though the legislature has said all you're
doing is enforcement and you shall follow the laws we've
made, for us to start adding things on I thought was a little
unfair because it was sort of an after-the-fact thing.
Had I known at the time I had taken the appointment that I
would be subject to getting out of politics in general,
I probably wouldn't have done it, no,
because I've been actively involved for many,
many years as you know.
- We need to leave it there. Lots more to talk about.
Thanks very much, Peg Lautenschlager.
- Always a pleasure.
- That is all for tonight's program.
Next week a report on repealing and replacing
the Affordable Care Act and how that might look.
I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Have a great weekend.
- Funding for "Here and Now" is provided, in part,
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.